Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[Randy_Carson]

If the understanding is not there then it can’t be correct. Can you think of any legitimate understanding of Scripture that can’t be found among the fathers?

You assume that the Fathers saw everything and got it all correct. Gee, that’s a position I would not argue for the popes of the Catholic Church!

This is an argument from silence - a logical fallacy.

If this is a theological novelty, surely some honest Catholics must have argued against using the Royal Steward argument, right?

If so, who?

 

[guanophore]

Pretty good. and as you suggest, “all roads lead to Rome”. Of course I would also add it is not a given that John was alive. For sure he was very old, but it is pure speculation, as his death and the date of the letter are only “ballpark” dates and overlap each other.

More likely they refused to accept his authority over them.

9I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 3 Jn 1:9

 

[guanophore]

Very good RC. Paul does not mention Peter being there. We have more info that says Paul was certainly a factor in Rome (but not in establishing it, as you correctly point out-don’t tell Irenaeus), hence a better Corinthian connection than any other apostles.

Irenaus was right, Peter and Paul did end up in Rome together, laboring on the foundation of the Chruch until they were both martryd there.

Irenaeus would not dispute that there may had been no Apostle visit Rome at the time Paul’s epistle was written.

 

[benhur]

Not a one. So, what does this mean?

There are three possibilities

1. They saw the similarities, and agreed that Peter is the Royal Steward. However,
   A. They did not feel the need to comment.
   B. They commented but the document has been lost.
   C. They commented, but the comments have not been discovered.

This is bad for me because I don’t have any patristic evidence to make my case. I think it’s safe to say that if they had seen the connection, they would have commented and we would know about it. Thus, this is unlikely.

1. They saw the similarities, but rejected the idea that Peter is the Royal Steward. However,
   A. They did not feel the need to comment.
   B. They commented but the document has been lost.
   C. They commented, but the comments have not been discovered.

This is bad for you because you don’t have solid proof that Peter as Royal Steward is false. I think it’s also safe to say that if they had rejected the idea that Peter was the Royal Steward, they would have said so, and we would know about it. However, they might not have bothered to say anything, so this is possible. Fair enough?

1. They did not see the similarities between Is and Mt. because
   A. there is no connection.
   B. they missed it.

This is bad for both of us. Bad for me because I think the similarities are obvious and should have been picked up. Bad for you because the ECF’s are fallible humans and simply missing the connection is possible. Fair enough?

I actually contacted Dave Armstrong, a professional Catholic apologist, a few days ago to ask him this very question. Dave agrees that there are no patristic writings regarding Peter as the Royal Steward. However, Dave also agrees that this is not a fatal flaw because the lack of patristic evidence doesn’t mean that the connection isn’t there. IOW, Dave’s view is that the ECF’s simply missed it. I would say that or they simply didn’t comment in writing about it.

So, while we can both agree that having something either way from the Fathers would be helpful, we simply can’t make any final decisions regarding the validity of my argument on the basis of their silence.

Naturally, you will lean in the direction of “Aha!” while I am inclined towards, “So what?”

What does appear to be certain, however, is that this argument has achieved considerable play SINCE the days of the ECF’s and no one has offered a refutation of it beyond, “I don’t believe it.”

Make of that what you will.

Well, when is the first we hear of such reference ?

 

[Seraphim73]

You assume that the Fathers saw everything and got it all correct. Gee, that’s a position I would not argue for the popes of the Catholic Church!

This is an argument from silence - a logical fallacy.

If this is a theological novelty, surely some honest Catholics must have argued against using the Royal Steward argument, right?

If so, who?

If it is not found in the fathers it is by definition a novelty.

 

[benhur]

Of course we are sure. When Jesus renamed Simon bar Jonah, he was speaking to him in Aramaic, which is Cephas. The Greek translation is Petra/petros. Same name, different languages.

This is also why all that drivel about Peter being a “small pebble” is frivolous. In Aramaic, there is no distinction of size with Cephas.

Cephas is not same as Cepha. Cephas is not rock but stone or rock upon a bigger rock. Cephas is akin to petros, not petras. Small pebble is frivolous. Again what is not known is why Paul used both Cephas and Petros . Is not cephas an adjective not a noun (the noun is cepha) ? if so it may be relative to size or more important, origin. I think I have read C’ say that yes Peter is a rock/stone upon Christ the Rock,which has patristic writings as such and is not far from what reformers say.

 

[benhur]

More likely they refused to accept his authority over them.

9I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 3 Jn 1:9

Yes but was he (diotrephes) not in asia minor and corinth is part of greece ?

 

[benhur]

Irenaus was right, Peter and Paul did end up in Rome together, laboring on the foundation of the Chruch until they were both martryd there.

Irenaeus would not dispute that there may had been no Apostle visit Rome at the time Paul’s epistle was written.

ok i thought his wording is "founders’’)

 

[benhur]

Oh? And why is that?

Did the fathers comment on every doctrine that the Church has developed in the 1400 years since the Patristic era ended?

Or is that the Orthodox place so much emphasis on patristics that it has to be that way?

I think this is a non sequitur.

And by the way, if this is a theological novelty, surely some honest Catholics must have argued against using the Royal Steward argument, right?

Who?

Again when was term first applied to Chair , and when did rebuttal begin, for you certainly have it now. And silence proves nothing goes both ways.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, when is the first we hear of such reference ?

That is my question, also. I’m still researching that.

Essentially all modern Catholic apologists: Hahn, Ray, Armstrong, Salza and, of course, Catholic Answers (ca. 1988) make the connection. But what was the source?

Lots of Protestants have seen it, too. Here’s just one:

“In Isa 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and in Rev 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Matthew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys.” --George Buttrick and others, eds., The Interpreter’s Bible, (New York: Abingdom, 1951), 453.

Willoughby C. Allen, in a still older commentary that interprets the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 as the “revealed truth” of the Messiahship of Christ, nevertheless writes in his The International Critical Commentary –

“The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, ‘the kingdom of the heavens’ can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev 3:7]
…The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none…It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter…To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank…To ‘bind’ and to ‘loose’ in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to ‘forbid’ and ‘allow,’ to ‘declare forbidden’ and to ‘declare allowed’…The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character…Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest irresistibly that ‘the keys of the kingdom’ mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ which immediately follow…What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one…The motive must have been to emphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christan body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself…They [the apostles] had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2.” (Allen, The International Critical Commentary orig 1909, 1985], page 176ff)

I’ll work on this and see how far back it goes because I want to know, too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it is not found in the fathers it is by definition a novelty.

That is Orthodox theology in a nutshell.

 

[YADA]

If there is no patristic support for the idea then it’s not legitimate. There is no way that it can be. And you guys get offended when we say Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin…

However, there Patristic support for this … What did the people call the Royal Steward? How was this perzon named by the people? Ultimately, this person exercised an office that impacted the lowest citizens as well as the those in leadership roles.

Like it or not - Essentially, this entire argumement boils down to one of degrees …ultimately, what is the extent of Peter’s authority is …and when and where that ultimate authority is exercised.

The people called the Royal Steward Abba - father … Now, arguably all bishops and patriarchs are a father to their people … But only Peter was charged with strengthening his brothers and all of Christ’s followers …and that exercise of universal authority is found in the earliest birth pangs if the Church … And in the action of Peter’s successors

I will use this analogy …if Mom didn’t say “just you wait til your father gets home…” Father doesn’t need to break out the switch …he does still need to be there, to give support and advice and love. By your argument from silence …there isn’t a need for a father …just the benevolent uncke

 

[Randy_Carson]

1832 from one of the Protestants I quoted at the beginning of this thread, Adam Clark.

 

[benhur]

That is my question, also. I’m still researching that.

Essentially all modern Catholic apologists: Hahn, Ray, Armstrong, Salza and, of course, Catholic Answers (ca. 1988) make the connection. But what was the source?

Lots of Protestants have seen it, too. Here’s just one:

“In Isa 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and in Rev 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Matthew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys.” --George Buttrick and others, eds., The Interpreter’s Bible, (New York: Abingdom, 1951), 453.

Willoughby C. Allen, in a still older commentary that interprets the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 as the “revealed truth” of the Messiahship of Christ, nevertheless writes in his The International Critical Commentary –

“The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, ‘the kingdom of the heavens’ can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev 3:7]
…The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none…It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter…To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank…To ‘bind’ and to ‘loose’ in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to ‘forbid’ and ‘allow,’ to ‘declare forbidden’ and to ‘declare allowed’…The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character…Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest irresistibly that ‘the keys of the kingdom’ mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ which immediately follow…What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one…The motive must have been to emphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christan body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself…They [the apostles] had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2.” (Allen, The International Critical Commentary orig 1909, 1985], page 176ff)

I’ll work on this and see how far back it goes because I want to know, too.

OK cool.

 

[benhur]

]Like it or not - Essentially, this entire argumement boils down to one of degrees …ultimately, what is the extent of Peter’s authority is …and when and where that ultimate authority is exercised.

Well also how is it exercised. Is it as one over others or as servant , even by example, even as shedding appearance of “greaterness” ?

The people called the Royal Steward Abba - father … Now, arguably all bishops and patriarchs are a father to their people …

Good .

But only Peter was charged with strengthening his brothers and all of Christ’s followers …and that exercise of universal authority is found in the earliest birth pangs if the Church

Didn’t know strengthening your brother was an authoritative action. Certainly an exemplary, even leadership action. But universal supreme authority is the question.

And in the action of Peter’s successors

Even Bigger question . Certainly his successors should also be exemplary , in service to others

I will use this analogy …if Mom didn’t say “just you wait til your father gets home…” Father doesn’t need to break out the switch …he does still need to be there, to give support and advice and love. By your argument from silence …there isn’t a need for a father …just the benevolent uncke

If I recall it was Peter who acted like mother and the Holy Spirit who broke out the switch with Ananias.

 

[A_Lurker]

Oh? And why is that?

Did the fathers comment on every doctrine that the Church has developed in the 1400 years since the Patristic era ended?

Or is that the Orthodox place so much emphasis on patristics that it has to be that way?

I think this is a non sequitur.

And by the way, if this is a theological novelty, surely some honest Catholics must have argued against using the Royal Steward argument, right?

Who?

But as you have essentially stated, what we call “novelty” is legitimate and necessary, so why would any Catholic argue against it when it springs from your world view?

This highlights the fact that we have two very different approaches to Theology and the Past.

 

[benhur]

I
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 that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it.” Isaiah 22:25 Doesn’t seem like it is passed on to far down the line. Reminds of Revelations 2:5 “will remove thy candle stick unless thou repent”. Seems like the sharing of the key is conditional. The sharing is because Jesus has all keys and still has them even while Peter had them , as per Revelations 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; So maybe as Hezekiah shared key with Eliakim who served faithfully, so Jesus shared with Peter (and others I would say) the keys, who served faithfully. But as Eliakim’s succession failed, did Peter’s succession fail ? Was a lampstick removed , from a particular segment of the Body, as like in one church out of seven in Revelations ? Did the Lord then rule thru another, for as Elaikim descendant failed, the Lord somehow and thru others surely still ruled over Israel. Could it be so with the church, that He keeps his promises but the torch carrier, key holder is a graced and conditional privelege ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

“In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it.” Isaiah 22:25

Doesn’t seem like it is passed on to far down the line.

The Royal Steward in the Davidic kingdom was a fixture for hundreds of years. This is shown by the fact that many royal stewards are mentioned in the Old Testament.

More importantly, Jesus is king forever. His reign will never end, and consequently, the service of his stewards won’t, either.

Reminds of Revelations 2:5 “*will remove thy candle *stick unless thou repent”. Seems like the sharing of the key is conditional. The sharing is because Jesus has all keys and still has them even while Peter had them , as per Revelations 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

So maybe as Hezekiah shared key with Eliakim who served faithfully, so Jesus shared with Peter (and others I would say) the keys, who served faithfully.

But as Eliakim’s succession failed, did Peter’s succession fail ? Was a lampstick removed , from a particular segment of the Body, as like in one church out of seven in Revelations ? Did the Lord then rule thru another, for as Elaikim descendant failed, the Lord somehow and thru others surely still ruled over Israel. Could it be so with the church, that He keeps his promises but the torch carrier, key holder is a graced and conditional privelege ?

First, it was Shebna’s stewardship that came to an end in Is. 22, not Eliakim’s.

Second, the passing of the keys from Shebna to Eliakim demonstrates the principle of succession, a concept important when we later consider the validity of apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is proven by a bunch of NT verses.

 

[benhur]

The Royal Steward in the Davidic kingdom was a fixture for hundreds of years. This is shown by the fact that many royal stewards are mentioned in the Old Testament.

Yes, but it ended. AND the holder was conditional, for apparently it was taken away from Shebna and someone after Elaikim. I would think you would need to be a true follower of God.

More importantly, Jesus is king forever. His reign will never end, and consequently, the service of his stewards won’t, either.

This is the biggest reason against this OT idea of Royal Steward transferring to NT, that the King has not really left, as in OT. The King is ever present and doing fine ruling His Church and Body. Revelations show Him holding all the keys, opening all doors. I agree He shared His keys with Peter, but think it can be plural perhaps during but certainly after Peter, as in not just one steward over others but many stewards at the same time.

First, it was Shebna’s stewardship that came to an end in Is. 22, not Eliakim’s.

Yes, but Elaikim’s “line” ended also.

Second, the passing of the keys from Shebna to Eliakim demonstrates the principle of succession, a concept important when we later consider the validity of apostolic succession.

While this may foreshadow some CC papal reasoning , it may also foreshadow some Reformation. The passing of key from Shebna was a taking away and giving to someone else who formed a true remnant of faithful followers (Elaikim was not aligned with Egypt as many Jews and Shebna had). The kind of action mentioned in Revelations to one of the churches of having its lampstick removed. While you argue from a strict literal office this argument would be be for a looser “leadership” role, as pointed out by CC’s, that Lutherans follow Luther and others Calvin or Zwingli or Welsey. They certainly were opening doors.

Apostolic succession is proven by a bunch of NT verses.

Some call it being epicsopal or presbyterian. The apostles appointed elders, and the like. Sometimes individual churches appointed them, apart from apostles. We all agree to bishops/presbyters,elders… There is evidence for a single bishop, to a board or presbyters guiding an individual church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but it ended. AND the holder was conditional, for apparently it was taken away from Shebna and someone after Elaikim. I would think you would need to be a true follower of God.

First, there is no evidence that Eliakim was a bad steward. He may have simply died of old age after a long and honorable service.

The Roman Empire overran and occupied Israel; thus, the Davidic dynasty was surpressed. However, JESUS inherited the throne and is an eternal king.

Did Jesus inherit the throne of David?
Did kings establish royals stewards as the second-in-command?
Did Jesus give Peter keys, the symbols of the office of steward.
Did Jesus use language that mirrors that of Isaiah?

This is the biggest reason against this OT idea of Royal Steward transferring to NT, that the King has not really left, as in OT. The King is ever present and doing fine ruling His Church and Body.

The Royal Steward exercises his authority in the absence of the king. Now, we can argue about whether Jesus is absent or not if you really want to, but Jesus said, “Unless I go away…” and the disciples watched him ascend into heaven. Thus, I don’t really think ther is much to disagree about.

Revelations show Him holding all the keys, opening all doors. I agree he shared His keys with Peter, but think it can be plural perhaps during but certainly after Peter, as in not just one steward over others.

This is simply further evidence that the keys do belong to Jesus…and that makes the fact that He gave them to Peter even more powerful. Peter, a mere man, has the keys that belong to God.

As for your points regarding apostolic succession, do we need to go into that, or do you already understand WHY this principle is biblical?

Yes, but Elaikim’s “line” ended also.

Kings have lines. Stewards did not because the office of steward was not hereditary and did not pass from father to son.

While this may foreshadow some CC papal reasoning , it may also foreshadow some Reformation. The passing of key from Shebna was a taking away and giving to someone else who formed a true remnant of faithful followers (Elaikim was not aligned with Egypt as many Jews and Shebna had). The kind of action mentioned in Revelations to one of the churches of having its lampstick removed. While you argue from a strict literal office this argument would be be for a looser “leadership” role, as pointed out by CC’s, that Lutherans follow Luther and others Calvin or Zwingli or Welsey. They certainly were opening doors.

If I saw evidence that Protestantism was actually administering the seven sacraments of the Church established by Jesus and maintaining the valid priesthood required for them, etc., then I might agree with you. But that is NOT what Protestantism has done, and I do not believe that Protestantism was established by God…