Greetings
The word play in Matthew 16:18 is a double entendre on the homonym PETROS.
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”-(Matthew 16:18 KJV)
“Peter” petros (Aramaic פטרוס ; Greek πέτρος) has two meanings, one Aramaic, one Greek. Jesus uses both in an ASYMMETRIC JANUS PARALLELISM (#2 below)
PETROS meaning πρῶτος (”First” 10:2) or PeTeR “Firstborn” is directed to what precedes– Simon is the “first born” of the divinely revealed word of faith (Romans 10:8)… and PETROS meaning “rock” applies to what follows, the immutable truth PETRA (which Simon confessed) from which flows life eternal, oil - Holy Spirit:
KJV 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.
“Thou art Firstborn (PeTRos) and upon this (immutable life giving) petra (which just gave you life), I will build my church.
This parsimonious view is to be preferred above all others suggested to date. Both grammar and syntax have Jesus is speaking TO Simon ABOUT the Rock, therefore he cannot be the rock. Nor can Jesus be both the builder and what He built upon. Nor do confession-rock metaphors exist in scripture, and Peter’s thrice denial of Christ shows his was anything but rock-like. Rather Jesus’ use of petra as the truth (Matt. 7:24) upon which a house can be built, and Paul’s metaphor of a life giving petra (1 Cor 10:4), must take precedence over all extra-biblical tradition, the use of which is circular reasoning, if it was influenced in any manner by the Cephas Party’s probable exegesis(1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 cp 4:6, Gal 2:9ff). There are many examples of double entendre in the Old Testament, Jesus was an expert on the OT. According to Immanuel Casanowitz there are some 500 examples of Paranomasia in the Old Testament (Boston, 1894). Compare Net Bible footnotes on Matt 9:21; Mark 5:28; Luke 1:78; John 3:16.
Compare Aramaic and Septuagint versions of:
Numbers 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock (kepha/petra)?
Deuteronomy 32:13 3 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock(kepha; petra), and oil out of the flinty rock(petra);
The imagery was well known:
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.-KJV
That is the word play, the Semitic Petros meaning “Firstborn”, and the Greek petros meaning “rock”:
Like a wise master builder, Jesus builds His church upon the immutable truth in this LOGOS:
KJV Matthew 7:24 ¶ 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(petra):
Romans 10:8-10 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach: 9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: 10 for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
This petra/petros metaphor is consistent with “Cephas” in Jn 1:42. “Thou art Simon (”Hearing”), therefore (as you heard the Word of God) you will be a stone of grace, a ‘lively stone’…”
KEPHA “rock, stone..which rock (when bored) will give forth water…”-”Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature,” Marcus Jastrow [Judaica Press, NT, 1996], p. 634).
Pr 3:15 “more precious than rubies,”
Aramaic Targum kepha: Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos;
Compare:
KJV 1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Out of the belly of believers flows the life giving truth Jesus is the Son of God, in this manner they are ‘lively stones’.
Greek primacy of Matthew (by extension, the entire NT) is also proved by this exegesis as only our Greek copies preserve the indications an Aramaic PETROS existed in Christ’s day. All extent Aramaic and Hebrew versions of Matthew follow the retranslation error rendering Simon Petros as Simon Kepha.
Parsimonously interpreted, the NT indicates Simon already had the name PETROS before John 1:42
John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Some may object Matthew wrote his narrative years after the event including knowledge gained later, to identify Simon.
However, it’s unlikely years after the event; Simon would be unknown to the reader. Observe Mark’s account conveys no worries about possible misidentification:
Mark 1:16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
Also Luke:
Luke 5:3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
Verse 8 parsimonously interpreted, has Simon known as Petros before the event in John 1:42.
From the frequency of surnames we can induce these were commonly used: Bartholomew/Nathanael; Matthew/Levi; Thomas/Didymus; James/Cleopas or Clopas; Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon called Zelotes.
PETROS in the New Testament does not give the appearance of a name unique to Simon. It lacks the property of uniqueness as by itself it failed to sufficiently identify Peter:
Acts 10:32 32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
Also Galatians (2:9), Paul switched from PETROS to Cephas,in a context asserting his apostleship equal to “the Twelve “, evidently Paul wanted all to know which Jew named PETROS was being critiqued.
In Professor M. Bockmuehl’s notes 3-4 (see #1 below) he listed various Aramaic spellings of PTR that could end up as PETROS. Simon appears to have been Andrew’s elder, perhaps “firstborn”? Firstborn status is important enough in Simon’s culture to appear in a name (cp Bôkerûw 1 Ch 8:38). Matt 10:2 obliquely confirms the one called PETROS is πρῶτος, as no other numbers follow in the list.
If Simon’s parents named him PETROS “firstborn”, then Christ added to it reference to the Kingdom (cp EPITITHEMI in Revelation 22:18), and made use of the Greek PETROS meaning “rock” for His double entendre with petra.
However, I am compelled to admit Jesus may have been the first to call Simon PETROS, perhaps taking advantage of the existing Aramaic/Greek homonym PETROS (see #3 below).
Jesus surnamed Simon PETROS only in Mt 16:18, not in Jn 1:42, there He said “thou art Cephas” It was John who said this Cephas is a petros, not Jesus.
John 1:42 …thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
For PETROS to be a proper noun in this verse, it would also be a transliteration, not as stated, a “interpretation.” John, not Jesus, explains what sort of Kepha Simon is, a petros, or small rock.
To illustrate, suppose “dove” is transliterated “xyz” language, and Christ said:
“…Thou shalt be called Dove, which is by interpretation, a bird.”
Just as “bird” is not the surname of the one called “Dove,” neither is PETROS in this verse a name for Simon.
Mt 16:18 is where Christ surnamed him PeTRos, “firstborn” as He is the “PeTeR,” the “First” to be born from above by the revelation Jesus is the Son of God.
None of the prior confessions of Jesus’ deity were a consequence of divine revelation (Matt 16:17), which is an incompatible property rendering it unique. Divine insight would create a depth of belief and perception impossible to achieve by any other method.
The confession in Matt 14:33 was most likely the result of fear, compare Mark 4:37-41; John 6:19-21. As for Nathanael’s confession (John 1:49)… Jesus’ reaction implies He deemed it insufficient (vs 50.). None of the other confessions resulted in a Makarisim (16:17), on which see HOW HONORABLE! HOW SHAMEFUL! A CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW’S MAKARISMS AND REPROACHES, K. C. Hanson: Semeia 68. “An experimental journal for Biblical criticism.”. (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.).
KC Hanson’s exegesis has Jesus publicly honoring Simon as “barJona,” not “Jonah redivivus,” but “bar” “son of, after its kind”. Like Jonah mentioned just a few verses earlier (16:4), the PeTeR was figuratively risen from the dead and speaking the Word of God which brings life to the repentant. Peter’s apostleship should not obscure his office as a prophet of God:
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe…14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Clearly Simon is the PRWTOS (10:2), the “First” to break through into the Kingdom of God via the divinely revealed “word of faith” (cp. Rom 10:6-13, 17; Gal 3:2; Eph 2:5-10); That is Matthew’s explanation why he is found first in all the lists, he is “the first, Simon, the one called PETROS.”
It is interesting to note both Mark and Luke leave clues they left this precise event out of their gospels.
Mark 8:30 “Then he charged them they they should tell no man of him.”
Luke 9:21 “And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;”
In obedience to Jesus’ command, they leave out what is “about him…that thing” being the immutable life giving petra-truth upon which the church is built, that Jesus is the Son of God.
The Holy Spirit thereby identifies precisely the immutable truth-petra (”word of faith”) upon which the church is built, as being “Jesus is the Son of God,” i.e., God the Eternal Son, “the LORD Jesus” (Rom 10:9). John’s gospel, written much later, makes this clear (John 3:19; 20:31).
Re “Keys of the Kingdom”:
“Elijah prayed that the keys of resurrection might be given him, but was answered, Three keys have not been entrusted to an agent: of birth, rain, and resurrection. Shall it be said, Two are in the hands of the disciple and [only] one in the hand of the Master? Bring [Me] the other and take this one, as it is written, Go, shew thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.-Sanhedrin 113a
The Soncino Talmud (Judaica Press, 1973) in Judaic Classics Library Ver 2.2 (Davka Corp., 2001)
These keys access the divine knowledge (Luke 11:52) , with them one learns the will of God on any specific matter, hence their connection to binding and loosing.
Matthew 16: 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Compare:
Matthew 18:18-20 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 [U]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. [/U]
The common element is divine revelation concerning a matter. (Peter’s “firstborn” status might be implied by his “double (Deu 21:17) authority”–being able to bind and loose without the assent of another.
A key enabled one to know the already established will of God, so that binding and loosing by the key holder could transpire “according to His will”:
“In the two passages of Matthew the future perfects seem to imply a permanent condition rather than a condition prior to the time of the relative clause, and they mean, “Whatever you bind or loose on earth will prove thereafter to have been bound or loosed in heaven.” Or, to paraphrase, Matthew’s future perfects imply “shall be once for all,”
Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (366). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
God isn’t concurring with man’s will, rather God’s already established decree is known in the realm of the creature, and in this sense completed, just as one’s “calling and Election” is “made sure” by Christian acts, not that the latter can affect either one’s calling or election one iota (2 Pet 1:10). An analogy, the faith of Abraham is completed (τελειόω) when its fruits declare its existence (James 2;22) in the realm of the finite creature.
We must put this entire in context, the keys were necessary before the New Testament was completed, while the foundation of apostles and prophets were still revealing the will of God via supernatural knowledge (1 Cor 12:28-30; 14:6). They alone had these keys and as they passed from the scene, once the New Testament was completed, supernatural knowledge of God’s will, apart from His written word, ceased (cp 1 Cor 13:8-13 analogy; Heb. 2:3-4).
As no one is writing scripture today, it is impossible any today have these keys. We have the completed Bible containing all the knowledge of God necessary to salvation:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Re Gates of Hell:
Contrary to popular pagan inspired belief, Satan and his demons are terrified of hell (Luke 8:28-31), hence this metaphor has no reference to their power at all.
Jesus and His disciples saw “the gates of Hades-Sheol-Hell” as symbolic of utter defeat. Its at the gates of a city where the change begins, where one realizes all one’s dreams and hopes, are lost. Its where people are completely vanquished.
LXT Isaiah 38:10 ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν ἡμερῶν μου ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα
Isaiah 38:10 I said in the height of my days, I shall go to the gates of hell: I shall part with the remainder of my years.
Hence the reverse, resurrection, is victory:
KJV 1 Corinthians 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Hence “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is referring to His promise; death will not stop it:
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Ephesians 4:8-13 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
END
#1 Str.-B.,III 258. “Firstborn” can also be used in malam partem: the most dangerous or dreadful of its kind (ibid., 258 f.); cf. already Job 18:13 (Mas.): “firstborn of death” for a bad illness. Cf. also πρωτότοκος τοῦ σατανᾶ for a heretic, Pol., 7, 1; cf. Mart. Pol. Epil., 3; Iren. Haer., III, 3, 4. Cf. W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit u. Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (1939), 74, 237. The Aram. proper name פֶּטְרוֹס (on the various ways of writing it cf. Str.-B., I, 530 on Mt. 10:2) may be connected with פטר and if so means the διανοίγων τὴν μήτραν 872, 27, the firstborn. Cf. 101, n. 8; O. Cullmann, Petrus (1952), 13 and n. 11; 14, n. 13 (ET [1953], 19, n. 11, 13); O. Betz, “Felsenmann u. Felsengemeinde,” ZNW, 48 (1957), 65, n. 48.-Footnote 31 Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. VI, p. 876 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
Mas. Masora.
Pol. Epistle of Polycarp.
Mart. Martyrium.
Pol. Polycarpi.
epil. epilogium.
Iren. Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, bishop of Lyons, martyred 202 A.D. during the persecution under Severus, ed. in MPG, 7, 1882.
Aram. Aramaic.
101, n. Probably there lies behind this closer definition the need in polygamy to distinguish between the firstborn of the father and the firstborn of the mother, H. Haag, Art. “Erstgeburt,” Bibel-Lex. [1956], 422). The formulations are, of course, more general and do not bring out the distinction, a matriarchal background being no longer apparent, cf. J. Hempel, “Das Ethos d. AT,” Beih. ZAW, 67 (1928), 68. On the other hand it is evident that in polygamy the firstborn (or firstbegotten) of the father must occupy a special position as the “רֵאשִׁית of his power” (Gn. 49:3; Dt. 21:17).
ET The Expository Times, Edinburgh 1900 ff.
ZNW Zeitschrift für die nt.liche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, 1900 ff.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
There may be evidence from Qumran (4QM[ilik]130) that this was a Jewish name in use before Christ and not a nickname created by Jesus uniquely for his apostle (Charlesworth 1992). Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (60). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Its unclear if this is the PETROS Prof. Marcus Bockmuehl disputes, in an Email he said:
The answer is almost certainly No. I have some comments on this in the following article:
Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. ‘Simon Peter’s Names in Jewish Sources.’ Journal of Jewish Studies 55: 58-80.
The relevant section reads as follows (footnote numbering changed from n.88ff):
“Some years ago James Charlesworth suggested the possibility that the name Petros might have turned up in the controversial Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4Q341, [1] although both his reading and the identification of this document as a medical text were quickly rejected by Joseph Naveh and others. [2] Regardless of Charlesworth’s text, however, 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. [3] 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. [4] A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy. [5]
________________________________________
[1] Line 8. The document was first published as the supposed medical text 4QTherapeia by Allegro 1979:235-44 and pls. 16-17, and re-edited under the same name by Charlesworth 1985. Naveh 1986 decisively queried both the identification of a medical genre and the proposed reading swr+yp, which was re-affirmed in Charlesworth 1992 (with minimal response to Naveh) and accepted e.g. by Thiede 2000:67 with 291n.100 (and more tentatively by Bivin 1994:38n.17).
[2] Naveh 1986, widely followed, identifies the text as a writing exercise and reads line 9b as ysysyr+y; cf. more recently Naveh 2000 (his official publication of the text in DJD). Charlesworth 1987 retracted his earlier view that 4Q341 is a medical text (cf. Charlesworth 1992:219-20), although he persists in reading the first word of line 9b together with the last letter of the previous line, as swr+y.p (confirmed in a personal conversation, 8.8.2002).
[3] Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin Nyr+p son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon No. 413, pre-73) and Patron Nwr+p son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –oj as Nw- or Ny -was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
[4] E.g. y. Moed Qat. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5; Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2; For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892-99:1.128, 2:512n.5 and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name sr+yp is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from swr+yp to sr+yp and sr+p. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalizations encountered in the various English translations. swr+p in t. Demai 1.11 is a place name.
[5] Noy 1993-95:1 No. 8 (=CIJ 12:643a). Noy’s conviction (p.14) that this is a baptismal name seems plausible, but may need to be tempered by the rabbinic use of that name.”
Hope this helps. Please acknowledge and cite the original of my article accurately.
Yours sincerely
Markus Bockmuehl
I asked Professor Charlesworth to respond to this, which did in a 12/15/2007 email:
“The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.”-James H. Charlesworth
I conclude PETROS exists, disputes about its location notwithstanding. Professor M. Bockmuehl helpfully summarized the various evidences for it beyond reasonable doubt. The full text of his very interesting and informative article can be found here:
http://www.jjs-online.net/toc.php?subaction=sample&PHPSESSID=fabd93f175e00eed92bf74e921b265ab#
____________________________________________________________________________
When I shared my conclusions with Prof. Charlesworth and thanked him for his invaluable help, he emailed back (2/9/08):
“Alfred
All this is fascinating as we obtain a better grasp of the genius for double entendre among the early Jews.”
____________________________________________________________________
#2 Amos [1:11] may very well have selected this rare Hebrew noun, moreover, in order to effect a double entendre or Januslike construction.220
220 For the literary phenomenon of “Janus parallelism,” see C. H. Gordon (“New Directions,” BASP 15 [1978] 59–60), on Cant 2:12*; idem, “Assymetric Janus Parallelism,” in Eretz Israel 16 [Harry M. Orlinsky Volume; ed. B. A. Levine and A. Malamat; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982] 80*–81*), who defines the phenomenon as “when a polyseme parallels what precedes it with one meaning and what follows it with a different meaning…; it looks both ways but with different faces.” He further adds that the “spirit of punning allows a modicum of phonetic liberty.” See also G. Rendsburg, “Janus Parallelism in Gen 48:26,” JBL 99 (1980) 291–93; D. T. Tsumura, “Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8” JBL 102 (1983) 109–11; E. Zurro, “Disemia de brḥ y paralelismo bifronte en Job 9:25,” Bib 62 (1981) 546–47. Although not all of the cited examples in these articles are convincing, the phenomenon does exist and merits a special investigation. See also Watson (Hebrew Poetry, 159), who suggests an example from Ugaritic, CTA 3 B ii 24–26, and Jer 2:14–15*. For a comprehensive study of this literary phenomenon, see now S. M. Paul, “Polysensuous Polvalency in Poetic Parallelism,” in “Sha˓arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991) 147–63.
Paul, S. M., & Cross, F. M. (1991). Amos : A commentary on the book of Amos. “The endpapers…display fragments of a leather scroll of Amos (1:3-5)…, dated…1st century C.E., from Qumran Cave 5…”–Editor’s note. Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (65). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Similarly the Song utilizes double entendre in various ways. For example in 2:12 the Song exhibits an exotic asymmetric Janus parallelism in which a word with dual meanings parallels what precedes it with one meaning and what follows with a different meaning. For example in 2:12 the Hebrew word זָמִיר means “pruning,” to parallel the reference to “flowers,” and the same Hebrew word also means “song” to correspond with “the voice of the turtledove.”62 Double entendre in the Song also may involve a “polysemantic pun” in which a common noun יָד (“hand”) may subtly suggest to the reader the possible rare meaning “phallus” (see 5:4).63 A similar phenomenon is the occurrence of the two Hebrew homonyms רָעָה meaning either “to shepherd, graze, feed, pasture” or “to associate with,” which is the root for the feminine noun רַעְיָה, “friend, darling.” The young man is a shepherd who pastures his flock (1:7; cf. v. 
and who feeds (or grazes) among lilies (2:16; 6:2–3), a metaphor associated both with the lips of the man (5:13) and with his beautiful “darling’s” body parts (4:5; 7:2). He is both a shepherd who grazes his flock and a lover who “feeds” on the delights of his darling. 64 So through creative imagery-especially from nature-the Song frequently utilizes a subtle double entendre in many of the poems.
62 62. Mariaselvam, The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems, 55; and Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 159, 370–71.
63 63. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 241–42; and Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 129–30, esp. n. 10.
64 64. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, 96–98.
Dallas Theological Seminary. (1999; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 156 (156:408-409). Dallas Theological Seminary.
_______________________________________________________________________________
#3
“The preference for the form Petros may have been due in part to the fact that in Aramaic there was a proper name Petros, which perhaps had the meaning “first-born.” 12 This, however, is not certain.…
12 J. Levy, Neuhebräisch-chaldäisches Wörterbuch,1876 ff.; Dalman, Aramäisch- neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 2nd ed., 1922; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol I, p. 530
…
14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name swrjp (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with rjp (patar) “firstborn.” The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it.”-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann, translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.
I find Cullman’s comment above inconsistent with the data….and the reason he gives against the “theory of retranslation” is unsound. In Paul’s letters “Cephas” always radiates the property of uniqueness to Simon, which property doesn’t exist in PETROS at all. If PETROS were derived from Cephas, it would be as unique to Simon as Cephas manifestly was. In Galatians 2:9 Paul considers it necessary to switch from PETROS to Cephas. As the context has Paul asserting his equal standing with the “Twelve” his switch is best explained as implying “I am an apostle equal even to the Cephas, lest you think I am critiquing some other Jew named PETROS.”
Moreover, if Cephas=Petros, why petros at all? Why not do as Jn 1:42 and render it Cephas everywhere? Or, if we accept kephas underlies petros, why switch to petra in Mt 16:18? If petros worked just fine in Matt. 4:18; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28f; 15:15; 16:16, 18, 22f; 17:1, 4, 24, 26; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33, 35, 37, 40, 58, 69, 73, 75, why switch to petra in Mt 16:18b? Evidently the theory Simon PETROS is Simon petros “rock” cannot account for the data.
END
I pray you chose to share it with others.
May the Eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ our LORD, grant peace to your house. Amen, come LORD Jesus!
