One of our followers Facebook apologetics page has asked me to analyze some objections that a Protestant who calls himself Danny Totocayo has written against the doctrine of the Primacy of Peter.
Background
I already knew the character in question, because he is the same one who back in 2012 dedicated himself to spreading a rumor on social networks and in a protestant forum where I stated that I had abandoned the Catholic Church and founded a sect because I had stopped believing in the dogma of transubstantiation. He gave me a set of quite absurd reasons to renounce the dogma. When I asked him for an explanation, he confessed that he had invented everything to get my attention and invite me to a debate, and that the arguments he attributed to me were more his own. On that occasion I just ignored it and made a clarification on my blog in case anyone took it seriously. Since then he has continued to launch debate challenges left and right like a fatuous braggart.
And although I normally ignore him since then, this time I will make an exception and analyze some of his objections, based on a reader’s request.
Analyzing the objections
The article begins with the following introduction and then continues with different points that I will comment on one by one (bold letters are mine):
|
«PETER, THE ROCK ON WHICH CHRIST WOULD BUILD HIS CHURCH? The Catholic Church believes that Matthew 16:13-18 teaches that Peter is the rock on which Christ would build his church. The catechism says: “The Catholic Church further affirms: “On the rock of this faith, confessed by Peter, Christ has built his church…In the college of the twelve, Simon Peter occupies first place (Cf. Mk 3,16; 9,2; Lk 24,34; 1Co 15,5). Jesus entrusts him with a unique mission. Thanks to a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”Then our Lord declared: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). Christ, “Living Stone” (1P 2,4), assures His Church, built on Peter, victory over the powers of death. Peter, because of the faith confessed by him, will be the unbreakable rock of the Church. He will have the mission of guarding this faith in the face of every weakness and of confirming his brothers in it (Cf. Lk 22:32)” (CIC N°552). |
Now comes the point:
| «1. Here we see a contradiction, first it is said that the rock was the confession that Peter made about Jesus. That confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; but later it is said that that rock is Peter. That’s absurd. Here they are giving two different meanings to the rock and that is not credible just because they say it. Furthermore, they say that only Peter is the rock. Here is a quote: “The Lord made Peter, and him alone, the stone of his Church” (Catechism No. 881). As we can see there is a contradiction here. |
As you can see, the objection at this point is reduced to concluding that there is a contradiction in Catholic teaching because the Catechism admits two different interpretations regarding the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. The issue is to see if they are exclusive either complementary.
in my previous article I precisely addressed this blind spot very common of Protestantism that leads them to see contradictions where there are none. It is not exclusive to understand that Jesus solemnly changes the name of Simon to Peter to give him a new identity and a new function as steward of the Kingdom of Heaven, and at the same time to understand that he was chosen for his ministry by the nature of his faith.
In other words, this passage can be understood in two ways and based on two different but complementary meanings: Saint Peter is the rock on which the Church is built in terms of visible authority instituted by Jesus Christ to govern and shepherd it, but at the same time it is his confession of faith that doctrinal foundation of it.
This, of course, is easy to understand from a Catholic understanding where the Church is considered as a visible institution that consists of a hierarchy made up of bishops, presbyters, deacons and lay people, where each one has a function. But not for a Protestant worldview where the Church is only invisible and there is no authority superior to the private and personal interpretation of each believer.
The understanding that Peter is the “stone” on which the Church is built in the sense of authority instituted by Jesus Christ is also reinforced in the context, since immediately after The Lord gives you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, alluding to the well-known figure of the steward (Isaiah 22,22), a servant of the King with authority to “bind and loose” and spiritual father of the people.
Let’s go with the following objection:
| «2. Even if Peter is the rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18, It would not mean that Peter is the only stone of the church, since the apostle Paul called Christ the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8). And he added: “No one can lay another foundation than what has been laid…which is JESUS CHRIST” (1 Corinthians 3:11).» |
A common error in Protestant exegesis, if it can be called that, is its disastrous way of mix metaphors different indiscriminately and “roughly”, skipping the context and what each metaphor wants to convey. I explained it in detail once in another article, but I’ll try to summarize it briefly in this one.
In the Holy Scriptures it is common to find the presence of metaphors, comparisons that share some similarity in meaning. Normally a real element is compared with a symbolic or “metaphorical” element to convey a teaching. Some common metaphors in the Holy Scriptures:“…I am the light of the world…” (John 8:12)
“…I am the good shepherd…” (John 10:11)
“…I am the door…” (John 10:9)
“…I am the true vine…my father the vinedresser” (John 15:1)
In the first passage Jesus himself compares himself to light. It is evident that it is not about Jesus being the light. We all know that light is electromagnetic radiation that can be perceived by the human eye. But the metaphor allows through a likeness transmit a message: just as light illuminates people, Jesus illuminates us spiritually. The metaphorical element in this case is light, and it has a likeness with the real element that is Jesus.
We can give a similar explanation to the other metaphors: Jesus compares himself to a pastor and we with sheepJesus is also compared to a door, to the Father with a winegrower, etc.
The important thing to be able to understand each metaphor is that It must be analyzed in its context..You cannot extract a metaphorical element from a metaphor and expect it to maintain the same meaning in a different metaphor. That’s what I mean by mixing them up.”to the gross“.
Let’s take an example: we have seen that Jesus said “…I am the light of the world…” (John 8:12) but also in another place in the Gospel we find that he said: “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14). It would be a mistake to assume that in the last text the light represents Jesus, because in that particular case those who are compared to the light are us Christians. This example illustrates in a simple way that to know what each metaphorical element refers to, you have to go to the metaphor context, and not look for it in other different metaphors.
This is what this guy has done, mixing different metaphors to try to assign a fixed and constant meaning which symbolizes a “stone“The problem is that although the word “stone” can be used as a metaphorical element, by itself it does not mean anything if it is not located in a specific metaphor.
A very common metaphor in the Scriptures is one where compare the Church to a building, and the “stones” symbolize the Christians that make it up, however, even in this type of metaphors, each one must be analyzed in its respective context. For example:
“So you are no longer strangers and strangers, but fellow citizens with the saints and relatives of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the cornerstone being Christ himself, in whom all well-fitted building rises to form a holy temple in the Lord, in whom also you are being built together, until it is the dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)
There the foundations of the construction symbolize the apostles and prophets, and the cornerstone of the construction symbolizes Christ.
In Matthew 16:18, however, the metaphor is slightly different. Christ no longer appears as part of the construction, but as the builder who lays the stones, and Peter, not like any stone, but like the stone “on which he builds“, the base, implying that the Church is built on a legitimate authority instituted by Jesus.
Of course, none of these metaphors are interpreted to mean that Peter is the only building block, as this clueless Protestant assumes.
Note that the Protestant also quotes 1 Corinthians 3:11 which says “Well No one can lay another foundation than the one already laid, Jesus Christ”, but if one reads the context of the metaphor, it is an entirely different comparison where not even the “stones” of the construction symbolize people, but rather they symbolize the good or bad works of each believer that are to be judged in divine judgment.
In summary, what this subject brings is a superficial argument that tries to generalize by mixing the meaning of metaphorical elements belonging to different metaphors, as if “rock” or “stone” meant the same thing in absolutely all metaphors.
It is precisely this mediocre understanding that many Protestants have of Scripture that led another Protestant with whom I was recently debating to admit: that he accepted that Peter was “the rock” but not the “rock of Matthew 16, 18.” As if the metaphorical elements meant something outside of the metaphor to which they belonged.
Let’s go to the next point:
| 3. This passage from Matthew 16:18 can be translated in two ways: “You are Peter, and yet (kai) on this rock I will build my Church“, or in this way: “You are Peter, but (kai) on this rock I will build my Church. The Greek term “kai” means “and,” but it also means “and yet” (Matthew 3:14; 6:26), or “but” as they appear in Mark 12:12;Luke 20:19 and Romans 1:13. In this way Jesus could have referred to himself as the Rock, since as we know elsewhere Jesus is called the “Rock”; but Peter is never called that. However, even if the Greek word “kai” is translated into English as “and,” it does not mean that Jesus said “c” to Peter.” |
This argument seems weak from the first moment. It proposes a new translation for the passage that curiously is not found in any of the translations I have of the Bible, including the Protestant ones, among them the recognized King James, Reina Valera (in all its editions), New International Version, etc.
On the other hand, if you consult the Strong’s Greek Dictionary about the Greek term “kai” it says that it also means “thus”, “in the same way”, “indeed”, “because” among others. From there other possible wordings also arise that he does not mention, but he does consider others possible that do adapt to his eisegesis.
But at the end of the day, since this is a single assumption, let’s move on to the next point.
| 4. If Jesus had wanted to say that Peter is the Rock, he would would have said: “Upon you I will build my church.”. But Jesus changes from second person to third person, from “your” to “about this.” If Jesus had wanted to have said that Peter was the Rock, he would have said, “upon you I will build my church”; but I don’t use them. In Luke 19:43 “epi se” is used and it is translated “upon you.” But it was not used in Matthew 16:18, because Jesus did not want to imply that Peter was that Rock on which Christ would build his church. |
Here we have a fallacious reasoning where we start from a assumption which is not supported by any rational evidence.
in human language there are many ways to say things.Evidently Jesus could tell Peter “You will be the Pope, the Papacy will be a ministry in charge of such and such, etc. etc.”. Many of us would really love it if it had been more explicit regarding the Trinitarian doctrine, since we would have saved ourselves many conflicts throughout history and the same could be said of many doctrines. The very existence of Protestants is proof of how a group of Christians are incapable of uniformly interpreting the biblical texts, which according to Saint Peter himself are “difficult to understand” and the ignorant misinterpret to their own perdition. But it is God in his providence who chooses how to transmit his message to us, even if someone later tries to distort it.
Of course Jesus could say “Upon you I will build my Church”, just as Saint John could at the beginning of the Gospel say directly “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are Three Divine Persons and one God” and not make a play on words to say it poetically. Likewise here Jesus chose to make a play on words that highlights how Peter’s new name symbolizes the function he would play: “You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock I will build… I WILL GIVE YOU the keys.”
On the other hand, how could this Protestant prove that Jesus would have said this or that thing in a certain way?If a simple mortal can know how the Son of God would say things and even the way in which he would do them, we would be facing a true Vicar of Christ on earth, a concept that they themselves reject.
| 5. Also It changes gender from masculine to feminine and says “on this Rock.” These two points are important to avoid falling into misinterpretations..Why did Jesus change from male to female and from second person to third person?….Once he changes gender and person, Jesus says that he would build his church on that Rock (feminine gender and third person), not on Peter.” |
In fact Jesus He didn’t, he didn’t change the gender to female.
If we read the Gospel of John, the first mention of Peter’s new name, Jesus, says like this:
“And he took him to Jesus. Jesus, fixing his gaze on him, said to him: «You are Simon, the son of John;you will be called Cephas» – which means, “Stone.” (John 1:42)
Already in that text it is observed that the original name given to Peter was Cephas (in Greek Κηφᾶς = Kēphas is a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kēphas = rock), a name that he retained as seen when he is called that by Saint Paul when he writes in the Greek language (1 Corinthians 1,12; 3,22; 9,5; 15,5; Galatians 1,18; 2,9.11-14). It follows therefore that Jesus’ words in Aramaic must have been: “You are Kēphas and on this Kēphas I will build my Church.”
When the Gospel is written in Greek, the name of Peter (Kēphas) cannot be translated as Petra, because Petra in Greek is feminine and as such it could not be given as a name to a male.Hence the evangelist translates it as “Petros” (Peter).
This completely logical and rational explanation is rejected by many Protestants but accepted by others. Here is a compilation of twelve Protestant scholars who have no problem admitting the reason why Peter’s name was masculinized::
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm
Continues:
| “It is true that many of the well-known “Apostolic Fathers” believed that Peter is called the Rock in Matthew 16:18.; but this interpretation was rejected by Augustine of Hippo when he said: “I recognize that when I was young I had taught that the rock was Peter, but I know that later, in many places I have said that these words must be understood of him whom Peter confessed, when he said: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ because it was not said to him ‘you are the rock’, (Petra) but, ‘You are Peter’, (petros)” (Retractions, c. 21 n.1; ML 32,618).” |
This argument and the quote it reproduces is an example of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, so let’s put the dots over the i’s, lest we go back to repeating topics about which we already I wrote previously.
First of all, it was necessary to clarify that Saint Augustine did not recant anything.It is true that in his work Retractions he admits to having held both interpretations, but in the end he considers both as viable and Let the reader choose the one they consider most likely..
It is appropriate to note that the quote reproduced by the Protestant in question is not only paraphrased and poorly translated but mutilated so as not to let you read the last part. Read in full and in context:
“I also wrote at this time of my priesthood against a letter from Donatus, who was in Carthage the second bishop of the sect of Donatus after Majorinus. In this letter he states that we must believe that the baptism of Christ exists only in his communion, to which I oppose in this book. Here I said somewhere, “regarding the apostle Peter, that in him as on a rock the Church is founded,” a meaning that many sing with the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, when he says of the rooster’s crowing: “When the rooster crows, / he, the stone of the Church, / cries for his sin.” But I remember having explained many times afterwards what the Lord said: You are Peter, and on this stone I will build my Church, so that it would be understood about him whom Peter confessed when he said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, as if Peter, so called by that stone, represented the person of the Church, which is built on that stone,and that he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: You are the stone, but You are Peter. Since the stone was Christ, whom Simon confessed, just as the whole Church confesses, and was called Peter. Between these two sentences, let the reader choose the most probable one.”.
(Saint Augustine, Retractions, I, 21, 1, Complete works of Saint Augustine, Volume XL, Library of Christian Authors, Madrid MCMXCV, p.723-724)
Note that when read in context and not paraphrased, things change. The text does not say anything that he held an interpretation in his “youth” and then changed his mind. He simply maintains that as a priest he held one, and later admits to having held the other. Finally allows readers to decide between the one they consider most likely, in a portion of the text that the Protestant does not reproduce but cuts off… coincidence? Carelessness?Malice? Let us respond like Saint Augustine: let the reader decide the most probable one.
If we study the works of Saint Augustine we confirm that he held both opinions interchangeably and even at the age of 64 he maintained the interpretation that Peter was the stone of Matthew 16:18. Let’s look at some examples:
Year 397 – Approximate age of Saint Augustine = 43 years
“We do not allow ourselves to listen to those who deny that the Church of God is capable of forgiving all sins. They are wrong because They do not recognize Peter the Rock and they refuse to believe that the keys to heaven, from their own hands, have been given to the Church.” (Augustine of Hippo, The Christian Combat, 31:33, JUR,3:51)
Year 417 – Approximate age of Saint Augustine = 63 years
“When he had thus said to his disciples, “You also will leave me,” Peter, the Rock, answered for everyone: “Lord, to whom we will go, you have words of eternal life” (Augustine of Hippo, Homily on the Gospel of John, Treatise 11:5, NPNF1,VII:76)
Year 418 – Approximate age of Saint Augustine = 64 years
“Peter, who had confessed Him as the son of God, and in that confession he had been called the rock on which the Church was to be built” (Augustine of Hippo, Commentary on the Psalms, 69:4, PL 36, 869, in Butler, 251)
“…But that Rock, Peter himself, the great mountain…” (Augustine of Hippo, Commentary on the Psalms, 104[103]:16, NPNF1,VIII:513]
It is clear that even at the age of 64 he still held both interpretations interchangeably, and he wrote the Retractions in the year 427, 9 years later.
Another question that arises from this argument would be: What is the relevance?
Because if it is admitted that the fathers of the Church agreed with the traditional Catholic interpretation, the fact that Saint Augustine had disagreed would be a simple curiosity, one of many fathers who understood a text differently from the rest. And that would not change the fact that regardless of how he understood that passage, he always defended the primacy of the Pope.
Let’s continue with another argument:
| 6. Catholic apologists say that When the word “this” is used, reference can be made to the closest antecedent; but it’s not always like that.For example, in Acts 7:17-19 “this” is used and does not refer to the closest antecedent. Let’s see what these texts say: “17 But when the time of the promise, which God had sworn to Abraham, approached, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt, 18 until another king arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph. 19 This king, using cunning with our people, mistreated our parents, so that they exposed their children to death, so that they would not spread” (See also Acts 4: 10-11;1 John 2:22). Just as in these texts we see that “this” does not refer to the closest antecedent, in Matthew 16 “this” does not refer to the closest antecedent either, but rather refers according to the immediate context to Peter’s confession about the Deity of Christ. |
Let’s review the argument that I used in a previous article. There it is maintained that the phrase in Greek says “ταυτη τη πετρα” (“epi tautê tê petra”). Here “epi” means “on,” and “ tautê tê petra ” means “on this same stone” Thus, the phrase without the “tê” would mean only “on this stone”, but with the “tê” the grammatical construction forces us to identify the stone referred to (on which the Church is built), with the one just mentioned (Peter). Thus, it is Peter and not another stone to which Christ refers that the Church is built on.
I based my explanation on that given by Robert A Sungenis, a Catholic apologist with a good knowledge of biblical Greek:
“It is important to note that here Jesus chooses the phrase epi tautee tee petra (“on this rock”) rather than the more ambiguous wording such as epi tee petra (“on the rock”) or epi petra (on a rock). Using the definite or indefinite article might seem to point to someone other than Peter, while the demonstrative adjective tautee (“this”) is more likely to identify someone in immediate grammatical proximity to the noun “rock.” The only other rock illustrated in the immediate proximity is Petros (‘Peter’) which is a proper name meaning “Rock”….” (Translated from Robert Sungenis’ commentary in Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Butler, Dahlgren, Hess, p. 23-24)
Curiously, this Protestant gives an example that instead of proving him right, he takes it away. Cite for example this text to demonstrate that when “this” is used it does not necessarily refer to the closest reference:
“As the time of the promise that God had made to Abraham approached, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt, until a new king arose in Egypt who did not remember Joseph. Working cunningly against our lineage, this king “He mistreated our parents until he forced them to expose their children, so that they would not live.”(Acts 7:17-19)
But there the writer is very explicit when pointing out that he refers to “this king“Therefore, to see who is being referred to when using “this one,” you have to look for the closest reference to a king in the story.
If, on the other hand, I had not been explicit and written “Working cunningly against our lineage, this He mistreated our parents.” It would be understood that it was the lineage that mistreated their parents, not the king.
Let’s take as an example a biblical passage related to the divinity of Christ, which says like this:
“But we know that the Son of God has come and given us intelligence so that we may know the True One. We are in the True One, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal Life.” (1 John 5:20)
In the previous passage, if one asks a Jehovah’s Witness who the text refers to as the true God, he will say the Father, but the truth is that when it is said “This is the true God” it refers to Jesus Christ, which is the closest reference that he just mentioned.
What this subject proposes, however, is not only irrational but also unconvincing, and that is that we understand that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus wanted to say: “You are Peter and above all THAT “I will build my Church with a stone.”
Let’s continue:
| 7. It should be added that in Matthew 16:18, The Greek text is best translated as follows: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build the Church.” The Greek scholar Samuel Pérez Millos, Th. M. expresses it this way: “Literally from me the church” (Exegetical Commentary on the Greek text of the New Testament. CLIE). |
Here we find a authority fallacy (distinguish from argument from authority). What some Protestant scholar may have to say cannot be presented to Catholic believers except as another opinion. There are numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars who may simply have a different opinion. I just presented myself twelve opinions of Protestant scholars who disagree with this, and I have not mentioned any Catholics.
Personally, I do not see that this translation is entirely incorrect as long as it is admitted that Peter is identified with the Rock on which he builds the Church.
| “8. Peter is a small stone.Although Petros and Petra can mean Rock or Stone, it should be noted that Petros is used to speak of small stone and that seems to be the meaning of Peter, since Jesus is the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11).” |
More of the same. It has already been clarified that Peter is a translation into the masculine gender of the name he received in Aramaic (Cephas) which means “rock.”It makes no sense to imply that its translation into Greek should be understood by “small stone” and even less so by resorting to other metaphors out of context, such as 1 Corinthians 3:11.
In Koine Greek (the language in which the New Testament writings are found) both words (Petros and Petra) were synonymous. To refer to a small stone there is another word “lithos” in Greek, which is frequently used in this way in Scripture.
Examples:
“Who, buying a linen cloth, took him down from the cross, wrapped him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock (petra);Then he rolled a stonelithos) above the entrance to the tomb” (Mark 15:46)
“To you therefore, believers, is honor; but to unbelievers, the stone (lithos) which the builders rejected, has become the cornerstone, a stone (lithos) of stumbling and rock (petra) of scandal. They stumble in it because they do not believe in the Word;“This is what they have been destined for.” (1 Peter 2:8)
“And he said to him: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written: He will entrust you to his angels, and they will carry you in their hands, so that you do not strike your foot against a stone (lithon) some.”” (Matthew 4,6)
“Or is there anyone among you who gives a stone to a son who asks for bread?lithon);” (Matthew 7,9)
“And Jesus said to them: “Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone (lithon) which the builders rejected has become a cornerstone;“It was the Lord who did this and it is wonderful in our eyes?” (Matthew 21:42)
The almost unhealthy obsession of this Protestant in always identifying Christ as a big rock and Peter with a small stone it ends up turning against him, because on many occasions Christ is compared to a small stone (lithos), and there is no reason to be scandalized since they are different metaphors.
For example, it does not diminish the honor of Christ in any way that the small stone symbolizes him in a metaphor (lithos) that makes architects stumble (1 Peter 2:8) and that in the same passage another metaphor is used where it is compared to a rock (petra) as great as the scandal of not having believed in Him.
On the other hand, throughout the NT, “Pétros” is used only as the proper name of Peter and never to refer to a small stone, unlike “lithos.” Does the artificial distinction that Protestantism tries to make make sense, when the reason why his name was masculized has a perfect explanation?
| “9. In the apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees 4:41 we can notice that Petros refers to a small rock.This passage says: “When the people saw that Lysimachus was attacking them, some gathered stones (petrous), others took heavy sticks, others picked up the ashes that were on the ground with their hands and, in the midst of great confusion, began to throw everything at Lysimachus’ men.” |
Already at this point the Protestant argument has become irrelevant.It has already been said that the name of Peter (Cephas) in Aramaic, as pronounced by Jesus, means “rock” and not a small stone, however, this subject insists on making the distinction in the Greek language based on the specific use given to it in a book that he considers apocryphal.
The fact that “pétros” in some contexts could represent a stone is not a problem.
| “10. Catholics say: “By the word ‘rock’ the Savior could not have referred to Himself, but only to Peter, as it is much more apparent in Aramaic, where the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock.’ His statement then admits of an explanation, namely, that He desires to make Peter the head of the entire community of those who believed in Him as the true Messiah.;that through this foundation (Peter’s), the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable;“that the spiritual guidance of faith was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ” (Peter becomes head of the Apostles).” |
There is no problem in admitting that we believe that Christ’s words expressed his desire to establish Peter as the first of many stewards of the kingdom of heaven, visible head of the Church (because the supreme head of the Church is Christ).
| “What the Catholic must know are two things: (1) The catechism already said that Christ has built his church “On the rock of this faith, confessed by Peter“And (2) We don’t have the Aramaic text of the book of Matthew, we only have it in Greek. And Kepha is not used for Peter and Petra, but only for Peter. John 1:42 says: “And he brought Jesus to him. And Jesus looking at him said, You are Simon, son of Jonah;You will be called Cephas (which means, Peter).” |
The apparent contradiction that this Protestant sees in the teaching of the Catechism was already explained at the beginning.
He then assumes that since the original text of the Gospel of Matthew has been preserved in Aramaic, Kēphas is not used in both parts of the sentence: “You are Kēphas and on this Kēphas I will build my Church.”What word could he have used then, if Kēphas in Aramaic means “Rock”?Does it mean that under this hypothesis Peter is called Kēphas (Rock) and the Church is built on a small stone?
You can already guess why it is not common to hear this argument from other Protestants…
| “11. If Kephas means the same as Rock or Petra, doesWhy Jesus was never called Kephas but only Petra or Lithos?It is true that Lithos is a word that means small stone, but it also means large stone, as we can see in Matthew 27:60,66 when talking about the tombstone or when talking about the millstone in Luke 17:2 and Revelation 18:21. Lithos is used metaphorically to talk about Christ, who cannot be a small pebble. Petros also seems to have the meaning of Big Rock; but why is Jesus never called Petros or Kephas?I think the biblical writers begin to use Petra in a different sense than Petros and Kephas for some reason.” |
The problem with this subject is that he does not understand that “Rock” or “Stone” are not proper names of Christ, they are objects that are used as metaphorical elements to highlight a teaching through an analogy.
It is natural that in some metaphors Christ can be compared to a rock, and in others to a stone. Each metaphor is understood in its own context and it is clear that Christ is neither one nor the other, because both a stone and a rock are inanimate objects.
It makes no sense, therefore, to digress into irrelevant details such as that “lithos” in Greek can be a large stone, and to use the example of Matthew 27:60 where it speaks not of a stone, but of a “big stone“. Despite the irrelevance of the argument, it also errs because it overlooks the fact that in those cases the word stone is accompanied by an adjective. If a “large stone” is mentioned in the text, it is the adjective that implies that it is a large stone, not the word itself. The same would happen if someone refers to a small rock.
Another argument:
| “12. In the New Testament Kephas is called twenty times by the compound “Simon Peter”, and one hundred and fifty-three times he calls him “Peter” and never “Simon Petra”, nor “Petra” which is curious, if he were the “Petra” in Matthew 16:18. |
It has already been clarified why Peter could not be called “Petra”, “Petra” being a woman’s name. In the same way, the person who writes this article could not be called “Daniela”.
Concludes:
| “13. My conclusion is that Peter was a small stone since the foundation of the church is Christ.“No one can lay another foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11), and He could not be a small Stone. The apostles, including Peter, would also be small stones; but none the “Rock”, because no two rocks can be alike.” |
He cannot but end by insisting that Peter was a “little stone” while he gets lost in a set of ramblings where he perseveres in the error of mixing metaphors indiscriminately, regarding the fact that only Christ is the rock, as if Christ were an inanimate object and we are smaller inanimate objects.
To finish, I clarify that this is a specific response to the arguments of this curious character. Although many of his objections are generally shared by many Protestants, it would not be fair to attribute them to everyone, not to say that I have found myself the easiest opponent to assemble a straw man.
Author: José Miguel Arraiz
