5 Questions

Each numbered point here corresponds with ReformedApologist’s answer to that number question.

1) Yes, all the apostles heard what Jesus said, and for the sake of argument I’ll grant that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Peter’s faith, but you can’t deny that Peter alone received the power to bind and loose in verse 19. And yes, they all received that power later, but that’s the point. Why did Peter receive it by himself before he received it again with the other 11?

2) No, the other apostles didn’t receive the keys of the kingdom. Unless you can demonstrate that the power to bind and loose is the same exact thing as the keys (and not merely asserting that they are without any evidence), then only Peter received them.

3) The first and second you’s in this passage are plural in the Greek. Satan wanted to sift all the apostles like wheat, but Jesus prayed that Peter would strengthen all the apostles. Now, why would Jesus pray for Peter, the one who would deny Him three times? Like I said in my question, it would make more sense for Him to have prayed for John, the only one who didn’t run away. So why did He pray for Peter? A leader is supposed to strengthen his people, so it makes sense that Peter, the first pope, would be called upon to strengthen the other apostles.

In Luke 22:31, whom does Satan desire to sift as wheat? All twelve of the apostles. The Lord speaks to Simon Peter, but addresses the rest also. The Greek words meaning “you” in this verse are plural in number and form…

In Luke 22:32, is the “you” plural or singular? The Greek words meaning “you” in this verse are singular in number and form…They are directed at Peter alone.¹

4) That would be a plausible interpretation if Peter didn’t end the debate by authoritatively declaring that the Gentiles didn’t have to follow the Jewish Law. As I’ve explained in my opening statement and answers to your questions, James was merely suggesting a pastoral implementation of the doctrine that Peter already defined, and the council liked it and used it. As you said, he quoted Amos 9, but he was merely backing up what Peter said. Until you can give me an interpretation that includes everything that I take into account, including Peter’s ending the debate, the Catholic interpretation stands as the only possible interpretation.

5) That’s actually a plausible interpretation that I can’t argue with. I said that the other Jewish Christians just followed Peter’s example by not eating with the Gentiles, but you said that they were also scared and weren’t just following Peter. Both are plausible interpretations. Although, you do seem to suggest in your answer that Peter was bending to their authority, but he wasn’t. Rather, he was just afraid of being persecuted by them.

The Rock of Matthew 16:18

The indented words are ReformedApologist’s, and below are my responses.

Then you state that you are no scholar, and cannot debate this. You then object by saying “but it is not that relevant.” What could be more relevant than going to the texts themselves in the original language in which it was written in order to determine what was being said?

What I meant was that because I don’t use that to support my position, it’s not relevant to my argument.

Since 1) there are no Aramaic manuscripts, 2) you say we cannot be sure about the original language the Gospel According to Matthew was written in, why do you make the positive assertion that it was most likely a translation of the Aramaic that Jesus spoke? Wouldn’t a translation of something preclude it from being the original source?

It’s a translation of the Aramaic because that’s the language Jesus spoke. And yes, it does preclude Matthew’s Gospel from being an original source; the original source is Jesus’ words at the time He spoke them. However, that’s getting overly technical, and it probably wasn’t the best way to make the transition from talking about the original language of Matthew’s Gospel to the language that Jesus spoke.

Your objection that because Matthew uses two different words for rock in 16:17-19, that it makes the wording “awkward”, because then Jesus would be talking about two different things; well that is just part of serious exegesis. Since no evidence can be mustered to demonstrate beyond all doubt that this passage is to be understood in Aramaic, I see no reason to question or doubt the Greek that Matthew used here.

You’re putting words in my mouth; I never said that. What I did say is that the Protestant interpretation of the two different words doesn’t fit the context of verses 17-19, so it’s most likely incorrect.

Each numbered point here corresponds with ReformedApologist’s response to that number argument in my opening statement defending the belief that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18.

1) As I said in my answers to your questions, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not classical Greek, in which petros and petra are synonyms.

2) No, you never dealt with this. You dealt with the argument (that I never used, by the way) that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Greek, but you never dealt with the original Aramaic that Jesus spoke. The fact that Jesus almost certainly used kepha both times supports (granted, it doesn’t prove it, but it supports it) the idea that petros and petra are synonyms.

3) Yes, Scripture does use the metaphor of foundation and cornerstone for both Jesus and all the apostles, but that doesn’t mean that Peter can’t be the sole rock in a third sense. Psalm 18:2 says that God is our rock, and Isaiah 51:1-2 calls Abraham a rock. Do these passages contradict each other? Of course not; the same metaphor can be applied to different things in different ways. Besides all this, what ReformedApologist said doesn’t actually deal with the argument. Instead, he just gave one more argument against the Catholic interpretation, and now he has to actually deal with my argument.

4) Again, ReformedApologist says he dealt with this, but he didn’t. He dealt with the words petros and petra, but that’s not the same as dealing with arguments against his position from other words in the passage.

Christ spoke in the Syrian tongue, and therefore did not use this discourse to distinguish between Petros, which signifies Peter, and Petra, which signifies a rock, but in both places used the word Cephas: but his meaning is what is written in Greek, in which the different word endings distinguish between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and foundation: or else he named him Peter because of the confession of his faith, which is the Church's as well as his, as the old fathers witness, for so says Theophylact. That confession which you have made, shall be the foundation of the believers.

As I have shown, petros and petra are synonyms, so the first argument doesn’t work. The second argument merely ignores the obvious play on words and twists the verse around so as to escape the Catholic interpretation by any means. The four arguments that I gave in my opening statement still stand, and unless ReformedApologist can refute them, Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His Church.

Also, if you could, I would like you to tell me where that quote from Theophylact comes from and provide some context.

Endnotes

1) Dahlgren, Butler, and Hess, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys

Back