Follow
It is commonly assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter” because He planned to build His Church upon “this rock.” Catholic Answers, for example, says Jesus did this to assign to him “a particular powerful role” as “the foundation stone of the Church.” And yet, the Scriptures nowhere say why Jesus changed his name. Where the Scriptures do give reasons for assigning or changing names, we safely grasp the meanings. Where the Scriptures do not give the reason, we are not at liberty to assign a meaning on our own. The fact is, as with several other name changes and assignments in the Bible, the Scriptures provide no explicit reason for calling Simon “Peter.” Context, however, provides the information we need.
A review of three kinds of name changes or assignments will be helpful. In the first category are names that are accompanied by the explicit purpose. Adam named his wife Eve “because she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). Abram’s name was changed to Abraham “for a father of many nations have I made thee” (Genesis 17:5). Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah because “I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations” (Genesis 17:16). Jacob’s name was changed to Israel “for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed” (Genesis 32:28). Joseph was commanded to name Mary’s child Jesus “for He shall save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). These are plain, explicit statements of why a person was named or renamed.
A second convention is when a name is changed or assigned, but no reason is given. John the Baptist was almost named Zacharias after his father (Luke 1:59), but an angel had intervened saying, “thou shalt call his name John” (Luke 1:13). No reason is given. “John” originates from a Hebrew term meaning “God is gracious.” We could speculate that the name suited him because he was the herald of the Messiah (John 1:7-8) through Whom God’s grace would be manifested (John 1:17); or perhaps because by God’s grace “there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11). These are meaningless speculations, for the Scriptures simply do not say. Saul took on a new name, Paul (Acts 13:9), but the Scriptures give no explicit reason for it. One might speculate that “Paul” was now “constrained” to preach the truth, for the root of “Paul” has such a connotation, but that speculation is of no value since Saul continued under his given name even after he was “constrained” to act in his new role (Acts 9:20-24). Jesus assigned James and John the surname “Boanerges,” or Sons of Thunder (Mark 3:17), but again, no cause is given. One might speculate that the name was assigned because those two desired to “command fire to come down from heaven, and consume” the Samaritans (Luke 9:54), but again that is mere speculation, as there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus had renamed them because of their pugnacious behavior.
A third naming convention in the Scriptures is wordplay to emphasize a point. Adam called Eve a woman “because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23). The Lord commanded a child to be named Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14) meaning “God with us” because God would side with Judah against her enemies. The Lord commanded Isaiah to name a child Mahershalalhashbaz (Isaiah 8:3-4), a redundancy meaning “quickly to the plunder, haste to the spoils,” signifying that the king of Assyria would soon plunder Damascus and Samaria (Isaiah 8:3). In Ezekiel 23, Samaria is renamed “Aholah” (“Her own tent”) and Jerusalem was renamed “Aholibah” (“Woman of the tent”) (Ezekiel 23:4) for their adulteries (Ezekiel 23:46-49). When Hosea’s first son was born, the Lord said “Call his name Jezreel,” which means “God will sow,” an apparent reference to the coming judgment (Hosea 1:4, 2:23). At the birth of Hosea’s first daughter, the Lord said “Call her name Loruhamah” which means “No Mercy,” “for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:6). At the birth of his second son, the Lord said “Call his name Loammi,” meaning “Not My People,” “for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God” (Hosea 1:9). The lengthy, elaborate naming of Hosea’s children signified the Lord’s rejection of the Jews but foretold God’s ultimate plan to save the gentiles (Hosea 2:23; Romans 9:24-26). Wordplay draws attention to something, but is not used as a mechanism for assigning a role or an office.
Of these three conventions, the renaming of Simon clearly does not fall under the first, because the Scriptures offer no explicit reason. The Gospels simply inform us that Simon had been surnamed “Peter” (Matthew 4:18, 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; John 1:42) and, with only one exception (Luke 22:34), that Jesus continued calling him Simon throughout His ministry (Matthew 17:24; Mark 14:37; Luke 22:31; John 21:15-17).
Without any further Scriptural data, we would be left only with the knowledge that Simon’s name change must fall either into the second category (a name change with no explicit purpose) or into the third (a word play used to emphasize something), but with no way of knowing which. Fortunately, there are more scriptural data available.
Upon Which Rock did He Build?
When Jesus called God His Father (John 10:15-32), the Jews took up stones to execute Him for blasphemy, “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:31-33). Jesus asked in return, If the Scriptures say “I said, Ye are gods” (Psalms 82:6), how can you say “Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36). The connection between their accusation (“thou makest thyself God”) and Jesus’ defense (“the Scriptures say ‘Ye are gods'”) is not immediately apparent unless the entire reference is examined: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the most High” (Psalms 82:6). In the light of the whole verse, Jesus’ point is clear: it cannot be blasphemy to call oneself the Son of God, if the Scriptures call people the sons of God. All that is required is a little digging.
That example will serve us well as we seek to determine upon which “rock” Christ would build His Church. Jesus had made it abundantly clear in His teaching and indeed throughout His ministry, but as with John 10:34, we must look where Jesus was pointing. Here again, the harmonized loaves narrative tells us something the individual accounts do not.
In the Johannine account, the Jews murmured at His saying, “I am the bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:42). He responded that they ought not murmur at what the prophets had foreseen: “And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:45). Then in Matthew’s account, upon Peter’s confession, Jesus immediately exclaimed that Peter had been taught by the Father:
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:17-18)
Historically, that statement from Matthew—”thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”—has been uprooted from its native context, planted in foreign soil, and its unnatural fruit harvested to suggest an alien meaning that Jesus did not intend. But we need not guess what He was thinking. As in his conversation with the Jews in John 10, Jesus here informs our understanding by pointing to Isaiah.
Peter’s confession is fruit that grew from the same soil as that of the witnesses to the Feeding of the 5,000 in John 6, who said, “This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (John 6:14). Peter’s confession, like theirs, fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy, “And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” (Isaiah 54:13), to which Jesus plainly attests in Matthew’s account. “My Father which is in heaven” had taught Peter (Matthew 16:17), just as all those who had truly come to Him in John 6 “hath heard, and hath learned of the Father” (John 6:45). The harmonized loaves narrative thus necessarily links Peter’s confession in Matthew 16 to that of the believing disciples in John 6, whose confessions in turn fulfilled Isaiah 54:13. And that, in turn, tells us exactly what Jesus had mind when He responded to Peter’s confession.
It is neither Simon, nor his nickname, nor his confession that establishes the context of Jesus’ response, but Isaiah’s prophecy. It is in that prophecy that the Lord Himself promises that His own teaching would be the foundation He would lay for the comfort, peace and security of His Church:
O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted,
behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours,
and lay thy foundations with sapphires.
And I will make thy windows of agates,
and thy gates of carbuncles,
and all thy borders of pleasant stones.
And all thy children shall be taught [by] the LORD;
and great shall be the peace of thy children.
In righteousness shalt thou be established:
thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear:
and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. (Isaiah 54:11-14)
What “stones” and what “foundations” would He lay for His people? The Father’s Word, of course. That is the foundation stone of the Church. From the days of Moses the Lord had prophesied that Jesus would come speaking the Father’s words:
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. (Deuteronomy 18:18)
John the Baptist announced that “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God” (John 3:34), and Jesus claimed that “My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me” (John 7:16). “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:24). He also promised to send to His disciples the Spirit, Who “shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak” (John 16:13) and will “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26)—which is to say, He would remind them of those things “my Father hath taught me” (John 8:28). At the conclusion of His ministry Jesus reported to the Eleven, “all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15), and to His Father, “I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest me” (John 17:8). He then prayed “for them also which shall believe on Me through their word” (John 17:20)—which is to say, the word that He Himself had received from His Father and had made known to the disciples. His Church would be built upon His Father’s words.
“A Sure Foundation”
Peter confirms this in his interpretation of Isaiah 28:16, when he writes:
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter 2:6)
As Jesus many times insisted, “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me” (John 12:44), and “He that heareth my word … believeth on him that sent me” (John 5:24). To believe on the “chief corner stone,” therefore, is to believe the words of the Father. Isaiah had identified that stone as “a foundation … a sure foundation” (Isaiah 28:16), and while that “cornerstone” to us is precious, to others it is “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word” (1 Peter 2:8). Peter’s understanding of Isaiah 28:16 makes “stone,” “foundation” and “rock” interchangeable, and that “stone” and that “rock” and that “foundation” are “the word” at which they stumble, unable as they are to believe in Christ, and therefore to believe the Father’s words. The Father’s words are the foundation of the Church, the rock upon which Jesus would build it.
Indeed, His teaching ministry had focused on nothing else. The beginning and end of Jesus’ preaching ministry was to teach His Father’s doctrines, to commission His disciples to teach His Father’s doctrines, to send His Spirit to remind the disciples of the doctrines Jesus had given them from His Father, so that they could in turn pass on His Father’s doctrines to others. When He said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. … Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:44-45), He established Isaiah 54:13 as the context: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall be all taught of God’” (John 6:45). The very word Ecclesia, or Church, means “the called out ones,” which in this context refers to they who are drawn to Christ having being taught by the Father.
It is therefore evident why Peter and Paul believed the Church was built upon Jesus, the Prophets and the Apostles. The prophets of old “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21), that is, by the Spirit Who spoke only what He heard from the Father (John 16:13). Jesus was sent by the Father and only “speaketh the words of God” (John 3:34). Jesus gave to His apostles “the words which Thou gavest me” (John 17:8) and then sent the Spirit to “bring … to your remembrance” the Father’s words that He had given them (John 14:26), praying for those who would believe His Father’s words through their preaching (John 17:20). Thus, the Church is built upon the words of the Father as spoken through the prophets, the words of the Father as spoken through the Son, and the words of the Father as passed on by the Apostles. Peter and Paul thus draw us unavoidably to what Isaiah had foreseen: that the Rock upon which Christ would build His Church is nothing else than the Words of the Father:
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour. (2 Peter 3:1-2)
The house of God, the Church, is built upon the words of the Father, Who draws men to His Son because they have been “taught by God.”
“His House Upon a Rock”
Of this fact Jesus has been sufficiently clear. It is Jesus who said that to listen to His sayings is like building a house on a rock:
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24-25; c.f. Luke 6:47-48)
“These sayings of mine,” He says, are the sayings He had heard from His Father (John 7:16, 14:24). Jesus could do no better than the wise man of His own parable, building His Church upon the stone, rock and foundation of His Father’s words. It is no coincidence that Isaiah 54 provided the exact imagery from which Jesus drew to tell this parable:
O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted,
behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours … (Isaiah 54:11)…the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:25)
Nor is it a coincidence that the Church He had built upon His Father’s words would soon have to withstand “water as a flood” that came from the Devil’s mouth (Revelation 12:15), nor coincidental that she withstood that flood of false doctrine in a place prepared for her by the Father, that He “should feed her there … where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time” safely away “from the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:6,14). The Rock by which Christ’s Church withstands tempest, storm and flood is none other than the Father’s nourishment, His Word, the Bread from Heaven, the teaching of Jesus, the Prophets and the Apostles.
In such clear light as this, are we really to believe that when describing the actual house He came to build—the Church—Jesus pulled the foundation out from under it and decided to build His Church on Peter instead? Or on Peter’s confession? Nay, the comfort, peace and security of God’s Church is that she is built upon the Rock of the Father’s words. Her very survival has always depended on it. The Father who is “greater than all,” gave disciples to Jesus (John 10:29), teaching them His doctrines and thereby drawing them to Christ, for “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:43). “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation” (John 5:24). There is simply no surer foundation, no greater Rock upon which Christ could build His Church. Neither Simon, nor his successors, nor his confession. Not even Christ Himself. Only His Father’s words would do. The Scriptures allow for no other stone, rock or foundation than that, try though men have to find one.
The “Rock-Stone” Wordplay In Matthew 16:18
To the Roman Catholic, the mere mention of Simon and the Rock together is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus renamed him because He intended to build His Church upon Peter. But after weighing the evidence, it is clear that the change of Simon’s name to Peter ultimately must fall into the third naming convention of “wordplay.” Simon would be the last of the apostles to believe, and believing, heralded the completion of Jesus’ primary teaching mission to deliver the Father’s word to the Eleven:
Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. … For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. … and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:6-12)
By establishing the Father’s words, rather than “Peter,” as the sure foundation of the Church, and by harmonizing the loaves narratives, we discover the resulting play on words in Matthew 16:18. “Rock” (petros, πέτρος), “Stone” (lithos, λίθος) and “Foundation” (themelios, θεμέλιος) can be used for different categories of substructure, but may also be used interchangeably in Scripture, as both Peter (1 Peter 2:8), and Paul (Romans 9:33) attest. The New Testament has houses built both upon stone foundations (Ephesians 2:20) and upon rock foundations (Luke 6:48). In fact, the Roman Catholic implicitly concedes the point by saying Jesus named Simon “Rock” to make him “the foundation stone of the Church,” as we noted above. Πέτρος and λίθος are functionally interchangeable in this context, and both mean “foundation.”
At their first meeting, Jesus first called him Simon, son of Jonah, invoking his earthly patrimony, and then says he will be renamed: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas” (John 1:42). By the time Jesus calls him Peter again, He first calls him Simon, son of his earthly father, then calls him Peter, now child of his Heavenly Father, contrasting Simon’s earthly patrimony with Peter’s heavenly patrimony: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee…” (Matthew 16:17). “… but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter…” (Matthew 16:17-18).
The wordplay is abundantly evident, and it was not lost on Peter who would later conclude that we are born again not of flesh and blood but of the Word of the Father, just as Jesus taught him at his confession: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). Indeed, it is a Mosaic precept that to be begotten of God is to be begotten of Stone: “Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee” (Deuteronomy 32:18).
It is therefore evident that Jesus had played Peter’s given name (Simon) and earthly patrimony (Jonah) against his new name (Peter) and the revelation of the Father (the Rock) to illustrate this very construct: it is the rock of his Father’s Word, not flesh and blood, that is the incorruptible seed by which we are born again. Unbelieving Simon was born of the corruptible seed of his father, Jonah, but believing Peter of the incorruptible seed of the Father’s Words, the foundation stone of Isaiah 28:16 and Isaiah 54:13, “the rock” of Jesus’ parable (Matthew 7:24-25; Luke 6:48), the “stone of stumbling” and “rock of offense” of Isaiah 8:14—the very rock Peter identifies as “the word” that Jesus spoke (1 Peter 2:8), and that Jesus identified as His Father’s words (John 14:24). Jesus had not assigned “a particular powerful role” to Peter, but rather had acknowledged the “particular powerful role” the Father’s Word had played in Peter’s rebirth.
An interesting artifact of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) therefore, is that Isaiah 54:11 renders “stone” in the singular, as in: “I will lay thy stone (λίθον σου) with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.” The artifact is made more relevant by the fact that in John 6:45, Jesus appears to cite that translation, thus playing Simon’s surname, Peter “πέτρος” from John 1:42 against Stone “λίθον” of Isaiah 54:11. This was not done to define Peter’s role as the Church’s foundation, but rather to highlight the cause of Simon’s conversion—being taught by the Father—as the very foundation stone upon which Jesus had come to build His Church. Thus, “this rock” in Matthew 16:18 refers not to Peter, as the Roman Catholic would have it, but to the Father’s words, as shown below:
Of course, the Roman Catholic will object that “this rock” (ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ) in Matthew 16:18 must of necessity refer to “Peter” because ταύτῃ (“this”) always refers to what immediately precedes it. (Roman Apologist Suan Sonna makes that argument here at 6:41). To formulate that argument, however, betrays a lack of familiarity with Christ’s teaching, for He does not conform to such rules of style. In fact in the very loaves narrative that led to Peter’s confession, Jesus does exactly what the Roman Catholic says He must not:
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. (John 6:48-50)
Other such illustrations are manifold. By the Roman Catholic style guide, “this gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 24:14) would of necessity refer to “he that shall endure unto the end … shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13), and “this gospel” in Mark 14:9 would refer to “she is come aforehand to anoint my body” (Mark 14:8). The parable of the Sower in Mark 4 provides additional cases of Jesus violating the Roman Catholic style guidebook.
Our point of course is that a known style of communication may well assist us in our quest for knowledge in the original sources, but it cannot overturn context and intent. It is quite clear from the context of John 6 that Jesus did not believe manna to be the true bread from heaven, and it is clear in the harmonized loaves narrative that Jesus intentionally appealed to Isaiah 54—”And they shall be all taught of God“—just before rejoicing that Peter had in fact been taught by God. And it is Isaiah 54, not the Roman Catholic style guide, that indicates to us the stone foundation that is in view in Matthew 16:18.
As we noted in a previous entry, when Peter finally confessed, Jesus said, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil” (John 6:70). The statement is logically equivalent to “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet only Eleven have believed.” That the last believing apostle had finally confessed heralded a milestone in Jesus’ teaching ministry, of which He would soon report to His Father, for all except one (John 17:12) had “received [Your words] and have come to know in truth that I came from you” (John 17:8). That Simon had years earlier been renamed “Rock” (John 1:42) provided the occasion for a play on words cut from the same cloth as Woman, Meribah, Massah, Immanuel, Mahershalalhashbaz, Aholah, Aholibah, Jezreel, Loruhamah and Loammi—not to assign a role of primacy but to emphasize the truth. In the case of Simon’s confession, the truth is that Jesus would build his Church upon the foundation of His Father’s words, and Peter’s conversion, late though it was, illustrated that fact, just as had the confession of the believers in John 6. None can come unless the Father draw him, and only those taught by the Father are drawn, and thus every man that has been taught by the Father, cometh to Christ (John 6:43-45), as Peter clearly had. By Peter’s confession (Mt 16:16, Mk 8:29, Lk 9:20, Jn 6:69), by Jesus’ response to it (Mt 16:17, Jn 6:70), by Jesus’ report to His Father of His successful mission (Jn 17:8-12), and by the apostles descriptions of the Church (Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 3:4-8, 2 Peter 3:2), the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that Jesus could build His Church on no other foundation than His Father’s words.
And on that note, it is to Isaiah 54 that we must once again resort if we would understand what Jesus meant by “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” To Rome, because she has assumed Peter to be the stone foundation, such language implies the infallibility of Peter and his successors. But Isaiah instead points to the infallibility of the Father:
For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. (Isaiah 54:9)
It is the infallibility of the Father’s words, not the infallibility of Peter and his successors, that guarantees the protection of His Church from the gates of hell. We will continue on that theme in our next entry.
I find your work most inspiring, even at the age of 82 years.
For me your interpretation of Peter the rock is spot on
However since the age of 13 years i have felt most uneasy concerning the trinity and recently after much prayer have concluded that the trinity is the foundation of sand.
The placing of Holy in front of the trinity kept it afloat as what keeps the holy father afloat. how long for? I ask.
i look forward to reading and listening to your honourable and inspiring works.
God bless you and may the peace of JESUS CHRIST THE PRINCE OF PEACE be with you always.
may the God of Peace (1. Thes 5:13) give you Peace.
Peace comes from the creator of Peace. Not from a creature.
But since they are one, Paul switches easily to the Lord of Peace JESUS.
Lance,
The following, relatively short article series might help you here. I believe the Nicaean doctrine of the Trinity is subtly but importantly different from its common historical formulation, which is an artifact of the Roman Catholic late fourth century. That difference makes the doctrine both more intuitively reasonable and more consonant with the Scriptures.
https://www.christian-history.org/the-trinity.html
Hi Tim,
I’m not sure how your counter-examples work. Mark 14:9 uses the Greek word “τὸ” which is “the gospel”
In Matthew 24:14 “this gospel” does refer back to the previous part “endures to the end”, but isn’t that the “good news” for them those who endure?
τὸ in the Greek is a definite article that can be translated either as “this” or “the”. The Douay Rheims renders it “this gospel” as does the Vulgate (evangelium istud). Thus, the verse serves as a counter example to the Roman Catholic who argues that “this” always refers to what immediately preceded it. In the case of Mark 14:9, “this gospel” must therefore necessarily refer to “she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying,” which of course, is not the gospel.
In the case of “this gospel” in Matthew 24:14, “he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” would be good news to those who endure the persecution, but it is not “this gospel of the kingdom”.
Hello Brother Kauffman!
i cant describe it other way. The interkalation. E X C E L L E N T point! Wonderful. Thanks God that I understand it. Such an important point.
a little question: you described that the jews in 20% have to add A SECOND leap Month.
So 3,5 Years can be 44 Months/1290 Days.
I understand, but where do they add this second Month? One is „Adar One“.
And the other Month? (in 20% of the case)
Where do they add this second month?
Or could you give me a video or website where they describe it? i do not find it on internet, they describe always the Adar One.
Sorry that i ask that match, but you are the only one i can ask…
Alessandro, When there are 12 months in a year, the 12th month is Adar. When there are 13 months, the 12th month is Adar I and the 13th month is Adar II. You can find out more about Adar I and Adar II at the wiki entry on the Hebrew lunisolar calendar here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
You can also find out a little more about the frequency of Adar II here: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/6376/how-do-i-know-if-its-a-hebrew-leap-year
Yes, you are correct. 3 1/2 years can be 43 months, or it can be 44 months, but it is NEVER 42 months. That is how we know that the 3.5 years of Daniel 7, and 1260 days of Revelation 12, and the 42 months of Revelation 13 must be prophetic months of years—because they all refer to the same time period, but 3.5 LITERAL years are never 42 months long. Thus, if they are not a literal 3 1/2 years, or a literal 1,260 days or a literal 42 months, they must be a prophetic 3 1/2 years or a prophetic 42 months which is in fact 1,260 years.
yes, thanks! I did understand all.
the 13th month is added every 3th year.
so every 3th year, a year has 13 months.
But, like you said, in 20% of the case, the jews must add A SECOND month.
So a 3 1/2 year period can have 44 months.
I have no objection.
My question is, where do they add the 44th Month.
or where do they add the SECOND month (every 4-9years).
If you look at the link that uses a piano keyboard to illustrate the 19 month cycle of intercalation, it shows that leap years are usually 3 years apart, so a typical 3 1/2 year period includes only 1 intercalary month of Adar II for a total of 43 months. But occasionally leap years occur only two years apart. In that case, a 3 1/2 year period would include 2 intercalary months of Adar II for a total of 44 months. That’s where the 44th month comes from: during a 3 1/2 year period when intercalary months are only two years apart, the 3 1/2 year period includes two Adar II’s two years apart. Does that make sense?
wonderful, now i understand what you mean! Thanks a lot! Yes it makes sense. I need it to write it down.
Thank you A LOT for your answers!!
That knowledge helps us solve the puzzle of the 2300 days. In the case of Daniel 12, we know that there must be two intercalary months in the last half of the 70th week because there are 1,290 days in it (Daniel 12:11). Based on the intercalary cycle, there would therefore only be one intercalary month in the first half. From Rosh Hashanah in one year to Hannukah 6 years later could only be 2,270 days if there were only two intercalry months in that six years. But because we know that there could be only one intercalary month in the first half because there are two in the second half, the period from Rosh Hashanah in 170 BC (the beginning of the persecution and the trampling), to Hanukkah in 164 BC (the cleansing of the temple), must of necessity contain exactly three intercalary months, and thus in that particular case it would be 2,300 days rather than 2,270 between those two festivals.
that much*
Hi Alessandro,
Great questions!
I’m glad to get the answers too.
Tim has also done many lectures on the Danielic Imperative here https://thorncrownministries.com/eschatology?rq=Danielic
They are very informative and make the most sense of anything I have read on Eschatology.
Cheers
hello John! Thanks very much.
Its funny, because right at this moment i am listening his Podcast there.
I listened through almost all 28 episodes already twice, or more.
Indeed, they are amazing.
I wanted to understand when sometimes 2 years are between 2 leapyear, and when 3.
Thats what Kauffman didnt adress in the Podcast. Of corse, he cant describe the hall jewish calender.. i know haha. But nevertheless i was willing to know it, thats why i asked.
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/jewish-leap-year.html
There they describe when the leapyear occurs all 19 years.
*„A leap year occurs 7 times in the 19-year Metonic cycle, namely, in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 of the cycle. This means that a leap month is added every 2 to 3 years.“*
so wee see, if a 3 1/2 YEAR-PERIOD occurs between the 4th and 7th year (for example); there are clearly 2 leap years, that means this would be a PERIOD where 44months are in a 3,5YEAR PERIOD
Hi Tim,
I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts and have learned a lot from them…so, thank you for all the effort you’ve put into this blog.
While I generally agree with many of your conclusions in this series, I think there are some subtleties that you glossed over and/or missed.
I have come to believe the reason we continue to see Simon Peter called Simon/Simeon (Greek/Hebrew) or called “Simon Peter” (even after the events of Matthew 16) is because Jesus didn’t actually CHANGE his name. This struck me when I realized some English translations refer to Peter as a “surname.” For example: Mark 3:16 (KJV) – “And Simon he surnamed Peter.”
When I came across this, I started digging a little further, and it seems to be a case where culture and history obscure what actually happened and English translation necessarily falls short. You can easily find information on this but Jews didn’t actually have “surnames” as we know them until the 10th-11th centuries. If I recall correctly, surnames as we know them didn’t really exist at all in the ancient world and Jews were actually some of the last to adopt them. There were various ways different cultures attached descriptive names/terms with certain meaning to an individual, some were related to family, some to occupation (I’m a Cooper – originally from someone that was a barrel maker), etc. At one point, you used the term “nickname” which I think is a little closer but still something of an incomplete idea. So what actually happened when Jesus “gave” Simon the name Peter, and then later in Matthew 16?
There are a number of clues. First, most English translations say something like this: Mark 3:16-17 (ESV) – “He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);”
I don’t know what is in the Greek that occasionally results in “surname” appearing with regard to Simon Peter but our translations are way more consistent with calling James and John the “Sons of Thunder.” As you pointed out, there’s no reason to speculate too much on the meaning but what I think IS important is that “Boanerges” and “Peter” would have had much more nuanced meaning than we are generally familiar with. By way of example, I have an adopted daughter from Ukraine. In Slavic cultures, they have a patronymic name (recorded as what we would call a middle name) AND a surname, whereas we think of them as one and the same (see:https://www.britannica.com/topic/patronymic). Most of us just recognize the later, with a middle name being more flexible and informal, as well as scenarios where an actual “change” does occur (e.g. when women are married and change their last name). How does this relate to Simon Peter?
With James and John, “Sons of Thunder” would have been stated as Bar-Boanerges in Aramaic (or Ben… if He had been speaking Hebrew, which he probably wasn’t). Regardless, what Scripture records and we have translated into English is the Greek descriptive phrase meaning the same thing (and it’s possible Jesus was speaking Greek). I believe when Jesus gave Simon the name “Petros” he was doing the exact same thing. I’m not sure why it isn’t recorded the same way (again, I don’t know what’s in the Greek). My only guess is that it was unconventional to describe someone with relation to a rock and they (the Disciples but certainly Simon Peter) were rather confused, at the time. “Thunder” may have represented a personality trait or may have had some association with what’s in Luke 9:54, as you mentioned. Whatever the case, I believe it made sense to them. At the time, it seems to me “rock” or a name derived from it by wordplay, had no immediate significance to them as a “surname.” It wasn’t patronymic (to them at the time, I’ll get to this), it wasn’t occupational, it wasn’t descriptive of his belief or personality, etc.
The other subtlety and where I think this all comes together in Matthew 16 is it’s the only passage where Jesus refers to Simon by use of a patronymic phrase (Bar-Jonah). In Matthew, we’re reading a Gospel written to a Jewish audience so it’s not surprising to see a Jewish/Aramaic convention: Matthew 16:17-18a (ESV) – “And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…'”
I believe what is going on here is Jesus is essentially saying: “Simon, you are the son of Jonah but you are also now a son of the Rock.” i.e. with the revelation given by the Father, Simon Peter was an adopted son of God. One might think of it as: “Simon Bar-Petra.” In other words, rather than it being a name change from Simon TO Peter (as is often incorrectly suggested), Simon Peter received God as Father, as we all do by the gift of faith. Following my personal example, my daughter is now a Cooper but she is still also, by her patronymic “middle” name, the daughter of a guy named Anatoli from Ukraine.
I don’t disagree with the passage from Isaiah you cited, nor necessarily what you are drawing from it but I think there is one much more directly related: Isaiah 51:1-2 (ESV)
“Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness,
you who seek the Lord:
look to the rock from which you were hewn,
and to the quarry from which you were dug.
Look to Abraham your father
and to Sarah who bore you;
for he was but one when I called him,
that I might bless him and multiply him.”
Abraham was “hewn” from the rock, which was Christ (or God’s word, as you say, there’s an interrelationship here) when he was called by God, as was Peter when he received the Father’s revelation in Matthew 16. Jerome and others recognized this in commenting on Isaiah 51. Roman Catholics make the same mistake as the ancient Jewish leaders. See how Jimmy Akin, one of the famed modern Protestant “converts” describes the passage (see the bottom of this page: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-5.html):
“But this rule, too, is not without exception. There is a rabbinic tradition that may well have gone back to Jesus’ day, describing one man as a rock: Abraham. Based on Isaiah 51:1-2 (“look to the rock (tsûr) from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged; Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you”), a number of Talmudic and midrashic texts, the earliest of which go back to the mid-second century, interpreted Abraham as the “rock” from which God’s people were hewn.”
Simon Peter may have been hewn from THE Rock in faith, as was Abraham, but most of the ancient Jews (particularly the leaders) didn’t have said faith and considered their status as deriving from a genealogy from Abraham and a long line of “fathers.” Jews and Roman Catholics view Abraham as THE rock, the later necessarily carrying the idea through to Peter. The true sons of Abraham are those who follow in and possess faith. This is clearly outlined in Romans 4. I don’t think it’s incorrect to refer to true and false descendants of Peter in a similar sense.
Again, Roman Catholics make the same mistake. They will endeavor to make a distinction between biological genealogies and their claimed lineage from “Apostolic succession” but they’re one and the same in practical terms. With all the intermarriage with neighboring cultures (Hellenization being a prime example), long histories of illegitimate marriages and children, and all sorts of stuff that happened through the Old Testament, very few actual known genealogies were in tact. Obviously we know that of Christ because it’s recorded in Scripture but Jewish ancestry must be muddled. In fact, I’m not sure why and haven’t really studied it but supposedly there’s evidence that Jews switched from a patrilineal to a matrilineal-based principle for the offspring of mixed unions of Jew and gentile, in the first century (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism).
Even the papacy suffers from problems of lineage that are conveniently ignored. Any honest Catholic scholar admits there was no mono-episcopate in Rome until at least the year 140, much less a papacy. The early accounts of “bishops” in Rome are conflicting and nobody knows which is more accurate. As I recall, they accounts equate Paul as an Apostolic founder and don’t even refer to he or Peter as a bishop . They love to cite Hippolytus on certain things but call him an anti-pope (along with others) to prop up their accepted list. They play philosophical charades with Avignon and the gaps that exist, historically. Perhaps most important, there are quite a few “popes” who obviously did not possess regenerate faith and were just power-hungry political pawns. This doesn’t align with Romans 4 or Matthew 16, at all.
I recently asked a Roman Catholic to produce a roster of names from any location, Rome or otherwise, of individuals going back to the 1st century. A list of names of so-and-so laid hands on so-and-so, who laid hands on so-and-so, through today. They went silent rather quickly. I’m not sure if they are off looking or not but I’m certain they won’t find it. I pray God opens their eyes, such that they find themselves hewn from the true Rock.
This is terrific, Scott. I think you’re quite right on the wordplay in Matthew 16. In truth,
thus answers to what Peter himself concluded later in his first epistle:
Simon, born of Jonah, but Peter, born of the Rock of the Father’s word. That’s the true wordplay.
I think Isaiah 51 is realistic as a corroboration, but I cited Isaiah 54 because that is the verse Jesus cited in John 6 during the Loaves Narrative where the people’s confession and Peter’s confession are thus linked.
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply.
Yes! That’s exactly what Simon Peter states in 1 Peter 1:23. Thank you, I hadn’t made that connection. It is also consistent with what Paul states in Galatians 3:29 (NKJV) – “And if you are Christ’s [born again by the word of God], then you are Abraham’s [true] seed, and heirs according to the promise” (sometimes translated as ‘offspring’). There are a lot of parallels between Galatians 3 and Romans 4.
I think this also relates to Matthew 23:9 (ESV) – “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Catholic Answers preys on linguistic and cultural obscurity here, too. They reduce the discussion to the echoing of syllables from one’s mouth (as do many Protestants in opposition) and call it hyperbole, which is non-sense (see: https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father).
They also compare what’s sometimes (but not always) translated as “Master” to the colloquial development of the term “Mister” (which is from the 16th century, IIRC) misleading people with the assumption that the meaning and cultural understanding parallels the etymological development of the word. The absurdity of their argument is evident even in modern English. Clearly when we teach our children to exhibit respect by calling someone “Mister” we are not teaching them those people are equivalent to Magistrates. The words derive from the same source. The same is the case with speaking the word “father,” rather than searching Scripture and history (as an informative example, not an infallible authority) for actual understanding, they trivialize the issue.
In Matthew 23, the issue isn’t with the syllables and sounds, it’s about our true sonship. Are we considered children of God either by Jewish ethnicity or Gentile birth to Christian parents, or pouring of water on our head, etc. or are we adopted sons, through our rebirth in faith? What determines whether we can call God: “Father?” If we view (or “call”) ourselves sons of an earthly Patriarchy, we aren’t free to serve the true Master, as I see it.
Interestingly, I’ve read that Gentile Proselytes in the 1st century were required to verbally name and acknowledge Abraham as their “father.” I’m curious if you know of anything in Roman Catholic liturgy or other custom whereby they “name” the Pope in a similar way or swear allegiance, etc.? I’m guessing priests and/or bishops do something like that but I’m also curious if there is anything that laypeople do at confirmation, etc. Do they assent to a dogma that the Pope is the head of the church, or anything like that?
That was good. Thx Scott. I’ll never read Matthew 16 the old way again.
It is my understanding that as a Roman Catholic you have to assent to the pope as not only head of the church but king of the world as I believe their doctrine says he carries both swords religious and civil. I’m not how many Catholics understand his claims.
There is much simpler evidence that this is “wordplay”. Consider Matthew 16:13 and Matthew 16:18b:
At the base of Mount Hermon in Caesarea Philippi is a cave called the “Gates of Hell”, which was associated with Greek Pan worship, Canaanite worship of Baal (Joshua 13), and other demonic activity. Jesus was clearly engaging in wordplay.
Also incredibly interesting is that you associate Isaiah 54:9…
…with Peter’s confession since the fallen angels (Nephilim), described in the Book of Enoch, whose abode was upon Mount Hermon and were subsequently destroyed in Noah’s flood.
It is also a fairly commonly held that the Transfiguration took place upon Mount Hermon, allegedly fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy of building his church there.
Tim, a quick note: Sonna’s discussion of the definite article occurs beginning at 4:33, not 6:41.
It’s such a strange argument. The New Testament is full of examples violating it, and if it were remotely true, then nearly all of the Fathers, including the Greek-speaking East, would have have been borderline-illiterate to have missed that Peter was the rock, instead establishing a near consensus against it.
But people will believe what they want. I’ve encountered a Catholic apologist who’s Chisholmed and gerrymandered this ad hoc “rule” to eventually claim that a noun phrase starting with ταύτη and contextually paralleled with some other noun phrase must always refer to a noun phrase within a dependent clause adjoining ταύτη, unless there are no such dependent clauses, in which case ταύτη is free to refer to whatever is contextually appropriate. This is such a specific construction that it’s almost impossible to readily evaluate, and besides that, the alleged regularity, even if almost always true, would easily arise from the contextual situations in which the majority of such constructions would likely occur: in very simple identity statements, like “This x is this y,” as well as other natural situations in which “this” is, by its very nature, apt to refer to something close by. Yet this “rule” is invoked to overturn the majority opinion of even the Catholic Church until the Counter-Reformation. It’s amazing.
Scott, ” im curious if you know of anything in RC liturgy or custom whereby they name the pope in a similar way or swear allegiance. ” The pope in Roman Catholicism has the power of both swords civil and religious according to their doctrine. Iow he’s God on earth of course claiming all three titles of the Trinity. You cannot be a Roman Catholic unless you assent to ALL these things. So a Roman Catholic by their assent in faith is swearing allegiance to a different head than God. So true Roman Catholics have no problem calling men father since in their assent swear allegiance to Holy Father pope. Scripture to me is clear, call no man father on the earth is perspicuous.