Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Jon-

Thank you for joining the discussion. I know from past dialogue that universal jurisdiction of the papacy is the last real obstacle keeping you from returning to the Catholic Church.

As a result, I believe that the evidence I have presented may finally enable you to begin the journey home.
  1. Jesus clearly alludes to Isaiah 22 when he gives the keys to Peter alone in Matthew 16. The other apostles are granted authority as stewards in 18, but only Peter has the keys as the Royal Steward. Luther saw this.
  2. Protestant scholars and commentaries acknowledge the connection between Peter and Eliakim. It’s not just a half-baked idea pulled off the Internet.
  3. While the earliest Church Fathers may not have foreseen and/or understood the papacy as we do today, this is true of many doctrines that have developed after much thought and prayer through the centuries. Cardinal Newman explains why this is the case.
  4. While the papacy has clearly grown in scope over time, this, too, is understandable as Fr. Fortescue explains in my recent post.
Jon, Jesus clearly had Is. 22-20-22 in mind when He gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter in Mt. 16:18-19. His meaning clearly parallels the prophet’s text even using some of the same words. This was not by chance.

God the Father acted to place Eliakim over the household of Hezekiah, and God the Father revealed to Peter that Jesus was His Son which signaled to Jesus that Peter was the chosen Steward over the kingdom that Jesus was restoring.

Because Jesus is an eternal king, the office of His royal steward is perpetual, also, and the popes of the Catholic Church have held that office for 2,000 years and will continue to do so until Christ returns.

May God bless you as you prayerfully consider these things.
 
Did any of the Apostles in Matthew 18 receive copies of the keys given to Peter?

Nope.

There was only ONE Royal Steward who was given Keys as the symbol of that office.
Certainly Peter is given authority as a steward, as are all bishops. You could even properly say that he is appointed “chief steward,” at least for a few verses. (One can draw some nice parallels in this regard to Jeroboam in the Deuteronomistic History.)

But the question is (again–see my earlier post) whether he uses his authority appropriately or not. In the case of Matthew 16, clearly no. He’s the “Shebnah,” of the story. Who else in the entire Bible is referred to as a Satan? Peter “falls” here, just like he does in the story about walking on water, just like Satan is said to fall from heaven because of his pride, just like Shebnah does because he sees his granted authority as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Peter’s authority isn’t absolute; he doesn’t always speak for Jesus; his authority can be abused. Jesus corrects him severely, as does Paul. This is why the authority to bind and loose is essentially taken away from Peter’s exclusive domain and redistributed to all disciples in Matthew 18, as I already pointed out. (See also Matthew 20:25 in this regard.) The Church needs and has been given mechanisms to check authority when it spins out of control.

Also, a huge chunk of the biblical tradition is devoted to the fact that the House of David was given great authority and they all failed miserably at it. To be associated with the House of David isn’t necessarily some badge of honor or privilege. To associate Peter with the “royal” anything already casts suspicion about his character and competence.

The connections to the Old Testament make the passage very clear–just because people are given authority doesn’t mean they can necessarily be trusted to do the right thing.
 
This is why the authority to bind and loose is essentially taken away from Peter’s exclusive domain and redistributed to all disciples in Matthew 18, as I already pointed out. (See also Matthew 20:25 in this regard.) The Church needs and has been given mechanisms to check authority when it spins out of control.
That is a huge jump to say that the bind and lose was taken away from Peter.

It was later shared with the other Apostles so they all exercise it as the Church. As seen in Acts 15 and the Ecumenical Councils.

Definitely not taken away…
 
The connections to the Old Testament make the passage very clear–just because people are given authority doesn’t mean they can necessarily be trusted to do the right thing.
Do the right thing? In what respect? Popes are sinners, but they are also infallible when formally teaching.

The difference being, of course, that Jesus is now seated upon the throne of the House of David and that He has sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.

Moreover, if you REALLY want to argue the case about leaders who lose their authority after misusing it, then you have to deal with the fact that Jesus taught the exact opposite.(IOW, I’m not buying your argument.) Here’s mine:

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Of course, sin and corruption in Church leadership should never be condoned but neither should they surprise us. The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
 
(See also Matthew 20:25 in this regard.) The Church needs and has been given mechanisms to check authority when it spins out of control.
Matthew 20:25? C’mon, Dave. What does that have to do with the institution of the Royal Steward under Jesus’ authority? Sure, bad stewards come and go, but the office remains. Just as God removed Shebna, He can and will remove popes as He sees fit.

Let me add that many non-Catholics try to minimize the authority of the Catholic Papacy by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

However, could it be possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Peter’s desire was that some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that he of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Would this have inspired them to practice humility, also?

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

Final point, the bishops of the Church, out of respect for the papacy, refer to the Pope as “Your Holiness”. The Pope, out of respect for his fellow bishops, refers to them as “my brothers”. They place him above themselves, and he lifts them up to his level. This is humility in action on both parts. 👍
 
That is a huge jump to say that the bind and lose was taken away from Peter.

It was later shared with the other Apostles so they all exercise it as the Church. As seen in Acts 15 and the Ecumenical Councils.

Definitely not taken away…
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.
 
Do the right thing? In what respect? Popes are sinners, but they are also infallible when formally teaching.
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.
 
Matthew 20:25? C’mon, Dave. What does that have to do with the institution of the Royal Steward under Jesus’ authority?
Everything, actually. What is Peter’s basic error in Matthew 16? Peter sees what he understands a royal, earthly power slipping away through the death of Jesus. Peter misunderstands that Jesus actually eschews royal authority and temporal political power–Jesus’ authority is that of the cross and sacrifice and laying down one’s life.
 
Everything, actually. What is Peter’s basic error in Matthew 16? Peter sees what he understands a royal, earthly power slipping away through the death of Jesus. Peter misunderstands that Jesus actually eschews royal authority and temporal political power–Jesus’ authority is that of the cross and sacrifice and laying down one’s life.
and you understand that from?
 
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.
Dave, Catholics don’t base their understanding of infallibility on the keys. As you note, they are symbols of the authority invested uniquely in Peter. Sure, the other apostles had similar authority, but only one was the chief shepherd or royal steward over the entire House of David ruled by Jesus.

The basis for our understanding of infallibility is found in other verses.

So, let’s focus now on one aspect of Matthew 16:18-9; put it side-by-side with Is. 22:20-22 and ask you self this one question: Did Jesus choose his words merely by chance or did He deliberately invoke the imagery found in the passage from Isaiah? If the latter, why? 🤷

Here they are again…just look at them.

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.”

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.

Mere coincidence? :nope:
 
Everything, actually. What is Peter’s basic error in Matthew 16? Peter sees what he understands a royal, earthly power slipping away through the death of Jesus. Peter misunderstands that Jesus actually eschews royal authority and temporal political power–Jesus’ authority is that of the cross and sacrifice and laying down one’s life.
Peter was not a Zealot like the other Simon. And if you recall, it was James and John who asked to sit next to Jesus…not Peter. So, no, I don’t see it.

Perhaps Peter simply did not want to see his friend killed by the Romans.
 
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.
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.
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
(Act 1:21-22 ESV)
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?
 
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.
Methinks, this would be applicable if the pope was not confirmed, the sacrament of confirmation, has not recieved The Eucharist.
 
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.

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?
This seems a very weak argument much like the one that the role of Prime Minister in Isaiah is more similar to Christ … Its the Davidic Kingdom [Jesus is the King] and the Prime Minister derives all his authority from the King and serves as long as the King has confidence in him …

Why would it be necessary for the Peter to lead the Church - i.e. people who walked the earth and heard Jesus speak in person while the Church through the ages would not?

Yes - when they selected a successor to the office of Apostle - left vacant by Judas - Peter identified a criteria - and the selection was made. However, if one is bound by that literal criteria - there is no leadership or apostolic succession for more then a generation …Why institute one? Why the parallel imagery? Jesus does not speak of this role lightly - it has to have meaning … hard as that is for modern ears and ideas to understand. It would be like our founding fathers instituting a presidency and supreme court * but only for only the first few fledgling years *of our representative republic - then leaving the next generations with nothing but a written constitution as the only authority moving ahead with an ever changing group of leadership trying to interpret it. The question would be - why have the presidency to start with - only to do away with it? Also - a merely ceremonial role is pointless - shy would Jesus go to that trouble and to what purpose? Jesus is our Life and our Hope and our Salvation - creating a temporary unauthoritative role is untenable …

Yet Jesus promised and I believe that the Church is perpetual - the very gates of Hell shall never prevail against it … If leadership was important enough for Jesus to quote Isaiah for that time - it can be nothing less then necessary and important in the present day - two millennia later …

Also much is being made of Jesus’s rebuke and Peter’s denial … but again … when Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him … it was singularly Peter who was called to shepherd the apostles and people of God [care and feed My sheep] … and Jesus singularly identifies Peter as the object of special prayers and strengthening so that Peter may strengthen and serve the Apostles - and the Church …

Supremacy … this is laughable really … The primary role of the Pope is to be a servant of the servants of God … can power go to the head of a person - to a Pope … sure … Popes are people too … but can a Pope teach error in faith or morals … no - our Lord promised this would never happen.
 
Even if it is accepted that Peter had some sort of primacy, Jesus says nothing about successors.
So do you accept primacy of peter?
Rock=permanent. Peter died. But his office, not yet named papacy then, had to be there till the second coming. So the solution?

Hint:Early Christians had common sense.
 
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.
Nothing? Great! Then there is no biblical reason to oppose apostolic succession. 😉

But more seriously, there is a lot in the NT regarding succession. In fact, the very passages we’re discussing PROVE that the NT office of apostle would be filled successively because the passage from Isaiah demonstrates succession.
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?
The qualification to which you refer referred to apostles, not bishops. Consequently, while there are no more Apostles, their successors, the Bishops, so continue to exist.

As for being the Bishop of Rome, that is simply an administrative matter. Peter died in Rome, so the person who succeeds him as the Bishop of Rome is considered the head of the universal Church.
 
Nothing? Great! Then there is no biblical reason to oppose apostolic succession. 😉

But more seriously, there is a lot in the NT regarding succession. In fact, the very passages we’re discussing PROVE that the NT office of apostle would be filled successively because the passage from Isaiah demonstrates succession.

The qualification to which you refer referred to apostles, not bishops. Consequently, while there are no more Apostles, their successors, the Bishops, so continue to exist.

As for being the Bishop of Rome, that is simply an administrative matter. Peter died in Rome, so the person who succeeds him as the Bishop of Rome is considered the head of the universal Church.
Yes!! I always enjoy your posts Randy
 
Dave, Catholics don’t base their understanding of infallibility on the keys. As you note, they are symbols of the authority invested uniquely in Peter. Sure, the other apostles had similar authority, but only one was the chief shepherd or royal steward over the entire House of David ruled by Jesus.

The basis for our understanding of infallibility is found in other verses.

So, let’s focus now on one aspect of Matthew 16:18-9; put it side-by-side with Is. 22:20-22 and ask you self this one question: Did Jesus choose his words merely by chance or did He deliberately invoke the imagery found in the passage from Isaiah? If the latter, why? 🤷

Here they are again…just look at them.

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.”

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.

Mere coincidence? :nope:
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?
 
Peter was not a Zealot like the other Simon. And if you recall, it was James and John who asked to sit next to Jesus…not Peter. So, no, I don’t see it.

Perhaps Peter simply did not want to see his friend killed by the Romans.
I’m not sure then what you think think the “earthly things” are that Peter has on his mind in Matthew 16? This entire section is about power and authority and relationships in the church. In the next chapter (esp. Matthew 17:4), it’s clear that Peter still doesn’t get it–he’s craving to be accepted into the “inner circle.”

And even after Jesus dies and rises from the dead the apostles (collectively) were still wanting their share in a political, earthly kingdom (e.g., Acts 1:6).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top