Significance of a name

cheeseo

New Member
This is going to be something of a strange question, and isn't really an issue I am dealing with or anything, but a friend of mine brought it up today and it raised a lot of questions in my mind.

I know now that every word of the Bible is very specific, so with that in mind my question brings us to John 18.

If you look at the text very carefully you will find Peter's name scattered all over the place, but it's not always the same: it jumps between "Simon Peter" and "Peter". I've listed the usage to speed things up, but does anyone have any ideas on the significance of the usage of the different names?:confused:

Simon Peter
1) "SP having sword..." verse 10
3) "followed Jesus..." verse 15
8) "Sp stood..." verse 25

Peter
2) "Jesus said to Peter..." verse 11
4) "Peter stood at the door..." verse 16
5) "brought Peter in..." verse 16
6) "said to Peter..." verse 177)
9) "Peter stood..." verse 18
10) "Peter then denied..." verse 27
 
It was not uncommon for people to change their names to fit their situation. We see Saul become Paul, Simon become Peter. The variations in name may show that portions of the writings may have been started before they were compiled. It may also be for dramatic purposes to show the change in people as they accept Jesus. This wasn't a new idea, however. We see the same thing happening in OT times (Ruth's mother in-law changes her name after her sons die).

As for the specific reasons that John chose to use Simon, Simon Peter, or Peter in various places, I cannot give solid answers.

There is significance to why Jesus chose to call Simon "Peter." Peter is how we translate "Cephas" which means "rock" There are many implications to this - Peter has a rocky behavior (jagged, sharp, aggressive, edgy), but also that he is hard, solid... that he provides an excellent foundation for building the early church.
 
I understand the significance of what Peter means, rather my question is do you have any idea as to why the names Peter and Simon Peter were used in those specific places? I have come to realize that John didn't put those names in like that just because he was compiling the account at different times. I know this because nowhere else in his gospel was he not specific in the usage of his terms. I did in fact think that it may have something to do with showing the dramatic change in people as they interact with Jesus, but from what I have read of it I can't make heads or tails of why he is named what he is named in those specific instances.
 
I think it is an interesting question but I forsee two possible issues in the answering:

1. I think christians need to be careful that they dont give individual words in the bible mystical status that is devoid on the human context of the bible. In other words the we need to rely on an understanding of the broader historical and literary context in answering these question so as not to answer without an anchor to what might be a real answer. In this case there might be some significant meaning in the difference names used or it might have been used in order to make the wirting not so boring to read (e.g. I am reading the night watch novel at the moment that, while interesesting, is difficult to read as the main characters full name is used in every other sentence).

2. It could be a translation issue.
 
Last edited:
I know that Simon Peter is the brother of Andrew... and they were both fishermen... and two of the first disciples. But are there references to another Simon? Or another Peter?
 
I know that Simon Peter is the brother of Andrew... and they were both fishermen... and two of the first disciples. But are there references to another Simon? Or another Peter?

It's all about the same guy, all Peter, just different name usage. And as for the use of the different names for the sake of good flow, they seem too oddly placed to me for that to be the case. I agree with you though, one shouldn't place too much importance on little obscure things in scripture to the point where they miss the main point of what the text is actually saying. This question isn't all that drastically important to me, just a passing thought I thought I would address, and perhaps stumble on something extrodinary about my Father.
 
It's all about the same guy, all Peter, just different name usage. And as for the use of the different names for the sake of good flow, they seem too oddly placed to me for that to be the case. I agree with you though, one shouldn't place too much importance on little obscure things in scripture to the point where they miss the main point of what the text is actually saying. This question isn't all that drastically important to me, just a passing thought I thought I would address, and perhaps stumble on something extrodinary about my Father.

Yep your probably right was just throwing it out there like a null hypothesis to make the point that you will probably need some more information relating to the literary conventions. My old man is a NT and biblical languages professor so will ask him and get back to you.
 
Ok I finally got around to asking my old man. He said he is not sure but said you might want to check whether there is a distinction between when they are used, i.e. is one name used by the narrator with and one by others. He said he wasn't sure as he doesn't have a lot to do with John. He did mention where it is important where in Acts Paul refers to Peter by the name Simon (or cephus - not sure how to spell that) when he is dressing him down about stopping eating with gentiles because he is afraid of or embarrassed by the Jews. It appears the name Simon is used by Paul here to suggest that Peter is acting like his pre-Christian self.
 
Back
Top