There is no sublimer story in the scriptures than that presented in Matt. 16, beginning at verse 13; none fuller of rich and blessed meaning. The question concerning Himself, put by our Lord when He had come into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, led to a wonderful unfolding of His Person and His work. And first we may notice that while the Lord addressed each of His two questions to the disciples generally, with special appeal to their knowledge in the second—to their enlightenment already gained ("But whom do ye say that I am?"), yet it is Peter alone who is spokesman the second time, the other disciples having merely repeated what was common report, and derived its importance simply because of the Person whom it concerned.
We can understand the perplexity of the multitude. No doubt the occasional severity of our Lord (for, although, “when meekness became Him, He was meek,” yet “when severity, none could withstand His overwhelming and withering rebuke") led them to think of His forerunner, John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, or of the latter himself; at other times Jeremiah was naturally recalled, as they beheld Him who was the Man of Sorrows. Surely the disciples knew better than this, as is implied by the words already quoted: “But whom say ye that I am?” Yet doubtless their thoughts were vague, and Peter himself spoke prophetically, and probably with less realization of the awe-compelling truth than he afterward attained. But what a unique privilege it was thus to be singled out! and how prominent is Peter ever in the Evangel! It cannot be denied that administratively he was to be the chief of the apostles. Later on, in this very episode, we have the conferring of the keys, symbolic and prophetic of the fact that Simon Peter was to open to both Jew and Gentile.
But now let us consider more particularly the words we have taken for our text. “Thou art Peter.” It is most interesting to couple this utterance of our Lord to Simon Peter with words addressed by Him to the same apostle at an earlier date, and recorded in John 1:4242And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (John 1:42), “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” i.e., Peter, a stone. In the latter case we have the Lord prophetically announcing the future greatness and strength of His servant, as with prescient eye He looked upon him (the word is a very energetic one—it is ἐμβλέψας—, literally, “having fixed a look upon"), and (may we not say?) “apprehended” him (see Phil. 3:1212Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12)). In the former we find the Savior emphatically, as it were, sealing the rock-name upon him as now at last evidently and pre-eminently his. It was Simon Peter's in virtue of his great confession, as it has been justly called. Most true it was that Simon had not discovered the mystery of the Lord's Person; the Father in heaven had revealed it. Yet—and this is in beautiful accord with the ways of God's grace—the confessor was pronounced blessed. And this blessedness the Lord had anticipated when Andrew brought to Him his more famous brother, as we have already seen.
“Thou art Peter.” There is often a great deal in names, at any rate in Bible names. These are so often what logicians call connotative, i.e., they not merely denote persons (things too, but this is beside our present point we are dealing exclusively with personal names), but they imply qualities. Above all is this the case with appellations of God Himself. Think of the various names by which He is revealed in the Old Testament; then pass to the exceedingly great number of names of our Lord in both Old and New Testaments. And in a lesser degree we see the same principle strikingly at work in an Abraham, an Israel, a Joseph, a Solomon, etc. All these names are revelations of character or of office. Nor is this confined to the Old Testament, as we may see by considering the meaning of Barnabas, of Boanerges, of Stephen, and lastly of Peter.
Another interesting thing is that our Lord seems to have imposed such names in three cases only. He called James and John Boanerges, i.e., sons of thunder, and Simon He called Peter, a stone. Usually, however, it would appear that Christ addressed His disciples by names already theirs when He drew them to Himself (see Matt. 17:2323And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry. (Matthew 17:23)). Such might or might not possess a meaning in keeping with their gifts or their character. At any rate, in the case of Peter, James, and John, the names Boanerges and Peter were conferred on account of what our Lord saw in them, and purposed to make of them. These names are, then, connotative in the highest degree, and are charged with great and significant meaning. Yet, as we have said, the three apostles so favored were habitually addressed by our Lord by their original names.
Next we must notice how the Lord, when pronouncing Simon blessed, called him by his full name, Simon Bar-jona. Was not this to emphasize his lowly estate as a man? Was he not, apart from the divine grace, merely Simon, son of Jonah, or Jonas? And does it not recall the mysterious scene by the lake of Tiberias, after the resurrection, when the Savior again called Peter “Simon, son of Jonas"? By his bitter fall he had made manifest that in himself he was but Simon, son of Jonas, and so the Lord has to remind him of it. Ever as such, grace was about to raise him morally and spiritually higher than ever he was before. May we not say that the reminder came to enhance the contrast? But here, at Caesarea Philippi, such contrast is rather between what man is by nature in his essential weakness (apart from the question of failure and sin perhaps) and the high privilege granted to the apostle of declaring, more adequately than ever before, the divine glory of his Master. Thus we see there is a most pointed antithesis between Simon, Bar-Jona, and Peter.
The next thing we have to note is how the divine glory of the Son appears in the same verse 18, where it is rather, “I also say,” than, “I say also.” In J.N.D.'s version it is given with full emphasis, but not more than the original warrants, “I also, I say unto thee.” Clearly here we have the personality of the Son answering to that of the Father in verse 17. While it was the Father who had revealed the wonderful truth to Simon Peter, and not mere “flesh and blood” (this phrase here probably denoting necessary human weakness apart from anything of corruption), we immediately after have the authority and dignity of the Son— “I also.” For the pronoun is in strong relief, so to speak, by a simple device of language familiar to even tyros in Greek, but which our English tongue, though possessed of so many excellencies, is unable to accomplish. As we know, it is common to note the emphasis of the pronoun by italics. But Greek requires no extraneous means. And while speaking of this matter, it will be convenient to point out that in the words, “I will build my church,” the emphasis is on the building; in other words there is no separate pronoun, the “I” being contained in the verb; and moreover it is a future building. How interesting to couple with it the several statements in Mark and the Acts respectively, “the Lord working with them,” and, “all that Jesus began both to do and teach!” How perfect are the Scriptures! How admirably every part dove-tails, as it were, with every other! We would confess how little we know, and yet thank God for all that He has revealed to those who seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who “go down on their knees,” as one has said, to receive instruction, so that the marvels of the divine oracles can be disclosed to them. If we go to the Bible believing our Lord to be what He claimed to be, how wonderfully everything falls into order. If we doubt, or disbelieve, then perplexities grow apace, and “from him that hath not is taken even what he seemed to have.”
Lastly, we may note that the blessed Lord condescends to “play” upon the word Peter. At any rate the paronomasia is distinctly there—in the Greek. Whether the Lord at Caesarea Philippi spoke in Aramaic or Greek may be a matter of doubt with students; and, if He spoke in Aramaic the antithesis present in the Greek words (πέτρος and πέτρα) may there be as non-existent as in the English equivalents. But, at any rate, in the inspired word we have a striking and most interesting case of what is known as “playing” on words. Nor is it a solitary instance in Holy Writ. Examples could be quoted from the writings of Paul. Some perhaps might not have looked for this in scripture. But there it is, and it need not be said how all is consistent with the deepest solemnity. The “play” on the words simply enhances the vivid force of the truth. “Thou art Peter (Πέτρος) and on this rock (πέτρα) I will build my church.” Mark, it is His church, and He is still building. No wonder then that “gates even of Hades shall not prevail against it.” They shall not “prevail"; the Lord does not say that His church will not receive heavy and grievous shocks, but that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. This should comfort us; for His church must stand.
R. B.