Yet, your statements do not fit with the Greek grammar at all. You may try to excuse the Greek Grammar, but the Greek Grammar cannot be changed. There does not appear to be any textual variants that could help you say what you are saying either.
Again, the "this" must have an antecedent that is in the nominative case. Basic Greek grammar logically must refer to Peter. If you can show me grammatically how it can refer to another sentence and another nominative case word in another sentence that overlooks a very close in proximity nominative case word, I may listen. Yet, I think you are on very thin ice in the Greek Grammar. While this refers to the rock, the rock must refer to something within that sentence and that seems clear it is Peter.
You said the word "you" referring to when Jesus said he will give "you the keys" to the kingdom is in the plural. I triple checked this and it appears you are wrong. The Greek words are dwsw soi, which both the dwsw and soi are in the 2nd person singular. I checked a couple of commentaries wondering if people saw a textual variant or there is an abnormal use of these words or if there could be a compound singular involved. I could find nothing to substantiate such a translation. One commentary clearly stated that it must refer to Peter because of the grammar. I tend to agree.
I don’t really avoid it because the question is Greek Grammar which should lead to interpretation. Thus, if I am correct in my grammar, the rest works out as well.
Apekalupsen is not the nearest antecedent. Petros in verse 18 is the nearest antecedent and verse 17 is a different sentence. The sentence states, “kagw de soi legw oti su ei Petros, kai epii tautn tn petra….” You can see that Petros is just a couple of words away from tautn tn petra. Petros is the nearest noun as you don’t have to jump over another sentence nor over other words to get to that antecedent. Petros is in the nominative case, thus is the most logical selection. Why you skip over Petros is not based upon grammar.
Yes, Jesus uses the second person pronoun for Jesus, but that is commonly done. The second person singular but emphasizes the subject of Peter by using the Nominative case, which is the most important portion of this scenario. I went on to consult several commentaries and grammars last night. No one I could find would say that Peter could not be the one it was referring to based upon grammar. Yes, some people had other explanations. I even went so far as to try to diagram this section. This makes logical and grammatical sense that this “this” could modify rock which is dealing with the nominative Peter. It also does not make sense to go to another sentence as you propose.
I have never argued for Presbyterianism. If you look at my historic analysis and other posts, I not advocate any type of Presbyterianism. Having mentioned my position several times, this again borders on either your ignorance of Presbyterianism, ignorance of my position, or just stereotyping. I do not even hold to Griffith’s version of Elders, which is not completely Presbyterian but closer than my own position.
As well, the Pastoral position is not to only serve the will of the people but to actually have authority.
Sample of Authority of Elders.
They made a decisive doctrinal statement in Acts 15, the congregations affirmed it, but never voted upon it.
Titus was told to preach various things and rebuke those with all authority who opposed (Titus 2:15). If he had no authority as a Pastor, he would have been told to take it to the congregation.
In III John, there are interesting statements. First, the author of III John, who is traditionally named as the apostle, refers to himself as “Elder” (v. 1). However, when Diotrophese refuses to listen, the Elder says, Diotrophese, “does not acknowledge our authority.” Once again, the appeal is not to the congregation, but an Elder.
The qualifications of an Elder states he must be able to rule/manage his own household. The Greek word here could be translated a number of ways, but it is used of a ruler ruling over his kingdom to a father ruling in his home. Thus, there is authority in the Eldership.
Hebrews 13:17 clearly states, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Therefore, there is solid authority in the Eldership. We are told to submit to them, there seems to be authority applied to them, and even Titus was told (not the congregation) to appoint other Elders, a job not delegated to the church. There is authority. We can discuss the limits of that authority which is a good discussion, but you cannot deny a real authority in the Eldership.
see more in the next post
