Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
Is Jesus our king? Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
Click to expand...
I’m really glad I read through Isaiah before commenting too much. In in verst 12-14 we see the people being called by God to repent and they instead joyfully eat and drink. The wrath of the lord begins in ernest for the steward in verses 17-19

*17 Behold, the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house.

19 And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.*

And finally in 20-22 the steward is stripped of his authority, and it is given to one more worthy.

This isn’t a passing down of succession - this is the Lord killing and stripping authority away from a bad and unrepentant steward. These verses can’t be of Jesus giving authority to Peter - for Jesus is the perfect Lord.
 
benjohnson said:
I’m really glad I read through Isaiah before commenting too much. In in verst 12-14 we see the people being called by God to repent and they instead joyfully eat and drink. The wrath of the lord begins in ernest for the steward in verses 17-19

*17 Behold, the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house.

19 And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.*

And finally in 20-22 the steward is stripped of his authority, and it is given to one more worthy.

This isn’t a passing down of succession - this is the Lord killing and stripping authority away from a bad and unrepentant steward. These verses can’t be of Jesus giving authority to Peter - for Jesus is the perfect Lord.
Click to expand...
Jesus took the authority from the chief priests of Israel, who sat on the “seat of Moses” and gave it to Peter, who sat in the “chair of Peter”.

Interesting too, that this development of power transfered to Peter and the Church took time, even according to Jesus. He tells the people to still observe whatever the leaders of Israel tell the, because they sit on the “seat of Moses”.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
I don’t believe it because it’s extra biblical and ahistorical. Not because I simply refuse to.

If in scripture there were evidence of Peter exercising his sole universal jurisdiction over the whole church and the rest of the Apostles, and his supposed successors doing the same I would be more compelled.
Click to expand...
There is.

For example, Peter overturned centuries of Jewish tradition by proclaiming that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. Since circumcision was a God-given requirement that applied to converts prior to this time, what right did Peter have to make the change?

Additionally, you may recall that Peter interpreted passages from the OT to establish the fact that Judas Iscariot would be replaced by Matthias. Jesus named the Twelve; what gave Peter the right to add someone not chosen by Jesus to be an Apostle?

And here’s more to consider:

Scripture Parallels: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word

Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim

Peter - Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth

If Jesus is the king (like Pharaoh and Hezekiah), then who is His royal steward?
 
benjohnson said:
I’m really glad I read through Isaiah before commenting too much. In in verst 12-14 we see the people being called by God to repent and they instead joyfully eat and drink. The wrath of the lord begins in ernest for the steward in verses 17-19

*17 Behold, the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house.

19 And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.*

And finally in 20-22 the steward is stripped of his authority, and it is given to one more worthy.

This isn’t a passing down of succession - this is the Lord killing and stripping authority away from a bad and unrepentant steward. These verses can’t be of Jesus giving authority to Peter - for Jesus is the perfect Lord.
Click to expand...
Ben-

God declares that Hezekiah’s unfaithful steward, Shebna, will be replaced by a more worthy man, Eliakim. From this, we see that kings have stewards that come and go, but the office of the royal steward remains.

In the NT, we see that Judas Iscariot hangs himself, but the office remains. Thus, Peter announces that the office must be filled, and Matthias is elected. This illustrates the principle behind apostolic succession.

God reveals to Peter that Jesus is the son of God, and Jesus gives him the keys of the office of royal steward.

Thus, just as God the Father was at work in the appointment of Eliakim, God the Father was instrumental in the appointment of Peter.

Jesus is an eternal king, and the office of His royal steward continues in perpetuity even though the office holders come and go. The successors of Peter, the popes of the Catholic Church, are the royal stewards in the court of Jesus our king.

You need to be Catholic, Ben, because this is what Jesus intended for you to be.
 
No that took hundreds of years to show up.
Click to expand...
Clement of Alexandria
Click to expand...
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Click to expand...
Early enough?
And bishops for hundreds of years seemed unaware of such a doctrine.
Click to expand...
Pope Innocent I:
Click to expand...
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Click to expand...
He seems to know.
It’s an innovation
Click to expand...
No,its not.
and extrabiblical.
Click to expand...
and your response to catholic-quoted verses?
 
Jack007 said:
Early enough?He seems to know. No,its not. and your response to catholic-quoted verses?
Click to expand...
Sure.

Clement of Alexandria is simply commenting on Peters understanding of Jesus message. And that he was a preeminent apostle. No one disputes that. I read nothing there about Peter ruling over the apostles and the church as a whole in the capacity of universal bishop.

As for Innocent, notice he says “episcopate itself” not “my episcopate”. That is he means all bishops are successors of Peter, not solely the Roman bishop. That belief would take hundreds of years to show up.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
I read nothing there about Peter ruling over the apostles and the church as a whole in the capacity of universal bishop.
Click to expand...
Then you’ve skipped over post #23 where I gave two examples of Peter’s decisions which were binding upon the whole Church.
  1. Matthias was to be considered one of the Twelve.
  2. Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.
To repeat what I said to Ben:

God reveals to Peter that Jesus is the son of God, and Jesus gives him the keys of the office of royal steward.

Thus, just as God the Father was at work in the appointment of Eliakim, God the Father was instrumental in the appointment of Peter.

Jesus is King. Peter is His Royal Steward. And Peter’s successors, the popes, have held that office down to the present day.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Sure.

Clement of Alexandria is simply commenting on Peters understanding of Jesus message. And that he was a preeminent apostle. No one disputes that. I read nothing there about Peter ruling over the apostles and the church as a whole in the capacity of universal bishop.
Click to expand...
the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute
Click to expand...
So you accept the primacy of Peter?
As for Innocent, notice he says “episcopate itself” not “my episcopate”. That is he means all bishops are successors of Peter, not solely the Roman bishop. That belief would take hundreds of years to show up.
Click to expand...
He speaks about* the* episcopate to whose holder all things should be referred.

And you say centuries. Can you say the century from which you allege papal primacy to have started so that i can quote all church fathers till then?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
A bunch of guys that I never heard of who all miss the point.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I should have pointed out that Oscar Cullman was a Lutheran theologian who was born in Strasburg.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Cullmann

Regarding the connection between Peter and Eliakim, Cullman wrote:

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)
 
When did the Bishop of Rome have immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction as recognized by the Church as a whole prior to Dictatus Papae ~1090?
 
Jack007 said:
So you accept the primacy of Peter?

He speaks about* the* episcopate to whose holder all things should be referred.

And you say centuries. Can you say the century from which you allege papal primacy to have started so that i can quote all church fathers till then?
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean by “primacy”.

I know you wish to bomb me with cherry picked church father quotes, and that’s okay. It’s clear from them that while the bishop of Rome was important, other bishops actively opposed him when he was overstepping his authority, as Irenaeus did to Victor. There isn’t much evidence of any pope lording over others as the supreme universal bishop from the first few centuries of Christianity.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Then you’ve skipped over post #23 where I gave two examples of Peter’s decisions which were binding upon the whole Church.
  1. Matthias was to be considered one of the Twelve.
  2. Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.
To repeat what I said to Ben:

God reveals to Peter that Jesus is the son of God, and Jesus gives him the keys of the office of royal steward.

Thus, just as God the Father was at work in the appointment of Eliakim, God the Father was instrumental in the appointment of Peter.

Jesus is King. Peter is His Royal Steward. And Peter’s successors, the popes, have held that office down to the present day.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing that Peters couldn’t make decisions. No one is arguing that he wasn’t the preeminent apostle.

But the apostles all had the ability to make such decisions. Even non apostles who were elders did, as did James in Acts 15. And Paul made more such binding decisions than Peter and James put together, perhaps Paul was the Royal steward?

WHat we don’t see is Peter ruling over any other aposlte as cheif steward supposedly. No, he was important, even captain of the team I dare say. But had no more authority than any other apostle, as St. Cyprian states.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Thus, just as God the Father was at work in the appointment of Eliakim, God the Father was instrumental in the appointment of Peter.
Click to expand...
I could see your point if we saw God appoint various stewards - but from here, it looks to be a political process that determines the next steward, with even accusations of simony springing up time to time.

That said - I’m not entirely discounting the Catholic understanding of the role that the Bishop of Rome, but from a Lutheran standpoint the claims go too far. If Catholics could reconcile those claims with with the East, we Lutherans would probably join in… as long as we all could agree on the more important agreement to not sing another note of Marty Haugen.
You need to be Catholic, Ben, because this is what Jesus intended for you to be.
Click to expand...
🙂

I do try to respond to God’s love be doing my best to be catholic, but I generally make a mess of it.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
No one is arguing that Peters couldn’t make decisions. No one is arguing that he wasn’t the preeminent apostle.

But the apostles all had the ability to make such decisions. Even non apostles who were elders did, as did James in Acts 15. And Paul made more such binding decisions than Peter and James put together, perhaps Paul was the Royal steward?

WHat we don’t see is Peter ruling over any other aposlte as cheif steward supposedly. No, he was important, even captain of the team I dare say. But had no more authority than any other apostle, as St. Cyprian states.
Click to expand...
Sure. Just keep telling yourself that. 👍
 
House_Harkonnen said:
WHat we don’t see is Peter ruling over any other aposlte as cheif steward supposedly.
Click to expand...
Ruling over other apostles? No. Although you may have forgotten this, I’m sure Peter remembered:

Mark 9:35
35Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”

So, Peter never saw himself as ruler of the other apostles. However, over time, he and his successors did come to understand their role as stewards in the household of God. Their universal jurisdiction is part and parcel of the God-given office of Royal Steward, and the understanding of this universal jurisdiction took time to develop, and here’s why:

On the Development of Papal Jurisdiction
From The Early Papacy
By Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Fr. Fortescue explains the expansion of the Papal Jurisdiction like this:

Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown…when a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations. A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing. This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.

…The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects on Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion? (Fortescue, Adrian, The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp.35-36, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2008.)
 
Randy_Carson said:
Is Jesus our king? Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.
Click to expand...
Just some quick thoughts, Randy, though I am not done pondering your presentation.
  1. This is perhaps the most compelling of Catholic arguments for papal primacy
  2. Lutherans, generally (though not universally) understand and can accept primacy
  3. The issue, then, is supremacy, something not taught in the Early Church, or currently accepted in the Lutheran tradition, nor in Eastern Orthodoxy, among others.
So, the question becomes, at least for me, how does St. Peter’s stewardship relate to his chair in the Roman see? And how can we come to agreement on what papal primacy is, in a way that leads to unity?

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top