Mathew 16:18 – Jesus renames Simon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RodK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RodK

Guest
I have heard very many commentators, both Catholic and Protestant, claim that in Mathew 16 when Jesus said to Simon, “You are Peter” he was renaming Simon.

But I do not believe it is correct to say that this was a renaming of Simon to Peter at all. In fact I think it pretty obvious that Peter is not a name but a title which at a minimum proves the Catholic assertion of Peter’s primacy. My problem is that while it appears obvious to me, I have never heard a Catholic apologist cover this ground before. This of course gives me pause because I hardly think that this argument could be novel if accurate. So … has anyone heard this argument before and if not, can anyone shoot any holes in it?

Proof: Peter is either a name or a title. I will set out to prove that Peter cannot be a name, thus it must be a title.

There are many instances in the Bible when God renames individuals. Abram becomes Abraham. Saul becomes Paul. There are others of course. But in as many instances as I am personally aware of, one thing remains constant. Neither God nor the Bible authors ever revert to calling these persons by their former names. The former names, we find, disappear off the pages of the Bible altogether. But that is not the case with Simon. Bible authors from Mathew 16 forward interchangeably refer the apostle using both names: at times calling him Simon, other times Peter.

This isn’t merely the case for the human authors and companions of Peter. It is true as well of God. If Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Peter would we not expect Him to address this apostle as Peter and not Simon? But again we see in Scripture that this is not the case. Jesus almost exclusively refers to the former fisherman under the name of Simon even after the “renaming” at Caesarea Philippi (Mathew 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 7:40, 22:31, John 21:15-17). By contrast, only once in all of Scripture does Jesus address this apostle as Peter (Luke 22:34).

There is an even more peculiar oddity from Scripture that must be addressed if one asserts that “You are Peter” reduces simply to a renaming of Simon. The Bible not only refers to this apostle as both Simon and Peter, but also as Simon Peter. Simon Peter? What an odd formulation if one is to say Christ renamed Simon as Peter. Think about it. Abram Abraham? Saul Paul? Not only are those names unbiblical, they are equally unpractical. If God has renamed Simon as Peter, it makes no sense to join the old with the new. The new name replaces the old, else it is not new name at all.

Consider the name Simon Peter for a minute. It is quite similar in form to that most holy name of all, Jesus Christ. It is not, as we Christians are quick to point out, first name Jesus, last name Christ. The word Christ in fact is not a name at all. It is a title, albeit a most holy title. In Hebrew the word translates Messiah; in English it is best rendered Savior. As such, Christ is not a name at all but the designation of a holy office. We note that sometimes Scripture identifies the Incarnate Word by name – Jesus, sometimes by title – Christ, and sometimes by both – Jesus Christ. We see the exact same thing in Scripture with respect to this fisherman turned apostle; sometimes he is referred to by name – Simon, sometimes by title – Peter, and sometimes by both Simon Peter.

The context of the passage only reinforces the interpretation that Peter is not a name but the title of a holy office. The discourse at Caesarea Philippi begins when Jesus asks his Apostles, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mathew 16:15) Simon steps forward and says “You are the Christ” (Mathew 16:16). Jesus responds to Simon’s affirmation with one of his own “You are Peter” (Mathew 16:18). See the similarity in form? Simon says “You are Christ”; Jesus responds “You are Peter”. If Christ is a title, then so to is Peter. The Passage presents to us Jesus Christ and Simon Peter, the Messiah and his Rock.

So that’s the argument. Anything wrong with it? I have prayerfully considered to the best of my abilities. I do not say that it is not flawed. If it is, I would certainly like to know. But if it is not, then I think we as Catholics do a very great disservice to the Mathew 16 and the Catholic cause to habitually say that “Jesus renames Simon to Peter” in Mathew 16:18. If it can be shown that Peter is not a name at all, then the conclusion that Peter is a title is logically inescapable. And if a title, then the passage refutes any interpretation that argues against a Petrine Primacy. Bottom line is that if this argument is correct (and this is why I have posted it here) I think we as Catholics need to be careful about the way we frame Mathew 16:18 in our discussions with non-Catholics i.e. Peter = title, not a name.

Just a thought. I would certainly like to hear what others have to say.
 
I am by no means an expert at this, nor would I know if it is correct. But it sounds like a valid argument and an intersting point 👍
 
I, for one, like your discussion about Peter being a title. I will have to take some time with it but if I can find error … you will be the first to know.
 
Interesting angle, but I’m not sure I get the point. I do not see a flaw in your logic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

So what is the big deal if Peter is a title and not a name? Does it have any implications as to how he (or the papacy) should be regarded? Finally, was there a clear distinction between names and titles at that time? (I believe Jesus is referred to simply as “Christ” in a number of passages, implying that titles and names were somewhat interchangeable. Likewise with the name/title of Ceasar.) If you could help me understand the ramifications of your argument, it would be appreciated.
 
forthright,

Many Protestants deny a Petrine primacy which is foundational to the doctrine of the papacy.

A title denotes an office. Christ means Savior. It denotes office. That Christ is called our eternal high priest in the Book of Hebrews denotes a particular office. If Peter is a title and not a name, it denotes a Petrine office; it asserts a Petrine primacy.

To be an office, Peter must mean something. It does. It means in Greek “Rock”. Similarly Simon is called Cephas elsewhere which is derived from the Aramaic work for “Rock”.

Protestants often object to the fact that Peter is a title denoting Rock because it is a name that is traditionally applied only to God. Indeed, Paul attributes the name to Christ:

[1] I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, [3] and all ate the same supernatural food [4] and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4, RSV)

As the steward of Christ’s church, Peter has assumed the role of Rock. While sojourning in the desert, the Israelites were sustained by bread that came down from heaven, and water that flowed from an earthly rock. Note that God could have ordained it such that they drank water in the form of rain that fell from heaven. He explicitly brought forth water from a rock because He was trying to tell us something important about His economy of salvation in the age to come.

Like the Israelites we are sojourners in a strange land. Like the Israelites we eat bread that has come down from heaven in the form of the Eucharist and we drink from an earthly Rock. What is this Rock? Jesus said to Simon “You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.” (Mathew 16:18). The Rock is Peter. The Rock is the Papacy.

Further, when Jesus said to Simon, “You are Rock”, we are told he did so in the region of Caesarea Philippi. This is the site of Mount Hermon, a mountain whose name literally means “mount set apart” just as Simon has been “set apart” i.e. assigned a holy office by God. Like Mount Hermon, the Petrine office is a visible, everlasting, and immovable entity.

One more thing. Mount Hermon is not only the highest peak in Israel, it is also very unique. Inside the mountain, an underwater spring forms the eastern most source of the Jordan river. That’s right. A river flows from this particular rock. Just like the water that flowed from the rock in the desert that sustained the three million Israelites for forty years, we are sustained by water that flows from an earthly rock.

You see, if Peter is a title and not merely just a name, then all of these implications are in play. (And I am only scratching the surface here for the sake of brevity.) From a Protestant perspective one can dismiss the implications by saying that Jesus was simply renaming Simon as Peter – that Peter, while it means Rock, doesn’t carry any baggage with it. They will say that God renamed Saul to Paul but that Catholics don’t infer a Pauline primacy. They are correct in a sense. There is no Pauline primacy. But then again Paul isn’t a title, it’s a name. Big difference.
 
40.png
RodK:
As the steward of Christ’s church, Peter has assumed the role of Rock. While sojourning in the desert, the Israelites were sustained by bread that came down from heaven, and water that flowed from an earthly rock. Note that God could have ordained it such that they drank water in the form of rain that fell from heaven. He explicitly brought forth water from a rock because He was trying to tell us something important about His economy of salvation in the age to come.

Like the Israelites we are sojourners in a strange land. Like the Israelites we eat bread that has come down from heaven in the form of the Eucharist and we drink from an earthly Rock. What is this Rock? Jesus said to Simon “You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.” (Mathew 16:18). The Rock is Peter. The Rock is the Papacy.

Further, when Jesus said to Simon, “You are Rock”, we are told he did so in the region of Caesarea Philippi. This is the site of Mount Hermon, a mountain whose name literally means “mount set apart” just as Simon has been “set apart” i.e. assigned a holy office by God. Like Mount Hermon, the Petrine office is a visible, everlasting, and immovable entity.

One more thing. Mount Hermon is not only the highest peak in Israel, it is also very unique. Inside the mountain, an underwater spring forms the eastern most source of the Jordan river. That’s right. A river flows from this particular rock. Just like the water that flowed from the rock in the desert that sustained the three million Israelites for forty years, we are sustained by water that flows from an earthly rock.
Click to expand...
The parts I’ve quoted here are brilliant. Well done. You should be aware that Catholics often to use this verse as a proof for the papacy. That said, the points you say above are new to me and as I said quite brilliant.

As far as name versus title, I don’t think that it’s necessary. As forthright pointed out, the Jews did not seperate the two. Everytime someone’s name is changed by God, it is a sign of change in their mission. The new names are never insignificant. Abraham means “father of a host of nations”, Israel means “you contended divine beings.” All the points you draw from it are valid, but I don’t think it’s necessary to seperate the two. If protestants try to argue that it’s just a name, explain to them that it was not a name until Peter. You don’t give someone a name that isn’t used as a name unless it’s meaning is applicable.

But yea, great post. You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into it.
 
There is more than one part to that passage in Matthew. I understood that the renaming was one thing, setting Simon apart, as you put it…not insignificant, but not necessarily the cause of our whole understanding of the Papacy either. The office, authority, and succession of Peter was something related but different, described in the giving of the keys. Must everything we understand about the Pope be proved in the name Peter, or can we consider what else was said (i.e. the giving of the keys)?

There is something else to consider in your initial argument. You contrast the renaming of Simon with the renaming of others. But there is an important difference in this case, so normative “rules” may not necessarily apply.

If Jesus renamed Simon “Rock”, certaintly this would’ve caused a bit of discomfort among the Jews who were taught from a very young age that there is bu one Rock and that is God, which is why only God was called “Rock”. Additionally, with this name change, there would’ve been questions about authority or role of Simon.

Jesus is the foundation, the corner stone. It makes sense for Simon to have been called Simon consistently until Jesus was no longer physically present on earth. Once Jesus Ascended into Heaven, that is when the Papacy truely comes into practice. It is after that point, then that Simon is called Peter. With Jesus no longer visibly present on earth, Peter became the visible leader of the Church.

Not sure how good that explanation was, but I’m merely saying, there are extenuating circumstances concerning the renaming of Simon that did not exist with others in Biblical history.
 
ChrisW,

You wrote:
It makes sense for Simon to have been called Simon consistently until Jesus was no longer physically present on earth. Once Jesus Ascended into Heaven, that is when the Papacy truely comes into practice. It is after that point, then that Simon is called Peter. With Jesus no longer visibly present on earth, Peter became the visible leader of the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes it certainly a good point. I noted that Jesus only addresses Simon as Peter once after Mathew 16 and that occurs in Luke 22:34 immediately before the Passion. While Christ was on earth, He was the Rock. After his absence, the title of Rock is passed on to Peter.

You are also correct that Catholic exegesis of the passage hinges on what it means that Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. (Mathew 16:19). Like I said in my statement above, it is virtually impossible in one setting to deal with all of the implications of Mathew 16. I wanted only to deal with a point that I have not previously seen mentioned, that Peter is a title and not a name.

Since you mention it though, some commentators try to empty Mathew 16:19 of meaning suggesting that Peter did not really have the authority this passage suggests. Catholic commentators however have long pointed to the fact that this passage parallels the account from Isaiah 22 when God bestows on his servant Eliakim the office of royal steward, the office designating the person who ruled in the king’s absence. Here God gives Eliakim “the key of the house of David” (Isaiah 22:22). God’s then says of His new steward Eliakim, “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isaiah 22:23).

God in giving the Eliakim the key to the Davidic Kingdom, gave him the power to “open” and “shut” promising that what he opened “none shall shut” and what he shut “none shall open”. Similarly Jesus Christ in giving Simon the “keys to the kingdom” gave him the power to “bind” and “loose” adding that whatever he bound would be “bound in heaven” and whatever he loosed would be “loosed in heaven”. The similarities in form are hardly a coincidence. The Gospel of Mathew was written for the Jews, men and women intimately familiar with the writings of Isaiah. Would they not recognize that Jesus’ words parallel those of God in Isaiah 22? Note that this was real authority bestowed upon Eliakim by God. Now if God gave Eliakim real authority in the earthly Davidic Kingdom, what basis is there for saying that He does not confer to Peter real authority to govern His Kingdom in His absence?

Many Protestants see the office of Peter as a competing authority to Christ and reject it accordingly. This could not be farther from the truth. Christ is the King. Let there be no mistake. Catholics certainly believe this. But Christ the King is in heaven and until His return He has left a steward to shepherd His flock. Without a shepherd, the flock will scatter. This is the reason that Protestantism produces such diversity in even foundational dogmas. It is also the reason Catholicism has enjoyed such unity in dogma since the very beginning.
 
40.png
RodK:
I would certainly like to hear what others have to say.
Click to expand...
Concerning Simon the brother of Andrew, the Gospels say that Jesus surnamed him Peter or called him Peter. They never say that Jesus renamed him Peter.

There are at least seven different men called Simon in the Gospels, including two Apostles: Simon, the brother of Andrew, and Simon the Cananaean. (Matthew 10:2-4) Thus, there was a practical need to surname them in order to differentiate between them. (Mark 3:16)

Some of the Simons in the Gospels:
Simon Bar-Jona (son of John), the Apostle, the brother of Andrew, also called Simon Peter or simply Peter. (Matthew 4:18)
Simon the Cananaean (Matthew 10:4), the Apostle, also called Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15)
Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6)
Simon of Cyrene (Matthew 27:32)
Simon the brother of the Lord (Mark 6:3)
Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50)
Simon Iscariot (John 6:71)
 
I thought his renaming happened around John 1:42

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).

am I missing something?
 
40.png
RodK:
I wanted only to deal with a point that I have not previously seen mentioned, that Peter is a title and not a name.
Click to expand...
I believe I had missed your point entirely, RodK. I have since re-read your initial post more carefully and now join the others in saying it is very well-thought out and new in concept (at least as much as I am aware).

One other thought I had about which I’m curious for your reaction is this: Throughout the Bible the renaming of the person took place when the person became a new creation so to speak. It was upon God’s calling of the person to a new role, or like Saul, upon their conversion. This newness of being explains why they do not continue to refer to the person by the old name (that old self no longer existed so to speak).

With that in mind, continuing with your initial post, and contrasting Simon with the other renamings of the Bible, I’m considering when Simon would have been renamed, if in fact he was given and name instead of a title. It seems difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint when it would have occurred to be in uniform with the others renamed in the Bible. If it was at Jesus’ calling of him, then the other Apostles should’ve been renamed as well as they left their nets it would seem. If however it was at Cesearea Phillipi, it begs the question why at that time?..unless something quite significant was occurring pertaining to Simon at that time.

Therefore, it seems that whether it was a name or a title, the Protestant is left unable to diminish the significance of that passage: If it was a title, it is significant, as you describe. If it was a name, then the event was significant indicating a new role for Simon.

I doubt I said that as eloquently as you would have, but hopefully you see what I’m getting at.

Interesting topic, Rod. Thank you.

Oh, BTW, you mentioned a couple things about Cesearea Phillipi…thought I’d add a couple other trivia points in case you hadn’t heard them: At the top was a temple (to Herod I think), and at the bottom of that wall of rock was a cave used by Pan’s cult for pagan rituals and all sorts of evil stuff. Anyway I was fascinated by these facts because it makes the passage in Matthew even more interesting, when Jesus says upon this rock He would build His Church (in contrast to Herod’s) and the gates of Hell (the cave of Pan’s cult) would not prevail…
 
Daniel Marsh:
I thought his renaming happened around John 1:42

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).

am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I think the question is, was Jesus saying he would called Cephas as a name, or as a title? i.e., was He saying “you will be renamed Cephas” or was he saying “you will called the Rock because I will make you My prime minister)”?
 
Couple of comments:
  1. Good stuff.
  2. Saul is not renamed Paul. Both were and are his name from birth. Try to argue for an analogy with his “name change” and you’ll wind up getting shot in the foot. Stick with Abraham, Israel, Sarah, Kecharitomene, Peter, and Emmanuel.
  3. You may be interested to know that Kepha (Rock in Aramaic, transliterated ‘Cephas’ in Greek, translated ‘petros’ in Greek, and Peter’s given name by Christ) means ‘head’ in Greek. This makes sense with the “title” argument when you read what St. Paul writes. St. Paul routinely shifts from Peter (‘petros’) to Cephas (‘kepha’) in his writings; you have to ask yourself – why? When he speaks about Peter’s authority or leadership role, he calls Peter Cephas. Otherwise, it’s Peter. The connotation is clear - Peter is the head. BTW, here are some Greek words to support the kepha = head in koine Greek argument:
kephalêgonos LSJ head
kephalêdon LSJ head
kephalis LSJ, Middle Liddell head
kephalikos LSJ head
kephalis LSJ, Middle Liddell head

…You get the idea. Here’s the reference page.
  1. When people are renamed by God, it reflects something about the person and their role in salvation history (i.e., God’s plan for our salvation). It’s not so much a title thing, although that is certainly present (see: ‘kepha’, supra).
God Bless,
RyanL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top