From the perspective of timeless eternal God (Is. 57:15. 2 Pet. 3:8) Simon was “born again” when he confessed Jesus “is the Christ the Son of the living God (Mt. 16:16; 10:32; Rom. 10:8-9). Those truths are the keys of the kingdom.
Jesus confirms this declaring Simon has been wonderfully “blessed” then likening him to the prophet Jonah who figuratively rose from the dead preaching divine revelation (Mt. 16:18-19; Eph. 2:5; Col. 3:1; Rom. 6:4; Jonah 2:1-3:2) Jesus often saw analogies to the prophet Jonah (Mt. 12:39-40; 16:4). Matthew draws attention to this choosing not to translate the Aramaic “Barjona” (920 βαριωνᾶ), whereas John did when referring to Simon’s literal father (John 1:42 Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνα).
Keys open doors (Jdg. 3:25; Is. 22:22; Lk. 11:52; Rv. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1), Jesus is the door into the kingdom (Jo. 10:7-9; 14:6)—therefore the twin truths “Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16) are the precise “keys of the kingdom”.
Jesus put into the future giving these keys to Peter (Mt. 16:19) because they didn’t exist at that time. They would come into existence in the future as Jesus rose from the dead (1 Co. 15:21-22. 1 Pet. 3:21).
These keys are part of the channel of God’s grace therefore receiving them is a function of becoming part of that channel of living water (life) to the world, flowing from Christ the petra/lithos (1 Cor. 10:4. 1 Pet. 2:2-7).
As Simon is the “Cephas” “first” (Mt. 10:2) of the “lively stones… of the royal priesthood” (1 Pt. 2:5) from whose bellies would flow the same spiritual drink of Christ (Jo. 7:38. 1 Co. 10:4), he prefigures them. Just as Peter received the keys when he became part of the channel of God’s grace, so do all believers. The “binding and loosing” authority must be independent of these keys as they are not mentioned in connection with it in Matthew 18:18-18.
As promised, you have learned the precise knowledge opening the way into heaven and can easily lead family and friends into God’s presence and eternal life. When they believe and confess publicly the LORD Jesus, He confesses them to His Father in heaven and they are saved (Mt. 10:32; Rom. 10:8-13).
Moreover, Matthew 16:16-19 illustrates salvation by grace alone, through faith alone (Eph. 2:5-8). Also Peter illustrates “eternal security”, his denying Christ thrice (Mt. 26:34, 69-75) didn’t cause him to lose his salvation.
Paul alludes to Peter’s example when teaching the eternal security of believers:
If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim. 2:13 KJV)
These amazing facts became known in Matthew 16:16-19 where our LORD revealed precisely how He would build His church one soul at a time upon that petra rock of unchanging life giving truth.
When the Roman Empire destroyed the nation of Israel, knowledge of the precise pivot word Jesus used to illustrate how He would build the church was lost. That unique Palestinian Hebrew and Aramaic Christ and His disciples spoke became unknown to the Greek speaking church. It wasn’t long before their confusion about this context led to sectarian disputes cloaking the Matthew 16:18 event under reams of dispute and controversy about Peter and the Rock.
This writing restores the elegant message Jesus Christ our LORD—YHWH God the Eternal Son Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who was made flesh and walked among us and we beheld His Glory, full of grace and truth—gave to the Church.
ALL who call upon His Name He is the Christ the Son of the Living God as Peter did, believing in their heart and confessing Him publicly WILL BE SAVED (Rom. 10:9-13; Mt. 10:32).
The Aramaic Greek petros confirms this:
The Aramaic name Petros פטרוס is a homonym of Greek πέτρος when transliterated just like the Hebrew BATH (01324 בַּת 1 Ki 7:26, 38 & c.) and Aramaic BATH (01325 בַּת Ezra 7:22) are spelled the same when these are transliterated: βάτος (943, Lk. 16:6); βάτος (942, Mk 12:26; Lk 6:44; 20:37).
Knowledge of this homonym was lost to the church when that unique Aramaic dialect Christ and His disciples spoke was destroyed with the Jewish nation by the Roman Empire. That has caused controversy over the meaning of Matthew 16:18.
This writing restores the original intent of our LORD when He expertly crafted this double entendre on PETROS which we today call a:
Janus Parallelism. This type of parallelism hinges on the use of a single word with two different meanings, one of which forms a parallel with what precedes and the other with what follows. Thus, by virtue of a double entendre, the parallelism faces in both directions. Berlin, A. (1992). Parallelism. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5, p. 157). New York: Doubleday.
Early interpreters thought Peter’s name PETROS was Greek only. They didn’t know in the days of Jesus an Aramaic name ” פטרוס Peter” when transliterated into Greek becomes πέτρος. Greek speaking Christians unfamiliar with Palestinian Aramaic naturally thought it was Greek “petros” meaning stone.
Proof the homonym exists:
That there was in Aramaic a proper name Petros (H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff., I, 530) which perhaps meant “firstborn” (J. Levy, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 1876 f., new imp. 1924, sub voce, פֶּטֶר; Gustav Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 1901, sub voce) might have influenced the preference for Petros, but this is by no means certain.” -Oscar Cullmann, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VI, 101 Footnote 8; Grand Rapids, MI 1968: Eerdmans.
“The currency of Peter’s name is confirmed in Tal Ilan’s identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros. It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period.”- Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter’s Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
Note the presumption its Greek, precisely what this writing rejects.
The Aramaic petros פטרוס is connected to the Hebrew פטר PaTaR (Strong’s 06362) from which פֶּטֶר PeTeR (Strong’s 06363) meaning “first”, “firstborn” is derived. (cf. Oscar Cullmann, PETER, Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1953, p. 19.)
Its existence is certain. Petros פטרוס exists in Aramaic texts like the Peshitta (Ac. 1:13. 1 Pt. 1:1. 2 Pt. 1:1; Old Syriac Jn. 1:42), the Three Curetonian Epistles, Saint Ephraim’s Refutations and the Colophons.
The Palestinian version Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum is “independent of other Syriac Versions”-(Chyrs C. Caragounis, Peter And The Rock (Walter de Gruyter, NY, 1990, p. 34). There Petros appears in Matthew 16:18: “thou art petros and on this kepha I shall build.” -Chyrs C. Caragounis (op. cit. pp. 34-37).
Many assume this Petros is transliterated Greek, but if this independent Palestinian version is closest to the Aramaic Christ and His disciples spoke (Agnes S. Lewis, Margaret D. Gibson, Friedrich Schulthess op. cit. pp. 38-39) then its the Aramaic Petros פטרוס homonym.
The 13th Century Sefer Nitsahon calls Peter “petar chamor”, “firstborn ass” making a pun on his Aramaic name PETROS.
πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2)
“First Simon the one called Firstborn” (Compare Billerbeck op. cit.)
Petros as a Jewish Name?
But it remains desirable to ask what Jewish dimensions, if any, this name is likely to have had. And is it conceivable that even the Greek name could have featured in a Hebrew or Aramaic source? It is after all only John 1:42 which, on a certain reading, might be taken to suggest that ‘Peter’ is a secondary translation of an existing name Kēfa̛. It is instructive to note, however, that two verses earlier the evangelist seems to undermine even this conventional assumption of the priority of ‘Cephas’ by referring casually to ‘Simon Peter’ (1:40). Taken at face value, the text implies that it is this Simon, nicknamed Petros, who from now on ‘shall be called Cephas’. All four gospels, indeed, allow for the possibility that Matthew 16 merely affirms and interprets in Aramaic an existing Greek nickname that Peter had all along…See Mark 3:16; Matt. 4:18; Luke 5:8; John 1:40, 42.”- (Bockmuehl, Markus op. cit., p. 71)
Or, interprets an existing Aramaic name petros Simon already had adding to it the Greek petros “stone” meaning to begin the fulfillment of John 1:42 “You will be called Cephas.”
Let’s review the classic theory:
“From the beginning it was probably thought of as the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא=Κηφᾶς: J 1:42; confer Mt 16:18”- A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 654
The common noun petros in Job 30:6 Septuagint translates kepha ( 03710 כֵּף keph).
But the supposition John is translating proper nouns in John 1:42 is a hasty generalization fallacy, unhistorically deeming the common nouns kepha and Greek petros in John 1:42 as proper nouns. They became proper nouns later.
In support, John’s transliteration of kepha as Κηφᾶς certainly is a translation. He then explains a kepha is a petros “stone” in Greek:
“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation (2059 ἑρμηνεύω hermeneuo), A stone.” (Jn. 1:42 KJV)
If we permit John’s use of 2059 ἑρμηνεύω hermeneuo guide us, John is “interpreting” the meaning of Κηφᾶς (Jn. 1:38, 42; 9:7), not translating it as petros (cp. Jn. 1:41 3177 μεθερμηνεύω methermeneuo).
Consistent with both kepha and petros being common nouns, a translation does not explain what it denotes.
Supporting this Mark groups the epithet petros with boanerges when nicknaming Simon, James and John:
16 And Simon he surnamed (2007 ἐπιτίθημι epitithemi) Peter (πέτρος petros);
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (2007 ἐπιτίθημι epitithemi) them Boanerges (βοανηργές boanerges), which is, The sons of thunder: (Mk. 3:16-17 KJV)
The the same epitithemi applies to both, the meaning of these nicknames are added to Simon, James and John. The nicknames denote something about them that is true.
So Petros in Matthew 16:18 is the Aramaic Petros proper noun to which Jesus is adding the Greek petros common noun meaning.
So this is where it gets complex. We are dealing with a homonym in Matthew 16:18 which in effect is BOTH a proper noun and a common noun.
THE connecting line from John 1:42 to Matthew 16:18, is not to Cephas as a proper name, its to petros as a kepha common noun which meaning Jesus added to the Aramaic proper name in His Janus Parallelism.
Let’s walk through it:
The Aramaic petros is a proper name Simon had before he met Jesus (Mt. 4:18; Jo. 1:40).
When Jesus surnamed Simon petros in Mt. 16:18, he was adding the common noun petros meaning of “Cephas Stone.”
Jesus crafted a Janus Parallelism using the homonym petros. It’s the pivot word, looking back its the Aramaic proper name petros meaning “firstborn”, looking forward it’s the Greek common noun petros meaning “stone.”
Mark’s usage of the names Simon and Petros confirm the time of Simon’s surnaming (Mark 3:16) is at Matthew 16:18.
Simon appears in Mark 1:16, 29, 30, 36 and in Mark 3:16 where Petros Peter makes its first appearance, categorizing it with the epithet Boanerges. Petros makes another appearance in Mark 5:37 where Peter’s place among Christ’s inner circle was relevant (cf. Mk. 14:33). Except when quoting Christ in Mark 14:37, Simon doesn’t appear again. Consistent with Simon being surnamed petros during Matthew 16:18 event in Mark 8:29 we read “But who do you say that I am?” Petros Peter answered “You are the Christ”. Then a burst of Petros references- (Mark 8:32-33; 9:2,5; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3; 14:29, 33, 37, 54, 66-67, 70, 72; 16:7).
This indicates Jesus put upon (ἐπιτίθημι) the Aramaic Petros the Greek meaning of kepha petros “stone” at Matthew 16:18. Peter’s new name indicated a new relationship in Christ and Mark accordingly begins using it instead of Simon.
To be clear, while BOTH are names today we must keep the historical progression to interpret correctly. It does not appear either the Aramaic kepha or the Greek petros were used as Proper Names in the Palestinian Aramaic and Greek Christ and His disciples spoke. Evidently the distribution of the NT Greek text is what established these as proper names later.
However, as the NT indicates Jesus and John used them as common nouns it really doesn’t affect this exegesis if additional data proves they were common and proper nouns at that time. (cf. Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock, (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1990) pp. 9-25.
When Christ spoke John 1:42 and Matthew 16:18, Simon already had the Aramaic פטרוס which in Greek appears as petros .
18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter (Petros), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. (Matt. 4:18-19 KJV)
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s (Petros) brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone (petros). (Jn. 1:40-42 KJV)
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus is using BOTH the Aramaic and Greek meanings, pivoting on the Aramaic proper name פטרוס petros to say Simon is the “first” born of the gospel He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Then pivoting forward in Qal Wahomer lesser to greater analogy Christ points to the petros kepha who has now become a lesser version of the massive life giving petra rock that is Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), having drunk of the living water out of “the PeTeR” is flowing rivers of living water, revealing the “word of faith” Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God” which if anyone confess publicly, will save him (Rom. 10:9-11; Mt. 10:32; Jo. 20:31). Peter has become the “first” “lively stone” of the church, who in temporal finite realm will be saved after Jesus’ resurrection (2 Pet. 2:5; Mt. 16:18-19) as the channel of God’s grace comes into existence as Jesus rises from the dead. But from God’s timeless perspective, Simon was “born again” at that time and his relationship with God changed, therefore Christ gives him a new name, a composite name that shows both Aramaic “firstborn” and Greek “kepha stone” meanings have achieved actuality.
Jesus surnamed Simon petros and said to Simon “upon this rock (4073 πέτρα petra) [you just confessed] I will build my church.” (Matt. 16:18 KJV)
Consistent with this, the most ancient interpretation found in the early church fathers is “upon this specific point of faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, Jesus built His church.”
However, the Greek speaking Church had lost all knowledge of the Aramaic פטרוס Petros That unique Palestinian Aramaic speaking Jewish culture was lost to the Greek speaking church when the Romans dispersed the children of Israel and those knowing it died off. So when they read פטרוס petros “stone” in the NT they naturally assumed it was the Greek word for “stone”.
Scholars who faithlessly reject this context as authentic are without excuse. Their theory a Petrine Party editor (too stupid to simply write PETROS twice or delete the demonstrative pronoun, yet smart enough to corrupt every available Bible version on earth) is absurd to say the least. Ignoring all the contradiction to the theory is odd, perhaps malicious.
Confirming the pericope is authentic beyond all reasonable doubt, the Matthew 16:16-19 event is woven in the very fabric of scripture. For example:
1) Matthew 16:16-19. πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2) First Simon the one called Peter Petros “firstborn”. Hence first in all the apostolic lists (Mt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk; 13-16; Ac. 1:13 פטרוס Peshitta)
2) The use of the petros in John (1:42);
3) The phenomena the usage of petros in Mark after the Matthew 16:18 event;
4) Paul’s switch from Petros to Cephas in Galatians 2:9;
5) The clear dependency of the Romans 10:6-13 on the Matthew 16:16-19 context;
6) John’s allusion to Matthew 16:16-19 building the church on the specific point of Jesus’ identity in John 20:31);
7) The soundness of interpreting Matthew 16:18-19 precisely as our infallible teacher Jesus set up the Sermon on the mount illustration of the wise man building upon the unchanging petra truth of Christ’s sayings so the forces of nature could not prevail against that house (Matthew 7:24-25);
8) Paul’s allusion to Peter when teaching the eternal security of the believer.
9) The demonstrative feminine pronoun “this” has Jesus speaking TO Peter ABOUT “her” the female rock so he cannot be the antecedent.
10) The parallels between this event and 1 Peter 2:2-6.
11) The Aramaic “Barjona” was retained by Matthew to allude to the Jonah analogy Jesus was referring to which confirms Simon was born again at that time, preaching the divine revelation of God which gives life to the world.
More details:
1) πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2)
“First Simon the one called Firstborn” (Compare Billerbeck op. cit.)
4413 πρῶτος protos {pro’-tos}
Meaning: 1) first in time or place – Strong’s Concordance
Protos is not part of a numbering system as no second or third listed. Simon is “the first [in time], the one called “firstborn” [of the Gospel of Christ] from whose belly now flows rivers of living water. Peter’s confession is unique, the direct result of Divine Revelation and the only one to elicit a Makarism blessing from Jesus (Mt. 16:17 cf. Jo. 1:48-48; Mt. 14:33). Protos cannot refer to Simon’s primacy among the apostles as they were still arguing among themselves who was the greatest after the Matthew 16:18 event (Mk. 8:29 cf. Mk. 9:34). That also rules out Peter as “leader” of the group. Suggestions it means “first among equals” seem desperate groping for a reason. The parsimonous reason Simon is first to be born again by the public confession of the Word of Faith and THAT is why Jesus declares him “blessed.”
2) “All NT passages using λίθος which are extent in the various Syriac sources, are uniformly rendered with כאפא , apart from ‘mill-stone’, which has a special term in Syriac, רחיא דחמרא .”-Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock, (Berlin, NY, Walter de Gruyter, 1990) p. 32. This indirect evidence of the Aramaic Christ spoke raises the question why John chose petros and not lithos to denote kepha. The most likely reason is allusion to the Janus parallelism on the petros homonym in Matthew 16:18.
3) Mark’s usage of the names Simon and Petros confirm the time of Simon’s surnaming (Mark 3:16) is at Matthew 16:18.
Simon appears in Mark 1:16, 29, 30, 36 and in Mark 3:16 where Petros Peter makes its first appearance, categorizing it with the epithet Boanerges. Petros makes another appearance in Mark 5:37 where Peter’s place among Christ’s inner circle was relevant (cf. Mk. 14:33). Except when quoting Christ in Mark 14:37, Simon doesn’t appear again. Consistent with Simon being surnamed petros during Matthew 16:18 event in Mark 8:29 we read “But who do you say that I am?” Petros Peter answered “You are the Christ”. Then a burst of Petros references- (Mark 8:32-33; 9:2,5; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3; 14:29, 33, 37, 54, 66-67, 70, 72; 16:7).
This indicates Jesus put upon (ἐπιτίθημι) the Aramaic Petros the Greek meaning of kepha petros “stone” at Matthew 16:18. Peter’s new name indicated a new relationship in Christ and Mark accordingly begins using it instead of Simon.
The precise wording necessary for the Janus Parallelism and Qal Wahomer is the best explanation why the other gospel writers leave it to Matthew to recount.
4) In Galatians [TR] Paul switches from Petros (Gal. 1:18; 2:7, 8) to Cephas then reverts back to Petros (Gal. 2:11, 14) without explaining why. He is listed with two others, James the half brother of the Lord Jesus, and John the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20). Cephas emphasizes Peter’s special place just as it does in 1 Corinthians 9:5 “the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas.” Paul is astonished Cephas who is among the inner circle of the LORD’s apostles, First to drink the grace of God, first to open the door to the Gentiles (Ac. 10:34-35) channeling the living water from massive petra Rock that is Christ, to the world—was now so gracelessly a fountain of bile separating himself his fellow Priests in the Royal priesthood. Hence Paul’s use of Cephas offers insight into what Paul was visualizing as he writes about Peter, from what he had fallen.
KJV Gal. 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
KJV Gal. 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
KJV Gal. 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
KJV Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
KJV Gal. 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
KJV Gal. 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
5) Romans 10:6-13 is clearly dependent upon the Matthew 16:16-19 event. Paul speaks of Christ being brought down from heaven and the “word of faith” appearing “even in thy mouth” which is precisely what happened to Peter. The Father divinely revealed Christ’s identity and the belief and words appeared in the heart and mouth of Peter (Mt. 16:16-17). Confessing “the Lord Jesus” then is confessing Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (cf. Jo. 20:31).
6) “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (Jn. 20:31 KJV) Implicit is the Matthew 16:16-19 event where the church is built by believing the petra life giving Rock truth He is the Christ the Son of the Living God and upon that belief/public confession the church is built one soul at a time.
7) One must interpret Matthew 16:16-19 precisely as Jesus interpreted the wise man parable in Matthew 7:24-25 as these are “apple to apple” contexts sharing symbols in common: 1)Jesus’ Divine revelation “These sayings of mine”, Father’s divine revelation “Jesus is ‘the Christ the Son of God'”; 2) “built his house”, “build my church”; 3)”built his house upon a petra rock”, “upon this petra rock I will build my church”; 4)”rain…floods…winds beat upon that house and it fell not”, “Gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Although some interpret the Matthew 7:24-25 prophetically its Sermon on the mount teaching using classic two-way Genre (cf. Dt. 30:19) and is taken as such by Paul who reworked the material in Ephesians 6:10-16 thusly: “built his upon rock”, “be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might”; “rain…floods…winds”, “spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”; “it fell not”, “extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one”; “built…upon a petra”, “stand firm”.
Its consistent we interpret the symbols in Matthew 16:16-19 precisely as Jesus set up Matthew 7:24-25, He is our infallible Teaching Authority (Mt. 23:8).
8) Paul’s allusion to Peter’s denying Christ thrice (Mt. 26:34, 69-75; Jo. 21:15-17) requires Peter was saved before his denials (Mt. 16:17) to illustrate the eternal security of the believer: “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim. 2:13 KJV)”.
9) Both the grammar and metaphor of Matthew 16:18 (καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρα) exclude Peter, the demonstrative has Jesus speaking TO Simon ABOUT this the female petra rock. Neither Peter who is called Satan a few verses later (Mt. 16:23) or his confession which he thrice contradicted (Mt. 26:34, 69-75) are “rock like” consistent with the rock metaphor. One can watch a rock their entire life, it won’t change. Both Peter and his confession changed. The only thing “rock like” in this context is the unchanging divine revelation of God the Eternal Son, that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Only that unchanging divine truth the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against can be the petra from which flows the “spiritual drink” (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4) giving life to the church and so building it “one soul at a time.”
10) The obvious dependency of the 1 Peter 2:2-6 on the Matthew 16:16-19 event. Peter is speaking to “newborn babes” who have “tasted” the living water of the Lord, and now are “lively stones.” Its clear from the usage of the Aramaic kepha and the Greek lithos petros and the usage of lithos to refer to both Christ (the petra) and the church that in this regard they are all synonyms.
11) Just as Simon identified Jesus, so now Jesus identifies Simon, He is the Firstborn of the gospel of Christ. In full Makarism declares Simon son bar of Jonah, that is “after the order” of Jonah the prophet. Just as Christ saw analogy to His coming death to Jonah’s time in the belly of a great fish (Mt. 12:40-41) so now he sees in Simon another analogy to Jonah. Just as he rose up from figurative hell being vomited out onto dry land, and then went and preached the divine revelation of God (which if any man will believe and confess would save him, cf. Jonah 2:1-3:10)—so also Simon is now the preaching the petra truth upon which all who believe can have life (John 20:31).
In conclusion, the Asymmetric Janus Parallelism Christ crafted in Matthew 16:18 and which Matthew faithfully preserves restores precision to grammar, syntax and metaphor used. In a word, the text’s elegance is restored, its expert weave radiates into the fabric of the NT itself. That is sufficient proof this exegesis is true to the data.
The inelegance manifest in the scholarly consensus which ultimately trashes the context as inauthentic, is sufficient proof God is not speaking through it.
END NOTE
Everything I write is “copy left”. If citing, please be accurate. Attribution delineates what is not mine and subject to copyright law.
SDS Abby Hoffman authored a book entitled Steal This Book.
As a former radical turned “Jesus freak”, its among the few sentiments of his I still agree with.
Wanting to share with others is not stealing, its sharing. However, if you have any hesitation, don’t worry—you have my permission to share with all you will.
In the name of Jesus Christ our LORD the Eternal Son of God made flesh, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, I pray you and yours have peace and prosper. Marantha:
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. (Rev. 3:20-22 KJV)
Jesus Preached to the Dead
God’s Plan for the Lost
Lazarus and the Rich Man: Can the Rich Man Repent and be Saved?
Preaching to the Dead (Postmortem Evangelism)
What did the apostle John reveal when he said: “It is the last hour”?
Where Is The Judgment Of Fallen Angels?
The Coming False Christ and His Followers Revealed
