why was Peter's name changed?

[tz620q]

The OP asked if there was any significance in a name change. Here are the examples cited from the OT.

Genesis 17:4-7
"My covenant with you is this: you are to become the father of a host of nations. No longer shall you be called Abram; your name shall be Abraham, for I am making you the father of a host of nations. I will render you exceedingly fertile; I will make nations of you; kings shall stem from you. I will maintain my covenant with you and your descendants after you throughout the ages as an everlasting pact, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you."

Abram ("high father") was faithful to God before his name change. His faith results in a covenant and a name change to Abraham ( "father of a host of nations") that reflects the covenant. The name Abraham is significant because this childless old man had God's power revealed by becoming what he had been named.

Genesis 32:28,29
"What is your name?" the man asked. He answered, "Jacob."
Then the man said, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed." Genesis 35:10God said to him: "You whose name is Jacob shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name." Thus he was named Israel. God also said to him: "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply. A nation, indeed an assembly of nations, shall stem from you, and kings shall issue from your loins. The land I once gave to Abraham and Isaac I now give to you; And to your descendants after you will I give this land."

Jacob ("one that takes by the heel") was also faithful to God before his name change. This faith results in a promise and a name change to Israel ("one who has striven with divine beings"). Again the new name is significant, because it reveals to Jacob who he had been striving with the night before and that in him would be the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham.

Looking at these two Old Testament examples, is it unreasonable to look for a similar pattern in Simon's name change to Peter? I know you view this name change as only significant to Peter, but would you argue with the Jews that Abraham's name change was only significant to Abraham? That there was no promise or covenant made and fulfilled by God?

 

[calluna]

The OP asked if there was any significance in a name change. Here are the examples cited from the OT.

Nothing to do with the rabbinical habit of giving disciples nicknames.

 

[tz620q]

Nothing to do with the rabbinical habit of giving disciples nicknames.

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter,

If God had stopped here, I would agree with you that he was merely giving a very non-rocklike man a nickname of "Rock".

and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This sure sounds like a promise of future events to me. It is significant that in the Greek, all the you's are singular, refering back to Simon alone (Look at the first "you" where Christ explains who he is refering to by saying, "you, Simon son of Jonah"). This is the most common reading of this text and one that has been supported for many years by many scholars of both Protestant and Catholic camps.

A look at the geography of this passage is also interesting. Caesarea Philippi (also known earlier as Baal-gad and Caesarea Panias after two pagan gods) is about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee and an odd place to take the apostles. It was known at the time for a large rock cliff that Herod the Great's son, Philip, had built a new temple to Artemis upon. The implication that I draw from this is that Christ was emphasizing the seeming permanence of the rock cliff and rock temple versus the emphemeral and wavering person called Peter. He was making a statement to his followers that his kingdom was not one of edifices, but of faith as shown by Simon. Beneath this cliff is a large cave that leads down to streams that combine under Mount Hermon to form the underground River Jordan, the source of life in that area. This pit had been used by the worshippers of Pan to hurl sacrifices down to there death. This is a dramatic foreshadowing of Christ's Passion where he descended to the Gates of Hades and how from the gates of death, Christ would become the source of life for Christians. Does all this make Peter a rock at the moment when his name was changed? No, only later at Pentecost do we see the Spirit infuse him and transform him into the rock.

I have written all this to show that personal faith was important during this passage of scripture and should not be ignored. Noone has ever denied that Simon's profession of faith was the proximate cause of Jesus's proclamation; but as Jesus pointed out, the actual cause was not Simon's words, but that only God could have revealed this to him. Again like for Abraham and Israel, we see God's revelation followed by a promise to the man who had received it. The God of the Old Testament works in the same way in the New Testament.

 

[MamaZ]

Peter is not the Petra.. For one Jesus could not build His church on a man. For then it would be a fleshly church and not a Spritual one.

 

[calluna]

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.

Note that Simon was still Simon, as he was after Pentecost, and his human father was mentioned, too, showing that there was no change as there was with Abram. The God of the Old Testament does not work in the same way in the New Testament. That is a very great and basic Catholic error in various theological areas, one that reflects a Judaising tendency.

And so I say to you, you are Peter,

Now did he mean the name 'Rock', or did he mean the substance 'rock', with figurative, adjectival meaning? This could read: 'And so I say to you, you are rock,'

followed by: 'and upon this Rock I will build my church.'

And knowing Jesus, as we do, and his constant lapses into figurative language, and his constant tendency to harp on about OT notions, that is what it is likely to mean. And indeed, if Jesus was going to make Simon into a pope, that is what he would have made perfectly explicit for that very reason. The name 'rock' was just as significant as the name 'Satan', very soon applied to Simon. That, likewise, applies to every one of us. We are all either rock or Satan- there is nothing in between. Simon Barjona always had that choice of being rock or the devil, and you and I are not in any way different.

These few words are emphatically no ground on which to build the church of God, and this caricature of them could never have been accepted without ignorance of that text, ignorance of the whole Scripture, and force majeure.

This sure sounds like a promise of future events to me.

Indeed, but events not remotely like the RCC's events.

It is significant that in the Greek, all the you's are singular, refering back to Simon alone (Look at the first "you" where Christ explains who he is refering to by saying, "you, Simon son of Jonah").

That's just as one would expect in any case.

only later at Pentecost do we see the Spirit infuse him and transform him into the rock.

Along with all the others, and with all who are born again.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Also consider that right before this Peter had told Jesus that Jesus was the Christ. Is it too much to consider that perhaps the rock Jesus is talking about is HIMSELF? I think that makes much more sense than picking a sinful human, one who would betray Jesus three times on the night of his death, as the foundation of the Church.

 

[calluna]

Also consider that right before this Peter had told Jesus that Jesus was the Christ. Is it too much to consider that perhaps the rock Jesus is talking about is HIMSELF?

The disciples would not have imagined for a moment that he referred to anyone else.

'You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." Isa 44:8 NIV

(One of many OT references to God as 'Rock'.)

That is why this blasphemy had to be developed in a highly undemocratic milieu.

 

[mont974x4]

Peter is not the Petra.. For one Jesus could not build His church on a man. For then it would be a fleshly church and not a Spritual one.

Excellent point

 

[chestertonrules]

Peter is not the Petra.. For one Jesus could not build His church on a man. For then it would be a fleshly church and not a Spritual one.

Why couldn't he?

We are made of flesh and we live on earth. Throughout the old testament God instructed his followers on the proper building of temples and worship ceremonies.

God created the world and said it was good.

Without a single source for interpreting the Word of God there will be no unity in Christianity.

Jesus understood this, as do most Christians in the world.

 

[MamaZ]

Why couldn't he?

We are made of flesh and we live on earth. Throughout the old testament God instructed his followers on the proper building of temples and worship ceremonies.

God created the world and said it was good.

Without a single source for interpreting the Word of God there will be no unity in Christianity.

Jesus understood this, as do most Christians in the world.

Because Gods Kingdom is not of this earth.. Yes in the OT they did this because it was the foreshadow of Christ.. We have this single source and it is not man. It is the Holy Spirit. No where in the pages of scripture are we told to interpret scripture..

 

[tz620q]

Also consider that right before this Peter had told Jesus that Jesus was the Christ. Is it too much to consider that perhaps the rock Jesus is talking about is HIMSELF? I think that makes much more sense than picking a sinful human, one who would betray Jesus three times on the night of his death, as the foundation of the Church.

Of course, we must consider this. I have seen many people who argue against Peter being the rock pulling every reference to rock out of the Bible and saying, "See here rock is used for something other than Peter, therefore rock cannot refer to Peter in Matthew 16." But grammatically this just does not work. In the same sentence where Jesus changes his name to Rock, he says that upon this rock, not my rock, he will build his church. Of course Jesus is the cornerstone of his church. I do not know of any Catholics that would deny this; but have we fallen into such complete depravity that God does not deem us worthy to form his church? Why twist the grammar of this verse to mean something different? God has always used men as the living stones of his church (Another reference that somehow proves that Peter could not be a rock.). Jesus preached the Kingdom of God and brought it to earth as a man. He opened the door to men forming a Kingdom of God on earth. Is it unreasonable to try to read the NT of the Bible as the story of the start of that Kingdom. I know we will disagree on the relative importance of Peter later on; but in this section of Scripture it is pivotal to see that Christ is opening up the apostles to the idea that they will be called to be more than disciples to an itinerant rabbi.

 

[MamaZ]

Actually you ingore the fact that different words discribing rock were used.

 

[chestertonrules]

Actually you ingore the fact that different words discribing rock were used.

That is false.

There is a single word for rock in aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.

How many times can protestants use this false assertion without feeling guilty?

Didn't we already go through this?

 

[MamaZ]

That is false.

There is a single word for rock in aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.

How many times can protestants use this false assertion without feeling guilty?

Didn't we already go through this?

No this is truth.. Jesus may have spoke aramaic but the scriptures were not written in such..Greek has very significant words for what was being said.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

..........A look at the geography of this passage is also interesting. Caesarea Philippi (also known earlier as Baal-gad and Caesarea Panias after two pagan gods) is ............

Interesting. I decided to look up how that word for "philipp" was used in the rest of the NC and it is mentioned 36 times. Hard to tell if Jesus was in the parts where Philipp was from or if Phillip is the name of the area as the article the is shown in both these and some other verses.
Investigation time

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matt 16:13 And coming yet, the Jesus, into parts of Caesarea of the/thV <3588> Phillip/filippou <5376> he ask His disciples saying:............. [Mark 8:27]

John 1:44 Was yet the/o <3588> Philipp/filippoV <5376> from Bethsaida out of the city of Andrew and Peter.

 

[chestertonrules]

No this is truth.. Jesus may have spoke aramaic but the scriptures were not written in such..Greek has very significant words for what was being said.

Jesus spoke the words. The word is the same. The greek writer just used the appropriate gender.

You reject it because it exposes one of the many flaws in your man made dogma.

More troubling verses for you:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jesus spoke the words. The word is the same. The greek writer just used the appropriate gender.

You reject it because it exposes one of the many flaws in your man made dogma.

Why hello Mr Pot.......

 

[MamaZ]

Jesus spoke the words. The word is the same. The greek writer just used the appropriate gender.

You reject it because it exposes one of the many flaws in your man made dogma.

More troubling verses for you:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

I think that the shoe is on the other foot here.. For Peter could not be the foundation of the church because no other foundation can be layed other than Christ.. Christ is the rock bed and Peter is a pebble.. Peter could not have been the rock of the church.. Christs Church is a Spiritual church.. Peter is but a mere fallable man.. There is only one that is Holy and that Be God. Peter in no way shape or form can even stand up to a Holy God and be the Rock that Christ builds His Church on..

 

[MamaZ]

Only one man could do that and that would be Christ our risen and glorifed King

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Only one man could do that and that would be Christ our risen and glorifed King

Ya think maybe the Orthodox figured that out also?

Reve 19:20 and the Wild-Beast was taken, and with him the False-Prophet............. living they were Cast--the two--to the Lake of the fire, that is burning with brimstone;

Revelation 15:3 and They are singing the Song of-Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the song of the Lamb-kin, saying, `Great and marvelous the works of Thee, Lord!, the God, the Almighty, just and true the ways of Thee, the king of the [*Ages/Saints] Nations