Why does Christ change Simon's name to Peter?

Discussion · 19

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

• − opinion#867 20 likes at the source

  It's a sign that he is God. Just like in the old testament, God changes Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel.
• − opinion#868 17 likes at the source

  There were two Apostles named Simon - Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot. Part of the answer is just a nickname to avoid mixing them up. The other part is that Cephas/Petros/Rocky points to Peter's leadership and loyalty. In Matthew 16, Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is just as much a rock as Peter himself.
• − opinion#869 13 likes at the source

  1. As for his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and by even more abundant grace one, and yet also the first apostle; but when it was said to him, I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, he stood for the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by various temptations that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falls not, because it is founded on a rock (petra), from which Peter got his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not so called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. That is why the Lord said, On this rock will I build my Church, because Peter had said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16-19 On this rock, therefore, He said, which you have confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; 1 Corinthians 10:4 and on this foundation Peter himself was also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 3:11 The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is…
• − opinion#870 4 likes at the source

  To quote Mayor Quimby: "It can be two things!" Peter is the one who first connects the dots that Jesus is the Son of God. So he is known by the faith he confesses; the two are inseparable. And he is the *coryphæus* of the Apostles because of this. There really shouldn't be any issue with this in Orthodox ecclesiology, since readings of both Peter and his confession as the rock were common and uncontroversial in the first millennium. Peter being the rock wasn't a problem because, unlike the West, the East never really bought the idea of the Pope of Rome being Peter's direct successor or that Peter was ever bishop of Rome (since the Apostles in their ministry weren't tied to one place). The argument that *only* Peter's confession was the rock gained traction after 1204, when polemicists started attacking the whole concept of Roman primacy itself rather than just its limits.
• − opinion#871 2 likes at the source

  Peter was often called the rock of the Church, but you're misunderstanding what early Christians meant by that. Since God is often metaphorically called the "rock" of Israel (ex. Psalm 18:2, Matthew 7:25), if Peter is also metaphorically the "rock," then Peter must be God. Not the Pope or some other fallible, inconsistent, weak human being. But that can't be right, so that's why early Christians didn't conflate Peter and God. Still, they did call Peter the "rock" of the Church. Augustine did, and here's what he said about it: *Contra epistulam Donati heretici liber unus* > In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: "On him as on a rock the Church was built." This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: "At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt." But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." **For, "Thou art Peter" and not "Thou art the rock" was said to him.** But "the…
• − opinion#872 2 likes at the source

  No lol. The word Peter in greek used in Matt 16 isn't "rock" the same way as rock in "and on this rock I will build My church". "Peter" or "Πέτρος" is a part of a rock, like a stone, check the lexical summary. And THEN Matthew records what He said afterwards in greek when he said "and on this rock I will build my church", the word rock here isn't Πέτρος (Peter) but Πέτρα which means a large mass of rock or foundational rock or a cliff. Peter is the Πέτρος and the confession he made 2 verses prior is the Πέτρα or foundation of the Church
• − opinion#873 2 likes at the source

  *Most* venerable teachers I found exegeting this verse, specifically and solely, understood the "rock" to be Peter's confession of faith. Some others understood it to be Christ Himself. That doesn't mean it couldn't have *also* been Peter-- I think it's Origen (not venerated, for the record) who took it to refer to Peter... along with all the other Disciples, and all who share the faith Peter professed. These aren't mutually exclusive.
• − opinion#874 1 likes at the source

  Not sure why you quote that line as "on this confession". There is no "confession" in the original text, nor anything close to it. In both cases it's "rock". "And I tell you, you are the Rock, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it". That would be the correct translation. Peter's given name was Simon. Jesus kinda gave him a nickname.

  • − opinion#876 1 likes at the source

    I'm aware. I was quoting it the way Jesus might have said it if he only meant Peter's confession alone was the rock. But no, he calls Peter a rock, and then says "on this rock." Kind of strange then to say the two are unrelated.
• − opinion#875 1 likes at the source

  Yes, Peter is also the Rock, in a sense. Some Fathers speak of him that way, though it's worth noting that "Petros" comes from the *adjectival* form of "petra". In other words, it means "rocky", not "rock". Peter is indeed *rocky* - he has the true faith, so he has rocky-ness. But does Christ say anything about this name (or its meaning) being ***transferrable to other people in the future?*** No. There is no *office* of "Rock of the Church", like the Catholics claim. Peter was the rock, yes, but ***only Peter***. One individual. Not an institution, not a line of successors.

  • − opinion#877 1 likes at the source

    Christ doesn't speak of a line of successors from Peter, but I'm pretty sure many Fathers do.

    • − opinion#878 1 likes at the source

      Only when engaging in polemics, though. The only time Fathers speak of a line of successors from Peter is when they agree with the then-current Bishop of Rome on some issue and want to bolster their side by invoking succession from Peter. Nobody ever mentioned the idea *neutrally*, outside of trying to win an argument. In some cases ***the same Father*** agreed with Rome at one time and opposed Rome at another (e.g. St. Cyprian of Carthage), and he brought up succession from Peter when agreeing but dropped it when disagreeing with Rome. In other words, it was a prestige legend. Like when Octavian Augustus commissioned the Aeneid to claim Romans descended from Trojans. Or when Marcus Brutus was picked as the public face of the coup against Caesar because his famous ancestor Lucius Brutus had killed the last king of Rome, giving him the "right" to assassinate tyrants. Claiming special authority or prestige through an illustrious ancestor was just a feature of Roman culture.

      • − opinion#879 1 likes at the source

        Pretty sure the Council of Ephesus says that Peter "lives and judges in his successors."

        • − opinion#880 1 likes at the source

          No. *One individual at the council* (the papal legate - the representative of the Bishop of Rome) made that claim in passing while he was ***arguing his case*** before the council. In other words, exactly the situation I described above.

          • − opinion#881 1 likes at the source

            Why did no one object to that if it was a point to be argued?

            • − opinion#882 1 likes at the source

              For the same reason nobody objected to plenty of other one-sentence side remarks in speeches that were about something else. If you look through speeches delivered at ecumenical councils, it's easy to find single sentences that were just the speaker's personal opinion and that got no response because they weren't what was being discussed. I mean, would you say to the papal legate, "wait, I know you just gave a speech on the oneness of Christ and the title Theotokos, and I agree with you there, but at one point you said something wrong about St. Peter and your bishop, can we deal with that?" Nobody is going to derail the current debate over one sentence a speaker said. Especially if they agree with the speaker's main points and only disagree with that one line.

              • − opinion#883 1 likes at the source

                If it was wrong, yes. Nobody there said a single word against it.

                • − opinion#884 1 likes at the source

                  I think it was flat-out wrong and I wouldn't have said anything against it either if I'd been there, because I wouldn't want to weaken an otherwise excellent refutation of Nestorianism by nitpicking. In a debate, you don't pick apart side remarks in arguments that back up your own position.

                  • − opinion#885 1 likes at the source

                    You really think it's wrong to say Peter is present in his successors? Ephesus is just one instance of it being said, implicitly or explicitly, before 451. I'm reading a book on this exact question by Adrian Fortescue, and the case looks pretty strong to me.