The late\u00a0<\/span>Steve Hays<\/a> (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called<\/span> Triablogue<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book,<\/span>\u00a0Catholicism<\/em><\/a> \u2014 a collection of articles from his site \u2014 has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite \u2014 almost extraordinarily \u2014 charitable towards me.<\/span> He wrote then<\/a>:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don\u2019t dislike him. . . . I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything malicious about Armstrong\u2014unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it\u2019s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have \u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> am<\/span> \u201cactually evil,\u201d <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d \u201cidolater,\u201d<\/span> \u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0given to <\/span>\u201cchicanery,\u201d<\/span> one who doesn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cdo any real research,\u201d \u201ca stalwart enemy of the faith . . .\u00a0 no better than [the atheists]<\/span> Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,\u201d<\/span> with an intent to<\/span> \u201cdestroy faith in God\u2019s word,\u201d \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d<\/span> one who<\/span> \u201cdoesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,\u201d<\/span> \u201chas no peace of mind,\u201d \u201ca bipolar solipsist,\u201d \u201csplit-personality,\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cbad\u201d<\/span> man. He wasn\u2019t one to mince words! See<\/span> more gory details<\/a>.<\/p>\n I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I\u2019ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist<\/a> in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That\u2019s what I\u2019m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It\u2019s a theological discussion. This is one of many<\/em> planned critiques of his book (see<\/span> my reasons why<\/a> I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the \u201cSteve Hays\u201d section of my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n [Chapter 7: Hermeneutics]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Catholic prooftexts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 16:18-19<\/strong> \u201cAnd I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the classic prooftext for the papacy. 1. Let\u2019s begin with some programmatic questions: i) What does the \u201crock\u201d refer to? [p. 315]<\/span><\/p>\n Peter, according to many of the most eminent Protestant exegetes and reference sources (a remarkable number!), including New Bible Dictionary,<\/em>\u00a0Word Studies in the New Testament<\/em> (Marvin Vincent),\u00a0Wycliffe Bible Commentary, <\/em>New Bible Commentary, <\/em>Anchor Bible<\/em> (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries<\/em> (R. T. France), Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em> (D. A. Carson), Eerdmans Bible Commentary<\/em>, Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, David Hill,\u00a0M. Eugene Boring,\u00a0William Hendriksen, John A. Broadus, Carl Friedrich Keil, Gerhard Kittel, Oscar Cullmann, Peake\u2019s Commentary<\/i>, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, Donald A. Hagner,\u00a0 Philip Schaff,\u00a0Lange\u2019s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew<\/em>, vol. 8, The Layman\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Encyclopaedia Britannica <\/em><\/i>(1985; article by D. W. O\u2019Connor, a Protestant), Robert McAfee Brown, and Richard Baumann. For much more on this, see:<\/p>\n Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars<\/a>\u00a0[1994]<\/p>\n The Papacy and Infallibility:\u00a0Keys of the Kingdom<\/em><\/a> [9-16-93; rev. May 1996]<\/p>\n Protestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19<\/a>\u00a0(Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06]<\/p>\n ii) Does Hades refer to the realm of the dead or the realm of the demonic? [p. 315]<\/span><\/p>\n The former, by definition, as Protestant commentators such as Ellicott\u2019s Commentary<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/a><\/em>, Meyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/a><\/em>, and Vincent\u2019s Word Studies<\/a><\/em> hold. To my knowledge (I might be wrong), neither the devil nor the demons are ever said to be in Hades (Sheol), or associated with it. Hades is not hell.<\/p>\n Now I propose answer my own questions: i) Caesarea Philippi is situated on a rocky terrace at the base of Mt. Hermon. As such, it\u2019s natural to suppose the rocky metaphor was suggested by the immediate surroundings. Jesus was standing on rocky ground, and standing in the shadow of Mt. Hermon, at the time he made his statement. This may also goes to a difference between the written word and the spoken word. Consider<\/span> It is indeed a double reference. Jesus chose this spot because of that. I featured it on the cover of my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2014). But to make the physical rock facade primary<\/em> is absurd. No commentator I have ever\u00a0 seen (if I recall correctly) has made such an argument. It\u2019s desperate eisegesis. R. T. France<\/a> (one of the most renowned Protestant exegetes of our time) wrote:<\/p>\n Jesus now sums up Peter\u2019s significance in a name, Peter . . . The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus\u2019 declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter\u2019s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . (in Leon Morris, General Editor.,\u00a0Tyndale New Testament Commentaries<\/em>, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press\/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1:\u00a0Matthew<\/em>, R. T. France, 254, 256.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n D. A. Carson, another highly respected Protestant exegete, observed:<\/p>\n [I]f it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken \u2018rock\u2019 to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .\u201d (in Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor,\u00a0Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8:\u00a0Matthew, Mark, Luke<\/em> [Matthew<\/em>: D. A. Carson], 368)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cRock\u201d is probably a double entendre, both for Peter and especially the emblematic location. [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n Well, now, Hays has stumbled upon the truth<\/em> (it happens occasionally<\/em> in his analyses of Catholicism). Whaddya know!<\/p>\n \u201cRocky\u201d is a pun in honor of Peter\u2019s insightful confession,<\/span> [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n I prefer R. T. France\u2019s take:<\/p>\n It describes not so much Peter\u2019s character (he did not prove to be `rock-like\u2019 in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus\u2019 church. (Ibid<\/em>.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n but what the church is built on is what the location symbolizes. [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n It provides a visualization of \u201crock\u201d which was applied to Peter as the foundation, or first leader of the Church. Moreover, the location provided a double metaphor, insofar as it used to be an area of worship of the Greek god Pan<\/a>. The Greeks thought the cave at the rock\u2019s base was the entrance to the underworld (Hades; which the NT used as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol). Hence, Jesus said, \u201cthe powers of death [Hades<\/em> in Greek] shall not prevail against it.\u201d\u00a0 The Church was not built upon Hades or the worship of Pan. Hays\u2019 take is simply ludicrous. It\u2019s special pleading and sophistry in order to avoid the clear Petrine and papal implications of the passage (that even many Protestant commentators at least partially concede is the case).<\/p>\n In Revelation, the Netherworld is subdivided into a realm of the dead (Rev 20:13-14) and a realm of the demonic (9:1-11; . . . 17:8). [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n Revelation 9:1-11 and 17:8, according to the usual Protestant interpretation, are referring to hell or the Lake of Fire, not Hades (e.g., Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a>: \u201cthe bottomless pit\u2014Greek, \u2018the pit of the abyss\u2019; the orifice of the hell where Satan and his demons dwell\u201d); so this is an eschatological category mistake by Hays.<\/p>\n If we mentally flesh it out, the reader should visualize both heaven and hades as gated locations. [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n That may sound fine and dandy, until we actually search for \u201cgates of heaven\u201d or \u201cheavenly gates\u201d or a proximity of the words \u201cheaven\u201d and \u201cgates\u201d in the Bible and discover that none of these ever appear<\/em> (in the RSV). Thus, Hays is shown to be indulging in mere extrabiblical speculation with no scriptural grounding. Odd for a Protestant to do, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n Given the associations with heathen idolatry, I think hades more likely connotes the realm of the demonic in this evocative setting. [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n It was the netherworld (Hades), not hell. The analogy isn\u2019t exact. NT Greek sought to use the closest concept in Greek to Sheol, and that was clearly Hades. But I searched \u201cdemon\u201d and \u201cdevil\u201d and \u201cSatan\u201d and \u201cevil spirits\u201d in the Bible, in conjunction with \u201cHades\u201d and \u201cSheol,\u201d and couldn\u2019t discover any<\/em> association. So once again, Hays indulges in wild, biblically unsubstantiated, arbitrary extrabiblical speculation.<\/p>\n Catholic apologists typically allege that v19 is an allusion to Isa 22:22, then imports the entire Isaian context into v19. [p. 316]<\/span><\/p>\n Not just Catholic apologists<\/em>; also many reputable Protestant exegetes, such as W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Roland de Vaux, Craig S. Keener, M. Eugene Boring, The Interpreter\u2019s Bible<\/em>, S. T. Lachs, R. T. France, Ralph Earle (Beacon Bible Commentary<\/em>), J. Jeremias, F. F. Bruce, Oscar Cullman, New Bible Dictionary<\/em>, T.W. Manson, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/em>, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/em>, Adam Clarke\u2019s Commentary, Martin Luther, New Bible Commentary. <\/em>For the quotes and documentation for all these men, see: No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer). With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \u201cThe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matthew 16:19)<\/a> [8-1-22] and Protestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19<\/a> (Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06].<\/p>\n F. F. Bruce, perhaps the most famous and well-regarded of the above group, wrote:<\/p>\n The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus<\/em> [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On pages 317-318, Hays cites two<\/em> Protestant scholars who think Peter isn\u2019t the \u201cRock\u201d that Jesus referred to: John Nolland and Robert Gundry. I have cited thirty<\/em> scholars or reference works above. If anyone notices that Hays cited 28 or more scholars who think the way he thinks about the \u201cRock\u201d passage, please let me know.<\/p>\n Luke 22:31-32<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cSimon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,\u00a0[32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter is singled out, not because he outranks the other disciples, but because he will betray Jesus. The prayer anticipates his denial. Jesus prays for Peter\u2019s restoration in advance of his betrayal. <\/span>[p. 319]<\/span><\/p>\n I see. Well, Jesus also<\/em> said about the disciples as a group (John was the only exception):<\/p>\n Matthew 26:31<\/strong> Then Jesus said to them, \u201cYou will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.\u2019 (cf. Mk 14:27)<\/p>\n John 16:32<\/strong> The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n According to Hays\u2019 reasoning above, Jesus would have had to pray for all<\/em> the disciples (save John), who would \u201cfall away\u201d and be \u201cscattered\u201d and \u201cleave\u201d Him \u201calone\u201d when He was led away to His trial and passion and crucifixion. But He only prays for Peter (and I believe this is the only time the NT shows Him praying individually for a disciple, by name). We believe He did because Peter was the Rock, and he had to repent in order to fulfill his duties as the first leader and pope of the new Christian Church that Jesus built upon him. The \u201cstrengthen your brethren\u201d implies (or is at the very least consistent with) this leadership. In other words, Peter was so important that the NT made it a point to show how Jesus prayed for him to have the strength to perform his ministry.<\/p>\n As a matter of faith, Peter\u2019s faith did fail. He lost his nerve and publicly renounced Jesus. <\/span>That\u2019s a paradigmatic act of infidelity. [p. 319]<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants love to highlight Peter\u2019s betrayal, so they can put him down. They also love the passage where Paul rebukes him for hypocrisy, for the same reason. Anything to \u201cknock him down a rung . . .\u201d I have noted elsewhere that Peter\u2019s failure of \u201cnerve\u201d<\/span> that even Hays alludes to was quite temporary. The whole thing probably lasted only five or ten minutes. He got scared when he was questioned, thinking he, too, would be killed, and made three denials. The cock crowed and then he immediately repented.<\/p>\n Paul on the other hand, consented to St. Stephen\u2019s stoning (Acts 8:1), and was \u201cravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison\u201d (Acts 8:3) and was \u201cbreathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord\u201d (Acts 9:1) and \u201cmade havoc in Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 9:21). Paul himself says that \u201cI persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women\u201d (Acts 22:4) and \u201cI formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him\u201d (1 Tim 1:13).<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know exactly how long this went on, but it appears to be some significant length of time, and certainly more than Peter\u2019s ten or so minutes of fear and betrayal. Paul repented too (almost forced<\/em> to by Jesus), but my point is that, if we are to bash Peter<\/em> endlessly for his sin, how about a little fair-mindedness and keeping in mind how terribly Paul<\/em> sinned: so much so that he called himself \u201cthe foremost of sinners\u201d (1 Tim 1:15)?<\/p>\n It\u2019s striking that the NT never says there is \u201cone church\u201d. [p. 320]<\/span><\/p>\n The phrases \u201cthe church\u201d<\/a> (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 12:1, 5; 1 Cor 5:12; 6:4; 12:28; Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Phil 3:6; Col 1:18, 24) and \u201cmy church\u201d (Mt 16:18) and \u201cthe church of God\u201d (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; Gal 1:13) and \u201cthe church of the living God\u201d (1 Tim 3:15) and \u201cBody of Christ\u201d (1 Cor 12:27;\u00a0 Eph 4:12) certainly all strongly imply this.<\/p>\n Finally, the Paul uses the \u201cbody\u201d as a metaphor for the church. And he says there is \u201cone body.\u201d That\u2019s the closest you get to a \u201cone church\u201d formula in the NT. If there\u2019s one body, and the body is a synonym for the church, doesn\u2019t that mean there\u2019s one church? In a sense. However, this is a flexible metaphor which Paul uses to illustrate diversity as well as unity or unicity. He alternates between the one and the many. [p. 320]<\/span><\/p>\n Hays tries to reduce the impact of \u201cone body\u201d (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 10:17; 12:12-13, 20; Col 3:15). But different parts<\/em> of one<\/em> body is a completely different concept from different bodies<\/em> (hundreds, thousands of them, as it were). Hays tries to make a foolish argument that the biblical, Pauline, \u201cdiversity in unity\u201d in the Body of Christ, the Church, is the equivalent of the division, discord, and acrimony that Paul repeatedly condemns, and which prevails in the contradictory, relativistic, and chaotic mess of Protestant denominationalism and sectarianism. The NT teaching on unity is the following:<\/p>\n In John 17:22 Jesus prays that the disciples would be \u201cone, as we are one.\u201d And in John 17:23, He desires that they (and us) be \u201ccompletely one\u201d (NRSV). KJV, NKJV: \u201cperfect in one.\u201d RSV, NEB, REB: \u201cperfectly one.\u201d NIV: \u201ccomplete unity.\u201d NASB: \u201cperfected in unity.\u201d Now, it is pretty difficult to maintain that this entails no doctrinal agreement (and \u201cperfect\u201d agreement at that). And, reflecting on John 17:22, I don\u2019t think the Father and the Son differ on how one is saved, on the true nature of the Eucharist or the Church, etc. So how can Protestants claim this \u201cperfect\u201d oneness, \u201cas we [the Holy Trinity] are one\u201d? Or even any remote approximation?<\/p>\n Paul commands: \u201cmark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine ye have learned; and avoid them.\u201d (Rom 16:17). In 1 Corinthians 1:10, he desires \u201cno divisions,\u201d and that Christians should be \u201cperfectly joined together \u201cin the same mind.\u201d No one can say this is simply a \u201cwarm fuzzy\u201d love and mutual recognition. Paul goes on to condemn mere \u201ccontentions\u201d in 1:11, and asks in 1:13: \u201cIs Christ divided?\u201d<\/p>\n In 1 Corinthians 3:3, Paul says that whatever group has \u201cstrife and divisions\u201d are \u201ccarnal, and walk as men.\u201d In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 he seems to equate \u201cdivisions\u201d and \u201cheresies.\u201d He calls for \u201cno schism\u201d in 1 Corinthians 12:25, etc., etc. (cf. Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:20; Phil 2:2; Titus 3:9; Jas 3:16; 1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Pet 2:1). What more evidence is needed to be convinced that denominationalism and sectarianism is a sin? Yet Protestants blithely go on in the teeth of these biblical warnings and injunctions, seemingly oblivious to the possible consequences (see, e.g., Gal 5:19-21).<\/p>\n John 20:22-23<\/strong> And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, \u201cReceive the Holy Spirit. [23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [I]t doesn\u2019t explicitly show us how that was understood and implemented in the church. For that our best source is the Book of Acts. It\u2019s not that the disciples personally absolve sin. Indeed, you don\u2019t find that in Acts. Rather, they provide the means for the remission of sin by evangelizing the lost. [p. 321]<\/span><\/p>\n We do<\/em> know how it was \u201cimplemented\u201d<\/span>: from the Book of Acts. Evangelism is part of it, certainly. But if we want a concrete, sacramental act that brings about forgiveness, it\u2019s baptism<\/em>:<\/p>\n Acts 2:38-41<\/strong> And Peter said to them, \u201cRepent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.\u201d [40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, \u201cSave yourselves from this crooked generation.\u201d [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a very full, substantive passage. It has baptismal regeneration, which is taught in 13 other NT passages<\/a> also; it refers to receiving the Holy Spirit as a result of this baptism (no bald symbolism here!); it says that folks could \u201csave\u201d themselves (strongly implied, by baptism), and that baptism was the means of entrance into the Christian Church. Peter reiterates the same message of his sermon on Pentecost, in his first epistle: \u201cBaptism, . . . saves you\u201d (1 Pet 3:21).<\/p>\n [Peter] speaks with no more or less authority at the \u201ccouncil\u201d [of Acts 15] than Paul and Barnabas. [p. 322]<\/span><\/p>\n I wonder why, then, Paul\u2019s words there weren\u2019t even recorded; only summarized (Acts 15:12)? Peter\u2019s words \u2014 after \u201cmuch debate\u201d (Acts 15:7) are recorded (Acts 15:7-11). After he spoke, \u201cthe assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12), and there was no more division (at least none noted in the text). James then speaks, but basically just reiterates what Peter said (\u201cSimon has related . . .\u201d: 15:14).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\nthe demonstrative pronoun: \u201cthis\u201d. In that setting, it\u2019s easy to imagine him pointing to an actual rocky object. \u201cI will build my church on this!\u201d\u2013accompanied by an illustrative gesture. The repetition of \u201crock\u201d may well include a reference to Simon, but the double reference <\/span>may also include a reference to the rocky surroundings. Indeed, that may be primary. [pp. 315-316]<\/span><\/p>\n