St. Matthew 16:13-19
And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
This is the passagse in which Simon’s name is changed to Petros (Greek) or Cephas (in Aramaic; cf. St. John 1:42). Cephas means rock. Petros also means rock. Even though the literal word is petra, Jesus never wished to give Peter a feminine name. Simon is OBVIOUSLY A MAN!
If “upon this rock” does not refer to St. Peter, then why did Christ change Simon’s name right then and there? What was the purpose of adding “Thou art Peter”.
in St. John 1:42, we have an Aramaic translation of Simon’s new name, and it is Cephas, which means “rock.” If Protestants were right and Peter was only a “little stone” (a petros), then the Aramaic word to use would have been “evna”, not “cephas.”
IN SACRED SCRIPTURES, NAME CHANGES ALWAYS OCCUR WHEN
SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT OCCURS.
1 Saint Peter 5:13
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark”.
Babylon is a code-word for Rome (Roman Empire) (Ruled by the Caesars, not the Popes).
PULPIT COMMENTARY
Verse 13. – The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; literally, the co-elect in Babylon ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή. The word “Church” is given in no manuscripts with the remarkable exception of the Sinaitic; the rest have simply “the co-elect.” We ask – What word is to be supplied, “Church” or “sister”? Some think that St, Peter’s wife (comp. Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5) is intended, or some other well-known Christian woman (comp. 2 John 1). In favor of this view is the following salutation from Marcus. It is more natural to join together the names of two persons than to couple a Church with an individual. Also it scorns exceedingly improbable that such a word as “Church” should be omitted (a word, we may remark, which occurs nowhere in St. Peter’s Epistles), and the ellipse left to be filled up by the readers. On the other hand, it is said to be unlikely that a humble Galilaean woman should be described as “the co-elect in Babylon.” This argument would have considerable weight if the apostle were writing from large and well-known Church, like that at Rome; but it is quite possible that “the co-elect” might be the only Christian woman, or the one best known among a very small number in Babylon. On the whole, it seems most probable to us that by “the co-elect” (whether we supply “together with you” or “with me”) is meant a Christian woman known at least by name to the Churches of Asia Miner, and therefore very possibly St. Peter’s wife, who, St. Paul tells us, was his companion in travel. The question now meets us – Is “Babylon” to be taken in a mystic sense, as a cryptograph for Rome, or literally? Eusebius, and ancient writers generally, understand it of Rome. Eusebius is commonly understood to claim for this view the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria (as has been stated in the Introduction, p. 9.). But the historian’s words (‘Hist. Eccl.,’ 1. 15. 2) seem to claim that authority only for the connection of St. Peter with St. Mark’s Gospel; the identification of Babylon with Rome seems to be mentioned only as a common opinion in the time of Eusebius. It is said that there is n o trace o f the existence of a Christian Church at the Chaldean Babylon, and no proof, apart from this passage, that St. Peter was ever there. There had been a great Jewish colony at Babylon, but it had been destroyed in the time of Caligula. In answer to these arguments, it may be urged that the cryptograph of Babylon for Rome would probably not be understood; even if we assume the earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse, that book could scarcely be known very generally in Asia Minor when this Epistle was written. St. Peter at Babylon, like St. Paul at Athens, may have met with little success; the infant Church may have been quickly crushed. There may have been a second settlement of Jews at Babylon between A.D. and the date of this Epistle. But it is quite possible that St. Peter may have been working as a missionary among the Babylonian Gentiles, for we cannot believe that he confined his ministrations to the Jews. On the whole, it seems much more probable that St. Peter was writing at the famous city on the Euphrates, though no traces of his work there remain, than that he should have used this one word in a mystical sense at the end of an Epistle where all else is plain and simple (see this question discussed in the Introduction, p. 9.). And so doth Marcus my son. Τέκνον is the word used by St. Paul of spiritual relationship (see 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4). St. Peter has υἱός here. Still, it seems most probable that Marcus, mentioned as he is without any further description, is not a son of the apostle after the flesh, but the well-known John Mark of the Acts (see Introduction, p. 8.).
Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8).
“The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19).
“[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5).
“And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2).
“[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10).
“So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
Babylon had been reduced to a village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. The only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
I repeat: BABYLON IS A CODE WORD.
AS A CODE WORD IT CAN BE REFERRED TO MORE THAN ONE CITY