Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[guanophore]

A bunch of guys that I never heard of who all miss the point.

This is an interesting response to scholarship, HH. It does not make you look very objective, or open to facts and history.

Eliakim was a type of Christ not a type of Peter.

So, what scholarship do you have to support your perspective? It seems like you are just dismissing these scholars because they don’t confirm what you want to believe.

Even so. Hezekiah owned the kingdom and placed Eliakim in charge, just like the Father owns the world and placed Jesus Christ in charge.

This is theologically impaired for a variety of reasons. One is that Jesus is God. In Him and through Him are all things created. He does not need the Father to give him charge of it.

Second, the “world” has been turned over to the devil till the end of this age. It is he that is “the god of this world”.

Third, the keys given to Peter are for the Church/the Kingdom. The Church does not belong to Peter, but to Christ. Peter is only a steward.

 

[JonNC]

THE DOUBLE STANDARD EXPOSED

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: We are saved by faith alone. The Bible is very clear on this.

CATHOLIC: There is no verse which explicitly teaches this. The phrase “faith alone” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: This is technically true, but the principle of sola fide can be easily interpreted from many verses if you have ears to hear them correctly.

CATHOLIC: But there are other verses which explicitly tell us that without works all we have is dead faith, and James tells us explicitly that we are NOT saved by faith alone. So, you don’t have an explicit verse supporting faith alone while I do have a verse that denies it.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: Be that as it may, the idea that we are saved by faith alone is the bedrock of Protestant Christianity.

The next day…

CATHOLIC: Jesus named Peter as the royal steward in His kingdom by giving Peter the keys of the kingdom.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: There is no verse which explicitly teaches this. The phrase “royal steward” does not appear anywhere in the NT.

CATHOLIC: This is technically true, but in Mt. 16:18-19, Jesus intentionally uses language that is almost identical to Is. 22:20-22 wherein God names Eliakim as the royal steward under King Hezekiah. The connection is obvious.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: That doesn’t prove that Peter was given universal authority over the Church. Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter exercised such authority in the pages of the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: But there are other verses in which Peter is specifically told to strengthen his brothers and to feed and to tend the flock. So, I have verses supporting the belief that Peter was named the royal steward with universal jurisdiction in the Church, and you don’t have anything from the NT which denies that Peter had this authority.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: That’s not enough to prove Peter’s universal jurisdiction. Without an explicit statement, your proposition is unsupported.

It’s an interesting dichotomy, isn’t it?

I will be responding to your other post today or tomorrow, but I want to tell you, Randy, that your thread is actually refreshing, in that you propose to support the Catholic Church with scripture and Catholic teaching, instead of bashing others.



Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

THE DOUBLE STANDARD EXPOSED

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: We are saved by faith alone. The Bible is very clear on this.

CATHOLIC: There is no verse which explicitly teaches this. The phrase “faith alone” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: This is technically true, but the principle of sola fide can be easily interpreted from many verses if you have ears to hear them correctly.

CATHOLIC: But there are other verses which explicitly tell us that without works all we have is dead faith, and James tells us explicitly that we are NOT saved by faith alone. So, you don’t have an explicit verse supporting faith alone while I do have a verse that denies it.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: Be that as it may, the idea that we are saved by faith alone is the bedrock of Protestant Christianity.

The next day…

CATHOLIC: Jesus named Peter as the royal steward in His kingdom by giving Peter the keys of the kingdom.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: There is no verse which explicitly teaches this. The phrase “royal steward” does not appear anywhere in the NT.

CATHOLIC: This is technically true, but in Mt. 16:18-19, Jesus intentionally uses language that is almost identical to Is. 22:20-22 wherein God names Eliakim as the royal steward under King Hezekiah. The connection is obvious.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: That doesn’t prove that Peter was given universal authority over the Church. Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter exercised such authority in the pages of the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: But there are other verses in which Peter is specifically told to strengthen his brothers and to feed and to tend the flock. So, I have verses supporting the belief that Peter was named the royal steward with universal jurisdiction in the Church, and you don’t have anything from the NT which denies that Peter had this authority.

BIBLE CHRISTIAN: That’s not enough to prove Peter’s universal jurisdiction. Without an explicit statement, your proposition is unsupported.

Because neither one of them is there and both did not fully develop until after the Great Schism.

 

[rcwitness]

Good thread Randy…

I don’t know if anyone else thinks this is interesting…

The closest Biblical mention of the term Catholic applied to the Church (in Greek) is found in Acts 9:31

ekklesia kath olos

The very next verse speaks of Peter as going here and there among them all.

Acts 9:31-32 (RSVCE)

31 So the (ekklesia kath olos) church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

32 Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

When we take in the vast totality of Jesus’ relationship with Peter, his vocation, his commission, and the few examples we have of his leadership excercised after the ascension of Jesus, I don’t see how anyone would not recognize Peter’s universal jurisdiction while he went “here and there among them all”.

Peter, was the first appointed steward of the office of “Divine Confirmation” within the “ekklesia kath olos”.

 

[guanophore]

Not taken away from Peter, which isn’t exactly what I said, but also (after the earlier debacle?) granted to all the disciples in Matthew 18–this particular authority, the binding and loosing, was no longer exclusively Peter’s. Also note that this power was shared with the disciples (a much broader group) not the Apostles. We are all called to be disciples.

Binding and loosing is legislative authority. Jesus founded a Church that contains authority, and he gave His authority to those in the foundation of His Church. Those, in turn, passed this authority on to their successors, the Bishops. The Bishops delegated some of their duties to deacons, and their authority to elders (priests). But ultimately, the responsibility lies with the Bishop.

Any authority (legitimate) is exercised on behalf of the Bishop, and under the authority of the Bishop. Yes, we are all called to be disciples, but disciples are expected to be under the authority of the Bishop, because this is how Jesus set things up.

That’s the point. Matthew 16 shows clearly there’s nothing inherent in the power of the keys that guarantees anything other than authority. The person in charge could be a Satan. No guarantees of good behavior; no guarantees of even basic theological understanding about the mission of Jesus. And certainly nothing about special abilities to teach infallibly, even if that were logically possible.

If it were not possible for people to teach infallibly, ,Dave, we would not have a New Testament. Infallibility os not a “special ability” in the sense that it belongs to humans. It is a gift of God that prevents the church from falling into error.

Every person who wrote those NT letters and memoirs was protected by the Holy Spirit, so that the result could be an infallible act - Scripture that is inspired and inerrant. Human beings cannot do these things without grace. Perhaps this does not square with your concept of “logical possibility”, and indeed there are many mysteries in our religion.

 

[guanophore]

Even if it is accepted that Peter had some sort of primacy, Jesus says nothing about successors. Peter himself tells us what is required to be a successor to an apostle.

Jesus told Peter and the other apostles that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. This gave them the authority to create successors for themselves. Judas was the first apostle for whom a successor was chosen.

No one here is claiming that the successors of the Apostles must also be apostles.

Which later bishops of Rome could meet that qualification? And if there were to be successors, what requires that they be the bishop of Rome?

Only the first two, if that. But it is the responsibility and authority that was passed to the Bishops, to feed and care for the flock.

All Bishops are successors of the Apostles. There is no requirement that they be bishops in Rome.

In fact, the line of Bishops coming from Peter in Antioch is older than the one in Rome!

 

[guanophore]

I already addressed the connection to Isaiah 22 in post #42. Peter is a proper “Eliakim”–for about two verses–but ends up being a “Shebnah” in the story. This repeats the literary pattern followed in regards to Peter in the Gospel according to Matthew; Peter starts off well, but ends poorly. Being called a Satan by Jesus is ending poorly. How would you interpret Jesus’ remarks if he called you a Satan?

It must have been very painful, and even more so when Peter’s faith failed him at the trial crucifixion. But this is only proof that the authority given to him is not contingent upon his own perfection, but upon Christ.

I don’t know how much history of your faith you have studied, but Peter did not “end poorly”. On the contrary, his faith grew over the years, and in the “end” he was crucified for his faith.

 

[guanophore]

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Jesus gave Peter specific gifts and responsibilties we call the Petrine Gifts.

I would suggest then (in your appeal to the whole word and not just portions), a thorough reading of Ezekiel 34 to which the John passage refers. The command to feed the sheep is more stern prophetic warning rather than any kind of affirmation of Peter’s glorified role in the church. Sort of a “You messed up before–don’t mess up after I’m gone” kind of speech.

Indeed yes. This is why we see the Bishops as responsible for the flock of God.

It seems to me that Catholics continue to build a gigantic theological house of cards on a misunderstanding of about 10 verses of scripture.

No, but this is a common misunderstanding of bible Christians. You see, the Catholic faith did not come out of the Bible, and it is not a “religion of the book”. Jesus did not found a Bible, but a Church. The Church was alive and well for decades before even a word of the NT was ever written. So technically, nonoe of the Catholic understanding comes out of any verses of scripture.

Peter's authority flows directly from his right proclamation of the Gospel and correct understanding of the mission of Jesus and the proper role of authority in the church--servant leadership.

This is an innovation created at the Reformation to justify the decision to separate from the authority created by Christ. There is nothing in Scripture or the history of the Church that indicates any such concept, and yet, this concept is used as an excuse to reject Apostolic authority.

To the extent he does that and does that clearly and directly, he has great authority–the greatest even. To the extent he does not do that, he is a Satan–a fallen angel/messenger of the Gospel.

The calumny of Luther at his finest.

It is interesting that this concept did not appear previously in history, don’t you think? I don’t know if there were ever any “perfect” popes.

Authority flows from right doctrine; not right doctrine from authority.

This is also an innovative concept to justify the rejection of the authority appointed by Christ. Jesus taught the opposite.

Just as an aside, what issues do you have with the Popes of the last 100 years? Do you see these successors of Peter as missing the mark? Do you reject their authority over you because you have judged them unworthy servant leaders?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good thread Randy…

I don’t know if anyone else thinks this is interesting…

The closest Biblical mention of the term Catholic applied to the Church (in Greek) is found in Acts 9:31

ekklesia kath olos

The very next verse speaks of Peter as going here and there among them all.

Acts 9:31-32 (RSVCE)

31 So the (ekklesia kath olos) church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

32 Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

When we take in the vast totality of Jesus’ relationship with Peter, his vocation, his commission, and the few examples we have of his leadership excercised after the ascension of Jesus, I don’t see how anyone would not recognize Peter’s universal jurisdiction while he went “here and there among them all”.

Peter, was the first appointed steward of the office of “Divine Confirmation” within the “ekklesia kath olos”.

There is another scriptural basis for Peter acting on the behalf of Jesus:

Matthew 17:24-27
24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” 25 “Yes, he does,” he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?” 26 “From others,” Peter answered. “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

Peter went to the temple, and in persona Christi, paid the tax that Jesus owed.

Peter. Always Peter.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m not trying to be antagonistic (and here you start down the path of an ad hominem attack which does not reflect well on you).

I’ve read your posts, and I’ve tried to respond. Perhaps I failed to answer to your satisfaction, but at least I tried.

Now, please return the courtesy.

Did Jesus choose His words in Mt. 16:18-19 merely by chance or did He deliberately invoke the imagery found in the passage from Isaiah 22:20-22?

No, you haven’t read or refuse to read (?) or refuse to respond to (?) what I wrote about Isaiah 22 in response to your question above–in two separate posts. Asked and answered.

In return I requested references to back up your claims about first century sources–not seeing anything here…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I don’t know how much history of your faith you have studied, but Peter did not “end poorly”. On the contrary, his faith grew over the years, and in the “end” he was crucified for his faith.

We started off this thread talking about the Gospel of Matthew. If you take a look at all the incidents involving Peter in the Gospel of Matthew, you see what I’m talking about. I wasn’t referring to the historical Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, you haven’t read or refuse to read (?) or refuse to respond to (?) what I wrote about Isaiah 22 in response to your question above–in two separate posts.

I’ll make this even easier:

**Did Jesus deliberately invoke the image of the Royal Steward from Isaiah 22:20-22 when speaking to Peter in Mt. 16:18-19?

Yes or No?**

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is another scriptural basis for Peter acting on the behalf of Jesus:

Matthew 17:24-27
24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” 25 “Yes, he does,” he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?” 26 “From others,” Peter answered. “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

Peter went to the temple, and in persona Christi, paid the tax that Jesus owed.

Peter. Always Peter.

Sola Cephas?

There should be no doubt as to Peter’s Primacy.

But what Jon is bringing to attention is as valid as what you are bringing. Jon is arguing how the Primacy has been exercised and understood throughout Church history, which drastically changed after 1054 AD.

Dave, on the other hand appears to be dismissive of Peter’s primacy and in that dismissal he’s lost me in translation…

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, you haven’t read or refuse to read (?) or refuse to respond to (?) what I wrote about Isaiah 22 in response to your question above–in two separate posts. Asked and answered.

In posts 42 and 59, you offer your personal opinion that Peter starts out as Eliakim but ends up as Shebnah. Is this what you are referring to? If so, I dealt with your misunderstanding at length in post #64 & #65.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any credible scholars who hold this view of Peter being the new Shebnah?

One final thought, and this is devastating for your argument: suppose that Peter IS the new Shebnah…okay, who is the new Eliakim who replaced Peter/Shebnah as holder of the office of Royal Steward?

Why, that would have been Linus, the new Eliakim and the second Catholic pope, wouldn’t it?

See, Dave? It’s the office of the Royal Steward or Pope established by Jesus that matters. Catholics acknowledge that we’ve had lots of Eliakims and a few Shebnah’s over the past 2,000 years, but the office of Royal Steward/Pope remains.

In return I requested references to back up your claims about first century sources–not seeing anything here…

I do apologize for not having documented my reference to Phylo as I should. I will get back to you with this as soon as the passage is located.

Happily I think you have a Greek dictionary…look up bosko and poimano for yourself.

Poimano (to rule) is used in connection with both Jesus and Peter, so unless you are going to deny that Jesus has the authority to rule, you cannot claim that Peter is not commanded by Jesus to rule, as well.

Revelation 19:15
15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule (poimanao) them with an iron scepter.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dave-

PS- In my previous post I asked for references to scholars who hold your view that Peter becomes “Shebnah”.

I think this is a reasonable request since in posts #5 & #6, I provided extensive references from PROTESTANT scholars and commentaries supporting my view that Peter is the new Royal Steward.

It would be most impressive if you have any CATHOLIC scholars who take your view; barring that, I would be interested to see if you can come up with anything from anyone at all because, frankly, I think you’re out there all alone on this.

Thanks.

 

[Peter_J]

And if there were to be successors, what requires that they be the bishop of Rome?

Hi SyCarl. I’m not sure I understand your question … I certainly don’t claim that St Peter wasn’t the pope until he went to Rome. (Nor do I claim that the Avignon popes were not real popes – though I’ll grant you that’s a tricky example to use, since I believe that the title “Bishop of Rome” applied to them.)

 

[benjohnson]

Randy, there’s a good chance that someone has already posted this before - but here’s the historical Lutheran explanation of why we don’t profess universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope:

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Two arguments that fit the thesis that the current Catholic understanding of the Papal office is relatively new:

12] VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

15] Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

 

[rcwitness]

Randy, there’s a good chance that someone has already posted this before - but here’s the historical Lutheran explanation of why we don’t profess universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope:

Interesting. Would modern Lutheranism be closer to Eastern Orthodox than to the West?

I’m afraid this direction of the debate gets a little complicated for me

I did however, find an interesting article regarding St Jerome and his debated position with Rome’s "Universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope’.

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num53.htm

On a bit of a side note within the article, was two quotes from St Jerome and St Augustine regarding St Paul’s rebuke of St Peter’s behavior with the Gentiles. I find St Augustine’s rather intriguing.

St. Jerome and St. Augustine

A pleasanter quarrel to look back upon is the unfortunate misunderstanding between St. Jerome and St. Augustine, which the gentlemanly and Christian courtesy of the latter brought to a friendly termination, followed by sincere admiration on the part of the generous if excitable Jerome for the younger doctor. The respect shown by Jerome for the episcopal diginity of Augustine communionis meae episcopum, and the view of the former as to St. Peter’s reprehension of St. Paul, has already been touched upon. It only remains to remark that upon one point they were quite agreed, that is, upon the pre-eminant dignity of St. Peter. St. Jerome on the one hand argues that St. Peter could not have been really corrected by St. Paul, for St. Peter was the true author of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem on which St. Paul’s reproof reposed. After a long demonstration, he concludes:

“It is, therefore, doubtful to no one that the Apostle Peter was the first author of this decision, which he is now accused of transgressing.” (Ep 112, 742[920], AD 404)

St. Augustine, on the other hand, does not deny this statement, but argues that

“Peter gave a rarer and holier example to posterity that men should not disdain to be corrected by their inferiors (a posterioribus) than did Paul, that the lesser should resist the greater for the defense of evangelical truth, saving fraternal charity.” (Ep 116, 774[947], AD 405)

 

[rcwitness]

Randy, there’s a good chance that someone has already posted this before - but here’s the historical Lutheran explanation of why we don’t profess universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope:

Interesting. Would modern Lutheranism be closer to Eastern Orthodox than to the West?

I’m afraid this direction of the debate gets a little complicated for me

I did however, find an interesting article regarding St Jerome and his debated position with Rome’s "Universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope’.

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num53.htm

Here is a quote of St Jerome from the article:

"‘But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter,’ and replies: “Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed. But why was not John, the virgin, elected? Deference was had to age, because Peter was older, in order that a young man – almost a mere lad – should not be preferred above men of advanced age, and that the good Master (whose duty it was to take away all cause of dispute from His disciples, and who had said to them: ‘My peace I give you, My peace I leave unto you,’ and Whoso among you wishes to be greater, let him be the least of all’) might not seem to afford a ground for jealousy in appointing the young man whom He had loved.”

On a bit of a side note within the article, was two quotes from St Jerome and St Augustine regarding St Paul’s rebuke of St Peter’s behavior with the Gentiles. I find St Augustine’s rather intriguing.

St. Jerome and St. Augustine

A pleasanter quarrel to look back upon is the unfortunate misunderstanding between St. Jerome and St. Augustine, which the gentlemanly and Christian courtesy of the latter brought to a friendly termination, followed by sincere admiration on the part of the generous if excitable Jerome for the younger doctor. The respect shown by Jerome for the episcopal diginity of Augustine communionis meae episcopum, and the view of the former as to St. Peter’s reprehension of St. Paul, has already been touched upon. It only remains to remark that upon one point they were quite agreed, that is, upon the pre-eminant dignity of St. Peter. St. Jerome on the one hand argues that St. Peter could not have been really corrected by St. Paul, for St. Peter was the true author of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem on which St. Paul’s reproof reposed. After a long demonstration, he concludes:

“It is, therefore, doubtful to no one that the Apostle Peter was the first author of this decision, which he is now accused of transgressing.” (Ep 112, 742[920], AD 404)

St. Augustine, on the other hand, does not deny this statement, but argues that

“Peter gave a rarer and holier example to posterity that men should not disdain to be corrected by their inferiors (a posterioribus) than did Paul, that the lesser should resist the greater for the defense of evangelical truth, saving fraternal charity.” (Ep 116, 774[947], AD 405)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, there’s a good chance that someone has already posted this before - but here’s the historical Lutheran explanation of why we don’t profess universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope:

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Two arguments that fit the thesis that the current Catholic understanding of the Papal office is relatively new:

12] VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

15] Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

Ben-

I have never read the Book of Concord, so I have to pass over this in silence.

However, it seems to me that there are plenty of ECF’s both before and after Nicea who reference the supremacy of Peter and the Roman See.

So, administrative responsibility granted to Alexandria? Sure, no problem. Scripture records that the deacons were appointed to administer the food distribution of the widows. The Roman empire, too, was broken up into administrative provinces. But local administration does not mean that there was not a supreme or chief steward of the household of God to whom all things would ultimately be referred when necessary.