Mat 16:18 proves the church was not built on Peter

It is said I have in no way established that Πέτρος means "firstborn" instead of "stone".

On the contrary, I think I have proved it means both and that means Peter cannot be the rock of the church:

Matthew 16:18 convinced me PETROS PeTeR = firstborn, and also Rock. Christ uses both meanings in a Janus Parallelism: " 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."


Jesus is speaking TO Peter ABOUT "The Rock"---so he cannot be the rock.

18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18 NKJ)

"And I also say to you that you are Peter" points to the preceding containing the meaning "Firstborn":

17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Mat 16:17 NKJ)

Romans 10:8ff informs us a man is saved (=born again) when the Divine Word is in his mouth and he confesses Jesus is LORD . That's exactly what happened to Peter and I can argue successfully Peter is the firstborn of the faith. No other public confession was divinely inspired before this.

Matthew then connects to the parallel that follows, the alternate meaning for PETROS is rock, therefore Christ speaks TO the Firstborn ABOUT the PETRA Rock Christ upon whom the church is built (cp 1 Cor 3:10ff)

Another allusion to Peter's firstborn status is seen in his ability to bind and loose without the approval of others:

19 "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:19 NKJ)

Also the symbolism of being Simon bar-Jonah the prophet :

16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Mat 16:16-17 NKJ)

"The PeTeR (firstborn) has figuratively risen from dead like Jonah, to preach the word of life."

This is why Peter is first in all the lists, he is "firstborn."

We see that confirmed in Matt 10:2

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Mat 10:2 NKJ)

Notice Andrew wasn't called Second, or James the third, hence "first" PRWTOS parsimoniously means precisely that, "Peter is the First, Simon who is called firstborn."

 

Christ made it clear in Mt 16:18, if you notice the Janus Parallelism.

Do a google search on that, its more common in scripture than popularly known.

Even if Christ spoke Aramaic, it wouldn't read as Catholic apologists claim:

Thou art Kepa and upon this Kepa I will build.

It would be:

Thou art PETROS and upon this Kepa I will build.

Petros is an Aramaic word that when transliterated is spelled like the Greek PETROS, stone.

Christ just proclaimed Simon a son of the Prophet Jonah...(there is little lexical evidence YONA was used in Palestine in Christ's Day)

In a "Makarism" He declares God the Father gave Peter the PETRA of the faith, DIVINE REVELATION that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Which the PeTeR (Strong's #6363 Firstborn) confessed publicly, therefore Peter was born again at that time.

So Christ says, to paraphrase:

"You identified me as the Son of God, Only those illuminated by the Divine can do that...therefore you must be the First born of the Divinely Revealed Gospel I am the Christ, the Son of God"...

AND

Upon this the Rock I will build my church.


However, this exegesis supports Greek Primacy, that the autographs were written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew...

BECAUSE in both the Hebrew and Aramaic gospels...none of which predate the Greek....this Janus Parallelism is lost and it clearly belongs there as the Greek grammar and syntax indicate...both become ambiguous and inconsistent with usage elsewhere. That total lack of parsimony proves Christ may have said this in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, but Matthew wrote it in Greek preserving every nuance Christ communicated via His words and body language.

The lack of parsimony of Peter being any kind of Rock, is astounding...and makes sober people wonder how anyone could think of Peter as a Rock when a few verses later he is so unrocklike Christ calls him Satan:

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Mat 16:23 KJV)

A rock wouldn't have denied Christ thrice in terror before a maid:

69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. (Mar 14:69-72 KJV)

 

Work around for converting Hebrew in an Adobe.pdf file to a Word.RTF

Work around for converting Hebrew in an Adobe.pdf file to a Word.RTF file

Do it twice.

Converting pdf to rtf only once will rearrange Hebrew to read from left to right.

Therefore do it twice, read that RTF file back into Adobe and convert it again to a RTF file.

Then the Hebrew is rearranged again left to right which restores the correct direction, right to left.

Probably works for all right to left languages.

Make sure you change the font to Times Roman unicode in the first RTF file, before you convert it back into Adobe.pdf or the Hebrew will become gibberish.

Proofing is required

 

40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's [Πέτρος] brother.
41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah " (which is translated [μεθερμηνεύω], the Christ).
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas " (which is translated [ἑρμηνεύω], A Stone). (Joh 1:40-42 NKJ)
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (Πέτρου) brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted (μεθερμηνευόμενον), 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 (ἑρμηνεύεται), A stone. (Joh 1:40-42 KJV)

So spoke Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullman when correcting A. Dell's claim the name Πέτρος doesn't appear as a name until Tertullian. On the contrary, it existed before that in Aramaic with perhaps the meaning of "firstborn".

Professor Cullmann made two claims I want to treat here:

1)That the Aramaic Πέτρος name perhaps meaning "Firstborn" already existed centuries before the Greek Πέτρος name meaning "Rock".
2)That its "impossible" those "retranslating the Greek NT back into Aramaic" confused Πέτρος as being Πέτρος.

Taking #1 first, John 1:40 parsimonously shows Simon had the Aramaic name Πέτρος before he met Christ. Therefore its odd Jesus didn't say "You shall be called Πέτρος" if He believed it equivalent to Κηφᾶς. In other words, John 1:40 shows its "Simon Πέτρος" who is surnamed Κηφᾶς, proving Christ did not consider his Aramaic Πέτρος (proper noun) to be a Κηφᾶς (proper noun).

The apostle John confirms they aren't equivalents when he "translates" the Aramaic "Messiah" into the Greek "Christ" in vs. 41 but "explains" "Cephas" is a πέτρος "stone" in vs. 42. As one does not "explain" what "Cephas" is by translating it as "Peter"---the lower case "a stone" KJ reading is justified.

It is "special pleading" fallacy to suppose knowing the Aramaic underlying the Greek Petros/Peter name is necessary when Christ never does this, not in John 1:42 or anywhere else.

Cephas occurs 6 times in scripture, Petros/Peter 192 times, once meaning "stone." If the apostles and writers of the New Testament believed "Cephas=Petros", then why did they use Cephas and Petros dissimilarly. In the following texts "Cephas" communicates an authority "Petros" seems to lack:

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
1 Corinthians 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come-- all are yours.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
Galatians 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.


According to John 1:40 Christ surnamed "Simon Πέτρος" "Cephas" in John 1;42, not "Petros".

So where did He "put upon Simon" the name Πέτρος?

16 And Simon he surnamed (ἐπιτίθημι) Peter (Πέτρος)
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (ἐπιτίθημι) them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder. (Mark 3:16-17 KJV)

Boanerges is a characterization, not a proper name, hence it can characterize more than one person. As the same ἐπιτίθημι occurred to Simon, Christ characterized Simon as Πέτρος, He didn't give him that name.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus says, "Thou art Πέτρος" is in Matthew 16:18. The question then is, what characterization did Christ put upon Simon: Firstborn or Rock.

16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter (Πέτρος), and on this rock (πέτρα) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. (Mat 16:13-20 NKJ)

Most say vs. 18 is a pun of the words petros and petra. I disagree, its a pun upon one word only, petros using both its Aramaic "Firstborn" and Greek "Rock" meanings in 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. An example is Gen 49:26."-Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:157). New York: Doubleday.

Is this "special pleading," is there evidence of Janus elsewhere in the NT?

In return for Simon identifying Him, Jesus looks back and identifies Simon as the "Firstborn" of the divinely revealed Christ, Jonah Redivivus. The PeTeR having risen from the dead now preaches the divine word of life like a son of Jonah the prophet. Simon is the first born of the gospel of Christ, no other public confession of Christ was divinely inspired and no other resulted in a Makarism ("blessing") from Christ.

Then with the "stone" meaning of Petros, Christ speaks TO the "Firstborn" ABOUT the Petra Rock upon which He will build His church.

Confirming Simon's firstborn status, he can bind and loose on his own authority Mat 16:19 cp 18:18. Also as Firstborn he knows the way into the Kingdom, Christ has given him the keys to the Kingdom (Clearly Rom 10:6-12 is dependent upon this event)----public confession Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, translates one from death into life.

This is why Simon Πέτρος is called "The First" in Matthew 10:2

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first (πρῶτος), Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Mat 10:2 NKJ)

As Andrew isn't "the Second" or James "the Third", πρῶτος is not an numbering system. Parsimonously it then means what it says, "First Simon, who is called Firstborn" and that is Matthew's explanation why he is first on the list.

 

The Janus brings forward Peter's confession of the rocklike divinely revealed identity of Christ, and goes forward to show Christ builds His church upon the Rock under that Rubric.

In other words, its Peter's confession is like a building plan.

The divine revelation the PeTeR confessed is carried forward in the Janus to merge with the πέτρα Rock of Christ just as in this parallel where the building occurs on the Rock according to the sayings of Christ:

24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock (πέτρα):
25 "and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock (πέτρα). (Mat 7:24-25 NKJ)

Like a contractor following his building plan, so Christ builds His church on the πέτρα under the Rubric of a public confession Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. (John 20:31; Acts 8:37; 2 Cor 1:19 1 John 3:23; cp Rom 10:9-13)

 

"Simon Firstborn" solves the Cephas-Peter Problem

Since early Second Century a few have urged Simon Peter and Cephas were two different people. They base this upon Paul's switch from "Peter" (Gal 1:18, 2:7, 8, 11, 14 TR) to "Cephas" in vs 9, and then back to "Peter" (Gal 2:11, 14) for no obvious reason.

Paul's switch from Peter to Cephas in the same sentence without giving any indication he is talking about Peter does make it appear Paul is speaking about two different people.

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.-Galatians 2:7-9 NKJV


Although the reason is not obvious, Paul had a reason. He switched to Cephas because the name Peter was too common among the Jews and could be confused as referring to another Jew. These men are THE James, Cephas and John, and no other. IN fact, the seamlessness way Paul did the switch confirms it was for a relatively minor reason, not for any great theological point.

It is elementary deduction Simon was known as Peter before he met Christ (Matt 4:18; John 1:40-42; Matt 16:18 in a Janus Parallelism) and that it must have been common because it requires additional names to identify Peter:

NKJ Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter,
NKJ Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter,
NKJ Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said
NKJ Luke 5:8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees
NKJ John 1:40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
NKJ John 6:8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to Him,
NKJ John 6:68 But Simon Peter answered Him,
NKJ John 13:6 Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him
NKJ John 13:9 Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, not my feet only
NKJ John 13:24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was
NKJ John 13:36 Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, where are You going?"
NKJ John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it
NKJ John 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple
NKJ John 18:25 Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.
NKJ John 20:2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple,
NKJ John 20:6 Then Simon Peter came, following him,
NKJ John 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee,
NKJ John 21:3 Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing."
NKJ John 21:7 when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord,
NKJ John 21:11 Simon Peter went up and dragged the net
NKJ John 21:15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah
NKJ Acts 10:5 "Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter.
NKJ Acts 10:18 asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there.
NKJ Acts 10:32 `Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.'

Cephas does identify Simon in a way Peter does not:

NKJ John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas " (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJ 1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
NKJ 1 Corinthians 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come-- all are yours.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
NKJ Galatians 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Confirming this in Galatians 2:7 the name has a relationship to preaching the gospel. The gospel of Christ was first preached by the PeTeR (Strong's 6363) "Firstborn" in Matthew 16:18. Then was when Peter was entrusted with the keys to the kingdom and binding and loosing authority. So it is Peter who first delineated the essential Gospel to both the circumcised and uncircumcised (Acts 10:28-11:18; 15:7) they should believe to be saved. Moreover it was Peter that pushed giving Paul permission to go to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12-22) in Jerusalem.

footnote:

There are non cannonical lists of the Seventy that include someone named Cephas. And for apologetic reasons many wanted to extract Peter from the events listed in Gal 2:11-13. Evidently the desire was strong enough some copyists revised Galatians to support the theory Peter was not responsible by changing Peter to read "Cephas" in vs. 2:11.

NAU Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (Gal 2:11 NAU)

Once again the Byzantine Text, Stephanus 1550 in particular, proves they are faithful copies of the autographs.

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
(Gal 2:11-13 NKJ)

In the early church some dude named Porphyry made hay with the above, ridiculing Christianity arguing the teachers of it are confused bumpkins...

So there was a lot of support for extracting Peter from this event, but scripture is always brutally honest, reporting the flaws as well as the strengths of its leaders.

 

Cephas is a petros little stone as seen by usage in Aramaic Gospels


While I trust the Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550) precisely because it has the Johanine comma (1 John 5:7-8), other versions can sometimes shed some light on how words were used in Jesus' Day in Palestine.

August Dell concluded Cephas can mean a "little stone" because of its usage in the Aramaic Gospels compared with the Sinaiticus. I agree and it therefore is likely PETROS in John 1:42 has its Attic "classic" sense of "small stone" which is corroborated by the parallels found in 1 Peter 2:4-5. Its no argument against it can also mean "Rock"...it has a range of meaning just like Kepha in the Targums (cf -"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica Press, NT, 1996], pp. 634-635)

August Dell (Matthäus 16:17-19)* lists in Hebrew characters where Kepha (כאפא) is found in the Aramaic Jerusalem Gospel (Evang. hieros.) or Syrus Sinaiticus and the Greek Sinaiticus has "stone" (λίθος):

Mat 3:9 ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ; out-of the stones these
Mat 4:3 οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ; the stones these
Mat 4:6 πρὸς λίθον ; toward stone
Mat 7:9 λίθον ; stone (Evangel. hieros. only)
Mat 21:42 λίθον ; stone
Mat 24:2 λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ; stone upon stone
Mat 27:60 λίθον μέγαν ; stone large
Mat 27:66 τὸν λίθον ; the stone
Mat 28:2 τὸν λίθον ; the stone

Mar 15:46 λίθον ; stone
Mar 16:3 τὸν λίθον ; the stone
Mar 16:4 ὁ λίθος ; the stone

Luk 3:8 ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ; out-of the stones these
Luk 24:2 τὸν λίθον ; the stone

Joh 8:7 τὸν λίθον ; the stone (Evangel. hieros. only)
Joh 8:59 λίθους ; stones
Joh 10:31 λίθους ; stones
Joh 11:38 λίθος ; stone
Joh 11:39 λίθον ; stone
Joh 11:41 τὸν λίθον ; the stone
Joh 20:1 τὸν λίθον ; the stone

*Zeitschrift für die nt.liche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, Vol 15, p. 19 1914.


In addition BibleWorks 9.0 Old Syriac Curetonian Kepha is "stone" in the Greek Sinaiticus (M-01A):

Matthew 21:44 επι τον λιθον τουτον ; upon the stone this
Luke 11:11 λιθο ; stone
Luke 19:40; οι λιθοι ; the stones
Luke 20:18 τον λιθον ; the stone

In addition Kepha in Old Syriac Sinaiticus is "stone" in the Greek Sinaiticus (M-01A):
Mark 13:1 λιθοι ; stones
Mark 13:2 λιθος επι λιθον ; stone upon stone
Luke 4:3 τω λιθω τουτω ; the stone this
Luke 19:40 οι λιθοι ; the stones
Luke 21:6 λιθος επι λιθω ; stone upon stone

In light of the above "petros" in John 1:42 has the classic "stone" sense, as seen in Peter's Rabbinic Qal Wahomer greater to lesser analogy in 1 Peter 2:4-5

4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:4-5 NKJ)