Protestants *might* believe Peter is the Vicar of Christ

[InquisitorKind]

The following thread provides a number of quotes from prominent Protestant authorities on the identity of the "rock" in Matthew 16:18:



http://www.christianforums.com/t90144 (http://www.christianforums.com/t90144)



According to the title, the quotes are evidence of Protestants supporting the belief that Peter was the "Vicar of Christ." Given that the phrase wasn't defined in the OP, and that the quotes only demonstrate Protestants supporting the idea that Peter was the rock spoken of in Matthew 16:18, "Vicar of Christ" can't mean what it usually does in Catholic apologetics.



I basically just wanted to start this thread to dispel the anti-Catholic rhetoric that the Catholic Church is twisting the meaning of Scripture, etc., when non-Catholics have come to the same conclusions as Catholics.



Whether or not the quotes from the OP and subsequent support this purpose depends entirely on how "Vicar of Christ" is defined. If the run-of-the-mill definition is being used, there won't be complaints that Scripture is being twisted; there will be complaints that Protestants are being misquoted to support something they don't really believe.



~Matt

[Lotar]

Ya, I read the post and I agree. Anyone studied in the area knows that the meaning of the word is "rock" and not "little pebble", that's what I was raised with. That doesn't mean that we believe Peter was the vicar of Christ, atleast not in the way that Catholics define it.

[Metanoia02]

Ya, I read the post and I agree. Anyone studied in the area knows that the meaning of the word is "rock" and not "little pebble", that's what I was raised with. That doesn't mean that we believe Peter was the vicar of Christ, atleast not in the way that Catholics define it.
How does the Catholic Church define "Vicar of Christ".

[Lotar]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

That works, right?

I disagree with 99% of it. ;)

[BBAS 64]

How does the Catholic Church define "Vicar of Christ".
Good Day, Met

Is this correct? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

BBAS

[ChoirDir]

I'm not sure if Protestants agree with this but this is pretty much the Orthodox view regarding the OP
In Matthew 16:18, the word "rock" refers to Peter's confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [petros] and Greek [petra]. As we read in 1
Corinthians 10:4, "...they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ," Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church's unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted. Father John Matusiak

[Lotar]

jinx

:D

[BBAS 64]

jinx

:D

Bac @ you Bro!

;)

[BBAS 64]

What does Vicar really mean? What is the back round of the word I would suppose it is Latin?


BBAS

[BBAS 64]

I'm not sure if Protestants agree with this but this is pretty much the Orthodox view regarding the OP
In Matthew 16:18, the word "rock" refers to Peter's confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [petros] and Greek [petra]. As we read in 1
Corinthians 10:4, "...they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ," Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church's unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted. Father John Matusiak

Good Day, ChoirDir

I am sure that this view of Matt 16:18 would be in line with a Protestant view. This verse has been in much dispute for years and years back to Augustine and Chrysostom. I am not realy sure when the RCC came to the conclusion that they now hold with reguards to this verse. Some thing leads me to recall Vatican I as the source but I am unsure as the language in Vatican I is some what vague.


It was to Simon alone,
to whom he had already said
You shall be called Cephas [42] ,

that the Lord,
after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.


And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. 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 [43] .


[CONFERRED]

And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
after his resurrection,
confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .

Underline is mine.

Peace to u,

BBAS

[Metanoia02]

What does Vicar really mean? What is the back round of the word I would suppose it is Latin?


BBASYes, vicar is from the Latin word Vicarius.

We get out terminology of vice-president from this very root. That may help understand the meaning a little better.

Edit: You may also be familar with the term viceroy. That is a term used a few hundred years ago. It was meant to describe the representative of the King in a colony or area. Vice (representative) Roy(French for King).

[HiredGoon]

I think that understanding that Jesus was a tekton, a stone mason, rather than a carpenter, can help shed some light on what this passage might mean. The translation "carpenter" gives the false impression that Jesus was a woodworker. Instead he most likely was more familiar with working stone. There are many references in the Bible to working or building with stone.

"You are Petros and on this petra, I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

It's important to know where Jesus was when he made this statement. They were gathered at Caesarea Philippi, a secluded pagan shrine. This was a large cliff or rock where a stream ran out of a cave in the rock face. It was a place of pagan worship, where the cave was considered a gate to the underworld. Now think about Jesus saying the above sentence in the presence of a large rock with a gate to the underworld.

Could it be that Jesus was implying that he was carrying the battle to the forces of evil? "....and the gates of Hades shall not over-power it." Remember that gates are defensive structures, not offensive. So the implication is that that the gates of Hades will not stand the attack of the church.

Also, Peter Petros here is referred to in the second person, "you." And is a masculine singular term.

"The rock" petra is in the third person, and a feminine singular term. These terms don't have the same referent.

If Jesus meant Peter was the rock he would build the church on, he probably would have said; "You are Petros, and on this Petros I will build my church...."

Anyway, just something to think about. Sorry if my thoughts are too random.

[Bastoune]

I think that understanding that Jesus was a tekton, a stone mason, rather than a carpenter, can help shed some light on what this passage might mean. The translation "carpenter" gives the false impression that Jesus was a woodworker. Instead he most likely was more familiar with working stone. There are many references in the Bible to working or building with stone.

"You are Petros and on this petra, I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

It's important to know where Jesus was when he made this statement. They were gathered at Caesarea Philippi, a secluded pagan shrine. This was a large cliff or rock where a stream ran out of a cave in the rock face. It was a place of pagan worship, where the cave was considered a gate to the underworld. Now think about Jesus saying the above sentence in the presence of a large rock with a gate to the underworld.

Could it be that Jesus was implying that he was carrying the battle to the forces of evil? "....and the gates of Hades shall not over-power it." Remember that gates are defensive structures, not offensive. So the implication is that that the gates of Hades will not stand the attack of the church.

Also, Peter Petros here is referred to in the second person, "you." And is a masculine singular term.

"The rock" petra is in the third person, and a feminine singular term. These terms don't have the same referent.

If Jesus meant Peter was the rock he would build the church on, he probably would have said; "You are Petros, and on this Petros I will build my church...."

Anyway, just something to think about. Sorry if my thoughts are too random.Actually, by first-century A.D., the two Greek words “petros” and “petra” became synonyms and were used interchangeably. Any Greek scholar will confirm this. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” respectively, in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra had the same meaning. So this is the first strike against the argument. But it is the least significant.



Don't forget that Jesus didn't speak Greek to his disciples. He spoke ARAMAIC. Many scholars believe too that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew, as we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea (early Church father) —but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek. Still, we know that the book was originally written in Aramaic, and have copies of the original to go back to.



Do you recall Peter's name in Aramaic? It's “Kepha.” In English translations of the Bible it is written as “Cephas.” That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word “Kepha” (rendered as "Kephas" in its Hellenistic form).



“Kepha” means “a large, massive stone”, the same as “petra.” (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is “evna.”) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”



When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them.



In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock. So the meaning is only lost or muddled in English translations because looking at “Peter” one doesn't understand "rock" in seeing that name.



So why did the translators call Peter/Kepha "Petros" and not “Petra”? Well, “Petra” is a feminine word (the one fact which the Fundamentalist writer of the above site did manage to get right). And in translating from the Aramaic, the writer did not, would not, and both grammatically and socially COULD NOT give Peter a feminine name!!! So he translated it into the masculine form "PetrOS" ("os" being a masculine ending) which was a synonym for "petra." Had the intent of Jesus been to call Peter a little stone, the word in the Greek would be "lithos" to reflect the Aramaic “evna.” But Jesus did not use that word. He named Simon, son of Jonah “KEPHA” for a reason.

So really, there is no distinction. But GREAT comment on the location of this discourse because it IS significant. The pagan shrine in question was dedicated to the minor god Pan and the shrine was called "The Gates of Hades."

[eldermike]

Please carefully consider the OP. We can't debate the Theology here nor does the OP require that IMO. Remember, this is not IDD.

[d0c markus]

Actually, by first-century A.D., the two Greek words “petros” and “petra” became synonyms and were used interchangeably. Any Greek scholar will confirm this. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” respectively, in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra had the same meaning. So this is the first strike against the argument. But it is the least significant.



Don't forget that Jesus didn't speak Greek to his disciples. He spoke ARAMAIC. Many scholars believe too that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew, as we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea (early Church father) —but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek. Still, we know that the book was originally written in Aramaic, and have copies of the original to go back to.



Do you recall Peter's name in Aramaic? It's “Kepha.” In English translations of the Bible it is written as “Cephas.” That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word “Kepha” (rendered as "Kephas" in its Hellenistic form).



“Kepha” means “a large, massive stone”, the same as “petra.” (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is “evna.”) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”



When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them.



In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock. So the meaning is only lost or muddled in English translations because looking at “Peter” one doesn't understand "rock" in seeing that name.



So why did the translators call Peter/Kepha "Petros" and not “Petra”? Well, “Petra” is a feminine word (the one fact which the Fundamentalist writer of the above site did manage to get right). And in translating from the Aramaic, the writer did not, would not, and both grammatically and socially COULD NOT give Peter a feminine name!!! So he translated it into the masculine form "PetrOS" ("os" being a masculine ending) which was a synonym for "petra." Had the intent of Jesus been to call Peter a little stone, the word in the Greek would be "lithos" to reflect the Aramaic “evna.” But Jesus did not use that word. He named Simon, son of Jonah “KEPHA” for a reason.

So really, there is no distinction. But GREAT comment on the location of this discourse because it IS significant. The pagan shrine in question was dedicated to the minor god Pan and the shrine was called "The Gates of Hades."
Im sure he spoke aramaic. However i am also sure he was tri-lingual which i hear is common in palestine at this time, since it being a huge trade zone.

Also the scripture is very consistent, when they specify when and how something was said. But alas the verse in matthew 16 doesnt say and "jesus sepaking in aramaic said to simon peter"
AC 21:40 Having received the commander's permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic: 1 "Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."

AC 26:14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

John 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.

[pmarquette]

Was not God , the Father refered to the rock that is higher than I ; the rock ha-tsur ;
the ultimate immovable power ; Jesus the rock of stumbling .... pete the rock the source of strength / authority , the first bishop / elder / overseer / vicar / pope / head guy of the 1 church in 1 city at the time - Jerusalem ....

Upon this rock [ word of God , grace of God , will of God ; authority given Jesus ; the head of the church ; the mind that controls the body ; the source of the life ( the blood of the church ) ; the Holy Spirit , the power of the church ; God the administrater of the church .....

Peter , the rock , because of his faith in the Grace , will , and words of God ; Jesus the revealed word and will of God ; and the Holy Spirit the expiditer of the word and will of God ....

We , the church , the living stones , placed within the walls , doing the work of the ministry ( parts of the body ) , with Jesus as the head , with the administration and levels of oversight / leadership ( magisterium , shepherds , pastors , etc. ) as a team , each doing its particular function [ many parts , one body ] accomplishes the will of God ...

[II Paradox II]

Don't forget that Jesus didn't speak Greek to his disciples. He spoke ARAMAIC. Many scholars believe too that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew, as we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea (early Church father) —but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek. Still, we know that the book was originally written in Aramaic, and have copies of the original to go back to.
hmm... IMO - it is more likely that Matthew was written in Hebrew than aramaic. Having read some of the arguments for aramaic primacy, I'm not really sure that they are as good as their broad acceptance would indicate. I should add as well that there are *several* church fathers who reference the hebrew original of Matthew, not just Eusebius.

In addition to that there are also comments as to this original document from Irenaeus, Origin, Epiphanius, Jerome and Papias (who is quoted as supporting the hebrew original in Eusibius' Ecclesiastical History). I'll type some of them in if I get more time today...

ken

[BBAS 64]

Actually, by first-century A.D., the two Greek words “petros” and “petra” became synonyms and were used interchangeably. Any Greek scholar will confirm this. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” respectively, in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra had the same meaning. So this is the first strike against the argument. But it is the least significant.



Don't forget that Jesus didn't speak Greek to his disciples. He spoke ARAMAIC. Many scholars believe too that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew, as we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea (early Church father) —but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek. Still, we know that the book was originally written in Aramaic, and have copies of the original to go back to.



Do you recall Peter's name in Aramaic? It's “Kepha.” In English translations of the Bible it is written as “Cephas.” That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word “Kepha” (rendered as "Kephas" in its Hellenistic form).



“Kepha” means “a large, massive stone”, the same as “petra.” (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is “evna.”) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”



When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them.



In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock. So the meaning is only lost or muddled in English translations because looking at “Peter” one doesn't understand "rock" in seeing that name.



So why did the translators call Peter/Kepha "Petros" and not “Petra”? Well, “Petra” is a feminine word (the one fact which the Fundamentalist writer of the above site did manage to get right). And in translating from the Aramaic, the writer did not, would not, and both grammatically and socially COULD NOT give Peter a feminine name!!! So he translated it into the masculine form "PetrOS" ("os" being a masculine ending) which was a synonym for "petra." Had the intent of Jesus been to call Peter a little stone, the word in the Greek would be "lithos" to reflect the Aramaic “evna.” But Jesus did not use that word. He named Simon, son of Jonah “KEPHA” for a reason.

So really, there is no distinction. But GREAT comment on the location of this discourse because it IS significant. The pagan shrine in question was dedicated to the minor god Pan and the shrine was called "The Gates of Hades."
Good Day, Bastoune

Do you have the source for your quotes or are they yours? There has been great discussions around this word Petros for some time I agree with Ken that based upon what I have seen Hebrew would have been the oringinal in Mathew.

I will give St. Chrysostom's view on this passage seeing he is seen as very authoritive from all sides of this issue.

Upon this rock. He did not say ‘upon Peter’ for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” (In Pentecosten, Migne 52.806.75-807.1)

Given the history of the time in which this was written by Chrysostom and some others around this period I see no reason to belive this understanding was only those whom pened this view but, was infact the historical Christian "understanding" that was taught for many many years.

I gues the big question for me at least when did that change and why?

Peace to u,

BBAS

[BBAS 64]

Yes, vicar is from the Latin word Vicarius.

We get out terminology of vice-president from this very root. That may help understand the meaning a little better.

Edit: You may also be familar with the term viceroy. That is a term used a few hundred years ago. It was meant to describe the representative of the King in a colony or area. Vice (representative) Roy(French for King).
Thank you Met!

BBAS

[theseed]

Does not Vicar of Christ mean that he speaks for Him? I don't believe that the office of the Apostles was one that was meant to be passed down. I cite 1 Corinthians 3 for that one.

[racer]

jinx

:D

LOL!! ^_^ What ever happened to Pinch, poke, you owe me a coke? :P

[racer]

Edit: You may also be familar with the term viceroy. That is a term used a few hundred years ago. It was meant to describe the representative of the King in a colony or area. Vice (representative) Roy(French for King).

Hmmm . . . :scratch: yes, viceroy does sound familiar, but for some reason cigarettes come to mind . . . . :scratch:

[racer]

I find this verse to be rather telling:

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

:angel:

[Greeter]

Don't feel bad, thanks to Lucas, I hear "viceroy" and think of Star Wars.

[Metanoia02]

Hmmm . . . :scratch: yes, viceroy does sound familiar, but for some reason cigarettes come to mind . . . . :scratch:That's because they were alway next to the Sir Walter Raleighs. Do they even make those anymore?

[BBAS 64]

The following thread provides a number of quotes from prominent Protestant authorities on the identity of the "rock" in Matthew 16:18:



http://www.christianforums.com/t90144 (http://www.christianforums.com/t90144)



According to the title, the quotes are evidence of Protestants supporting the belief that Peter was the "Vicar of Christ." Given that the phrase wasn't defined in the OP, and that the quotes only demonstrate Protestants supporting the idea that Peter was the rock spoken of in Matthew 16:18, "Vicar of Christ" can't mean what it usually does in Catholic apologetics.







Whether or not the quotes from the OP and subsequent support this purpose depends entirely on how "Vicar of Christ" is defined. If the run-of-the-mill definition is being used, there won't be complaints that Scripture is being twisted; there will be complaints that Protestants are being misquoted to support something they don't really believe.



~Matt
Good day, Matt

After reading some more on this issue around the verse in Matthew and re reading the quotes in the link by authors whom I have no history on. Based on the use and changing understanding in history of this verse. It is also clear that the authors in the link never used the word Vicar of Christ. Even if they did the understanding of the word Vicar is not implied in this verse.

In some early writings the term vicar is used in various contexts even that there could be more that one vicar in the same period of time. What I see in this verse would not lead me to believe that Peter was a /an vicar of Christ than you or I am IMHO. I see us all as ambassadors for Christ like Paul ,Peter, James and John..

"It is not me but Christ in me that people will see." Christ still regins and is the king of kings and the lord of lords he does not require a Vicar he lives. Oh that I might be a servant of his and His Alone! :clap:

Peace to u,

BBAS

[BBAS 64]

That's because they were alway next to the Sir Walter Raleighs. Do they even make those anymore?
Those Things were NASTYYYYY...

BBAS