It has often been pointed out by Catholic apologists that, if there is one person who is prominent in the New Testament, it is, after Jesus Christ our Lord, his disciple Simon Peter. Thus, in the Gospels, Peter is mentioned 91 times, whereas the name of John, the next in prominence, occurs only 38 times. But to the discerning reader of the New Testament there are many other indications of the importance of Peter and his office.
Like our Lord himself, Peter is almost always accorded the article when his name occurs in the Greek Testament. It would doubtless be unwise to attach too much importance to this fact, inasmuch as the principles which govern the use of the Greek article in the case of proper names in the New Testament are not too clear. Even so, authorities seem to agree that the use of the article has an emphatic or demonstrative force, so that we might translate it as “this Peter,” or “the Peter already mentioned.”
But there is a far more interesting parallel between the treatment of the names of our Lord and of Peter in the Greek Testament. Both our Lord and his chief disciple have a personal name and also an official one. Our Lord’s personal name is Jesus; the name of his office is Christ (= Messiah). It is clear that our Lord was known to all as “Jesus of Nazareth,” that is, by his personal name. On the other hand, he was recognized to be the Christ by a few only.
It is this distinction between the personal and the official names which brings out the importance of Peter’s great confession of our Lord’s divinity, in the words: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Other indications of the distinction between the personal and official names of our Lord will be found up and down the Gospels. Thus, at the end of the genealogy in the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, we read of “Jesus, who is called the Christ.” Our current English version omits to give the force of the Greek article here, for it translates, “Jesus who is called Christ.” Surely, in view of the fact that “Christ” is, by general admission, the name of our Lord’s office, we should translate the article and render the name “the Christ.” The construction seems to be quite parallel to expressions such as “Herod the king,” “John the baptist” or “Jonah the prophet.”
A final indication of the distinction between the personal and official name of our Lord may be given. At his trial, he was asked, “If you are the Christ, tell us.” No one doubted that he was Jesus, but the question concerned his office as the Christ. Similarly, the rulers of the Jews mocked our Lord when hanging on the Cross in these words: “Let him save himself, if he is the Christ, the elect of God.” And lastly, the impenitent thief said to our Lord, “If you are the Christ, save yourself and us.” It is a pity that in all these instances, the article before “Christ” is not translated in our current English versions.
As our Lord is the Christ, we might expect to find the actual expression, “Jesus the Christ.” Strangely enough, that expression does not occur. But we often find the combination of the personal and official names, without any article at all, i.e. “Jesus Christ.” Thus, Matthew’s Gospel speaks in its first verse of the “generation of Jesus Christ.” Peter, in his first sermon, tells his hearers to be “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
So far, then, we have found our Lord described in the New Testament as “Jesus,” “Jesus who is called the Christ,” and “Jesus Christ,” the latter expression being, as we maintain, the equivalent of “Jesus the Christ.” There is yet another form in which our Lord is named in the New Testament, and that is by his official name alone, without the personal name. Thus we have in Matthew’s Gospel the statement that from the transmigration of Babylon to “the Christ,” there are 14 generations. Again, Herod inquired where “the Christ” is to be born. And in the sacred Passion, we have the taunt: “Prophesy unto us, O Christ.”
The sequence of the names
It would seem easy to arrange these various names in a logical order. Logically, the first name to be used would be the personal name, “Jesus.” Then would come the combination of the personal and official names, as in the expression “Jesus Christ.” And lastly, the increasing emphasis on our Lord’s office would lead to the name of the office being used even to denote the person, and thus we should get the term “Christ.” The chronological sequence in the use of these names may have corresponded to the logical sequence, but it would not be easy to prove this. But at any rate it would seem most likely that the use of the official name “Christ” alone came last.
If we now turn to the naming of Peter, we shall find that a most interesting and striking parallel exists. Thus, as we all know, Peter’s personal name was Simon, just as our Lord’s personal name was Jesus. Our Lord was officially the Christ; similarly, Simon the son of Jonah was to be the Petros, or Kepha, the rock-man. And so, at the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry, he promises this new name to his disciple: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas,which is interpreted Peter.” The actual conferring of the name, or at any rate the definitive confirmation of it, took place after Peter’s great confession. Peter has said, “You are the Christ,” giving to our Lord the name of his office. Our Lord replies by giving to Simon, the son of Jonah, the name of his new office in turn: “Blessed are you, Simon, the son of Jonah….And I say to you that you are Peter…” “You are Peter” corresponds to “You are Christ.”
Now we remarked that our Lord was known to all generally as “Jesus of Nazareth.” And there is every reason to believe that his chief disciple was similarly known generally as “Simon.” It would seem that “Peter” was used only by those who recognized Simon’s office and position as the Petros, i.e., the rock-man. And just as our Lord’s personal name persisted, so also did that of his disciple. And thus it is a striking fact that, apart from the two texts in the Gospels in which Simon is first promised and then given the new name, our Lord himself throughout, when addressing his disciple by name, calls him by his personal name, except on one occasion, with which we shall deal presently. Thus, “Simon” is used in all the three great Petrine texts in the Gospels. In Matthew’s Gospel, our Lord says, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah.” In Luke, our Lord says: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you.” And in John’s Gospel, our Lord asks three times, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Using the personal name
All this shows that, at any rate during our Lord’s lifetime, Peter was usually known by his personal name of Simon. It would seem that Peter’s fellow disciples also knew him by his personal name, rather than the new official name. Thus, at the time of the Resurrection, the eleven apostles said that “the Lord has appeared to Simon.” The personal name was evidently still in use at the time of the Council of Jerusalem, for James there used the expression: “Simon has related…”
But although Simon was Peter’s personal name, his official name was bound to come into use. We should naturally expect the official name to be used first of all in conjunction with the personal name. Just as we have the expression “Jesus, who is called the Christ,” so also we have the expression, “Simon, who is called the Petros.” This occurs in Matthew when he is giving the list of the apostles: “The first, Simon, who is called the Petros.” The use of the article is significant here, as Matthew continues: “And Andrew [without the article] his brother, and James [without the article].”
This expression, “Simon, who is called the Petros,” seems to make it quite clear that “Petros” is the name of an office and not a personal name and that it is thus parallel to “Jesus, who is called the Christ.” The great Petrine text in Matthew shows that Simon is called the Petros because he is to be the foundation of the Church.
We can now carry the parallel between our Lord and Peter a stage further. Just as “Jesus, who is called the Christ,” develops into “Jesus Christ,” which is equivalent to “Jesus the Christ,” so also “Simon, who is called the Petros” develops into “Simon Peter,” which is equivalent to “Simon the Petros.” Matthew uses this composite form in the great Petrine text in 16:16: “Simon Peter answered and said…” The same form occurs several times in John’s Gospel: “He came, therefore, to Simon Peter”; “Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it”; “Simon Peter followed Jesus”; “she came to Simon Peter.”
The office alone
The third stage is that in which the name of the office is used alone, without the personal name. Just as we have “Christ” alone, so also we have “Peter” alone. Indeed, it seems clear that “Peter” became much more common than “Simon.” The official name almost supplanted the personal name in the case of the disciple, while it would not be true to say this of the Master. At any rate it is significant that whereas the Gospels usually speak of “Jesus” instead of “Christ,” the personal name thus retaining its ascendancy, the disciple is usually referred to as “Peter” rather than “Simon.” It would seem that, by the time the Gospels were written, the name of the office had practically become the name of the person holding it.
Thus, the Gospels constantly state that “Peter” did this or said that. At the Transfiguration, our Lord takes with him “Peter and James and John.” It is “Peter’s” mother-in-law who was sick of the fever. “Peter” and James and John accompany our Lord to the Garden of Gethsemane. And yet it is noteworthy that the Evangelists seem to go out of their way to record our Lord’s own use of his disciple’s personal name. And thus we get statements like that in Mark: “He said to Peter, `Simon, do you sleep?'”
Addressed once as “Peter”
We now come to the one occasion on which our Lord addressed his disciple as “Peter” instead of as “Simon.” This occurs in Luke’s Gospel. Our Lord promises Peter that his faith should not fail and tells him to confirm his brethren. In doing so he calls his disciple “Simon.” But immediately Peter boasts that he is ready to follow our Lord even to death. Whereupon our Lord says to him: “I say to you, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day until you three times deny that you know me.”
Coming so soon after our Lord’s statement that “Simon” was to confirm or strengthen his brethren, it seems clear that the official name is being used ironically. The case would thus be parallel to the use of “Christ” in the verse, “Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?” In each case, it is the official name which is being used deliberately.
The “rock-man,” who boasted so much in his own strength, was to be allowed to fail, in order to teach him that his real strength comes only from our Lord. From that time the Prince of the apostles became known by his official title of Petros or Cephas, the “rock-man.” How important, then, must the office of the “rock-man” have been in the Church, if the name of the office came to denote the person holding it.