Orthodox: Was Peter Jesus' Royal Steward?

[Randy_Carson]

A Protestant Scholar from the 19th Century is very thin as an argument.

Christ is the Truth. Do you honestly think that I could see something that St. John Chrysostom or St. John of Damascus could not see? The arrogance and pride I would have to muster to make such an assumption would be off the charts.

In seeing your posts, I have come to one Conclusion:

You don’t understand us at all.

You can speak about and to Protestantism, because you were of that fold once and they share a common patrimony with the Latin Church. You try to approach us with the same mentality, and you are visibly frustrated in your repeated “rebuttals” and attempts to “debunk” us.

As Christians, you have the same gospels that I have. Read the passage from Mt. and Is. and ask yourself this question: Was it mere coincidence that Jesus uses almost the identical language that Isaiah used? Wasn’t Jesus really just a bit more savvy than that?

How do you get closer to God? Ascetic struggle…Prayer and Fasting. The spirit of the Desert Fathers informs Orthodox praxis, Randy.

Perhaps you don’t understand me at all. I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery for five years. I’ve read many of the mystics as well as The Way of a Pilgrim and the Cloud of Unknowing, etc. Does this make me eastern? Or a contemplative myself? Hardly. But I’m not so ignorant as you might think.

The fact that you view Theology as you would a Science shows just how far apart we really are. We don’t view Theology that way…you can’t approach God the same way you would approach Physics. You approach God the same way St. Anthony the Great or any of the saints did…Prayer, Fasting and the Struggle. If you want to see how the Orthodox “further” our education, visit our monasteries…Mt. Athos or anywhere else.

I would love to visit Mt. Athos, though I hear the monks there are not so friendly to Catholics.

You say I refuse to try…you couldn’t be more wrong. I try everyday…failing more often than succeeding…THEOSIS, Randy…to have a really fruitful dialogue would require you to understand where we are coming from. Your posts betray the fact that you do not. whether that is willful or not I won’t judge, but I would encourage you to look at our actual Spiritual life as opposed to abstract internet arguments.

Is this thread about your spiritual life? I thought I was trying to show you why your misunderstanding of the papacy can be cleared up from the pages of God’s word.

This exchange has reminded me of the wisdom of St. Arsenius the Great:

“I have often regretted the words I have spoken, but I have never regretted my silence.”

Was that from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers? I was just reading a book about them recently, and this sounds like the kind of thing one might hear from the Abbas.

Unfortunately, EO never let us forget that Honorius was silent when HE should have spoken. I wonder if he regrets his silence now.

This exchange was wholly unedifying. I found myself being pulled into controversy and allowing myself to get into tit for tats that are ultimately fruitless and made me recall Titus, Chapter 3. Perhaps lurkers are not getting a good bargain after all.

This will be my last Post to you, Randy. You can have the last word, or words. Whichever it may be.

Lord, have Mercy.

Apologetics is not for everyone, and how you respond to my post on an emotional level is between you and God. I’m just asking you to be intellectually honest and face the fact that Peter is more than the Orthodox have been willing to acknowledge for largely political reasons.

Since we won’t be interacting again, I’ll just leave you with this haunting question which I asked in my OP:

If Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (patriarchs who have their own legitimate areas of authority) don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

 

[Randy_Carson]

just don’t see the need to make one bishop some kind of bishop to rule us all and in the shadows bind us.

Your quote is dripping with negative connotations that speak volumes about your understanding of the role of the papacy.

Jesus established Peter as the vicarious shepherd who would feed and tend His own sheep in His absence.

Do you see Jesus ruling His flock with the same negativity?

Then why do you feel this way about Peter?

Fear?

You might see it as evolving doctrine or whatever, but we don’t. That’s not changing anytime soon. Not to be rude or anything, but treating we Orthodox as these willfully blind, stupid future-converts is not going to change the minds of 270 million people or endear us to you.

And that pretty much confirms my opinion of the prospects for re-unification.

One person on the Internet quoting the Bible is nothing new, my friend.

Well, actually, in the sweep of Christian history, the Internet is kinda new.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A Protestant Scholar from the 19th Century is very thin as an argument.

Sure. But that’s only the earliest reference I have found* so far*.

Still, doesn’t it trouble you to consider the fact that Protestants, who are clearly no friends of Rome, recognize something in scripture that your own priests and theologians have denied or missed? Is it possible that they are simply blinded by their anti-Roman prejudices? Is it possible that *you *are?

Christ is the Truth.

Amen!

Do you honestly think that I could see something that St. John Chrysostom or St. John of Damascus could not see?

Absolutely! God gave you a brain and expects you to use it. What troubles me is the fact that your attitude MIGHT be representative of Orthodoxy, and that 270 million people might have been brainwashed into thinking that the Fathers knew everything and that only Orthodox priests are valid interpreters of those Fathers.

I hope Cav or some other EO will quickly disavow what you have implied.

The arrogance and pride I would have to muster to make such an assumption would be off the charts.

It might be better to measure your false humility instead because THAT is what is really at work, and I’m not saying that as a personal attack but out of genuine concern for you.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Do you honestly think that I could see something that St. John Chrysostom or St. John of Damascus could not see?

What if the Church Fathers had the same mentality with St. Paul or St. John?

It’s not about seeing more necessarily, but expanding on the foundation already laid.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Sure. But that’s only the earliest reference I have found* so far*.

This quote from St. John Cassian implies a reference to Isaiah 22:

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key. Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key, placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This quote from St. John Cassian implies a reference to Isaiah 22:

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key. Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key, placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Yes, I have been sitting on that quote for awhile…trying to decide if it really applies.

The Royal Steward wore the key that opened the city gate, and Cassian clearly connects that authority to Peter.

Perhaps some of our EO friends will explain why this quote does NOT apply to Peter as the Royal Steward.

Thanks.

 

[Kosta]

Your quote is dripping with negative connotations that speak volumes about your understanding of the role of the papacy.

Jesus established Peter as the vicarious shepherd who would feed and tend His own sheep in His absence.

Do you see Jesus ruling His flock with the same negativity?

Then why do you feel this way about Peter?

Fear?

And that pretty much confirms my opinion of the prospects for reunification.

Well, actually, in the sweep of Christian history, the Internet is kinda new.

I was considered Catholic once. I’d like to think I understand the Papacy just fine, thank you very much.

Jesus established all the Apostles to take care of his community. I don’t think that any of my coreligionists have a problem saying that Peter is the chief of the Apostles, we believe that he’s the First among Equals. We just do not believe that the Pope of Rome has more power than any other bishop. Christ can and does rule over us all, one man we do not believe, should do the same. Have you ever heard the old maxim “absolute power corrupts absolutely?” I would absolutely fear any man that wields absolute power, you are correct, sir.

Your actions confirm for me why reunification with either Church will not happen in my lifetime. Have you ever just once thought that in your many threads that you just might come off as a bit triumphalist and rude? I have no reason to trust you since I don’t know who you are, so your actions to me do not seem like they’re coming from brotherly love and wanting to help others. They seem to me like you’re trying to put us down because we’re inferior. It just seems all a bit mean to me. I’m not a learned man so I can’t add much to the debate, so I’ll back out from here as I no longer have anything substantial to say, but I urge you to maybe just be a bit kinder and little less combative. Good luck in your endeavors. God be with you, as he is with the Orthodox Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was considered Catholic once. I’d like to think I understand the Papacy just fine, thank you very much.

Jesus established all the Apostles to take care of his community. I don’t think that any of my coreligionists have a problem saying that Peter is the chief of the Apostles, we believe that he’s the First among Equals. We just do not believe that the Pope of Rome has more power than any other bishop. Christ can and does rule over us all, one man we do not believe, should do the same. Have you ever heard the old maxim “absolute power corrupts absolutely?” I would absolutely fear any man that wields absolute power, you are correct, sir.

Christ does rule, to be sure, but why did He appoint Peter as the vicarious shepherd to tend and care for Jesus’ own flock when Jesus is fully capable of doing so himself? (cf. Jn 21:15-19)

Why did Jesus give Peter the unmistakable keys of the office of the Royal Steward - an office second only to the king Himself? (cf. Mt. 16:18-19)

Your actions confirm for me why reunification with either Church will not happen in my lifetime. Have you ever just once thought that in your many threads that you just might come off as a bit triumphalist and rude?

Every day.

I have no reason to trust you since I don’t know who you are, so your actions to me do not seem like they’re coming from brotherly love and wanting to help others.

It takes a hammer to crack some nuts, and EO shells are about as hard as they come. This is a result of mistakenly believing that YOURS is the true Church founded by Christ. I’m blunt because that’s what it takes to get your attention.

They seem to me like you’re trying to put us down because we’re inferior. It just seems all a bit mean to me. I’m not a learned man so I can’t add much to the debate, so I’ll back out from here as I no longer have anything substantial to say, but I urge you to maybe just be a bit kinder and little less combative. Good luck in your endeavors. God be with you, as he is with the Orthodox Church.

No, I do not put you down because you’re inferior. That’s just a fact that isn’t your fault. I acknowledge that there is much good in Orthodoxy. But good is the enemy of great, and you should not settle for less than all that God intended for His people.

 

[prodromos]

Your quote is dripping with negative connotations that speak volumes about your understanding of the role of the papacy.

We could make a similar comment about Gabriel of 12’s posts regarding Orthodoxy.

 

[Kosta]

No, I do not put you down because you’re inferior. That’s just a fact that isn’t your fault. I acknowledge that there is much good in Orthodoxy. But good is the enemy of great, and you should not settle for less than all that God intended for His people.

I don’t settle for second best; that’s why I’m Orthodox. I have faith in God that he will provide for me just as He will for all of us. The gates of Hell shall not prevail. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Have you considered that your energy and passion for the Gospel might not be better spent helping the world’s many non-Christians find Christ? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I will never again be a Latin or Eastern Rite Catholic. God has lead me to where I need to be. I suppose now all we can do is agree to disagree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t settle for second best; that’s why I’m Orthodox. I have faith in God that he will provide for me just as He will for all of us. The gates of Hell shall not prevail. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Have you considered that your energy and passion for the Gospel might not be better spent helping the world’s many non-Christians find Christ? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I will never again be a Latin or Eastern Rite Catholic. God has lead me to where I need to be. I suppose now all we can do is agree to disagree.

Kosta-

To be fair, the “world’s many non-Christians” ARE who I have in mind.

You see, Jesus prayed that we would all be one. Why did He do this? Scritpure tells us the answer:

John 17:20-23
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Our unity was supposed to be a witness to the fact the God sent Jesus into the world. The Eastern schism (and later the Protestant Reformation) have shattered that unity and diminished that witness.

Consequently, the world has less reason to believe and souls are lost as a result.

It’s time to put an end to our divisions, and my posts (if you read my OP) are trying to show you why it’s time to re-unite under the leadership of the Steward your King appointed for your benefit.

Peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why not?

Protestant scholars - men with lots of education, degrees and letters after their names - have evaluated the texts and concluded that, yes, Jesus was intentionally quoting Isaiah when establishing Peter as the steward in His kingdom.

Significantly, they have no reason to read something that supports the Papacy into the text; they are, in effect, hostile witnesses to Catholic truth.

But you say that’s not significant, so I’m eager to hear your views and know your credentials. Do you have lots of degrees and letters after your name? If so, what are they?

And if you are a bona fide scholar, could you please explain why all of those other scholars are in error? Please be specific.

Thanks in advance for your detailed response.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Have your own credentials been detailed in those posts? I must have missed that…which is why I asked for them.

Yes, people have suggested why the Royal Steward argument for the papacy fails, but none have actually provided any serious exegesis of those verses or alternative verses to support another interpretation.

And I started two threads because while Lutherans and Orthodox agree with one another regarding the papacy (and little else), they do not have the exact same arguments against it.

In the Lutheran thread, I got, “I don’t believe it.” That was about it.

In the Orthodox thread, I got, “None of the ECF’s made this argument.” That was about it.

The former simply betrays ignorance about what Protestant scholars have admitted regarding Peter as the Royal Steward while the latter is simply an argument from silence.

I’m beginning to suspect that no one has a sufficient reason to reject the idea that Peter is the Royal Steward, and thus, ignoring that fact is a huge mistake that results in all kinds of false interpretations about which is the one, true Church founded by Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nope. I just asked in order to understand how much weight to give to your responses. If you have the academic chops, I will give them due consideration.

You assert that I’m wrong. You assert that answers have already been given.

Well, I assert that I have read every post and haven’t found anything suggesting either of your assertions to be true.

Why not take a moment and show me right here and right now why the argument presented in the OP is wrong?

Seems like doing that just once would be quicker than alluding to alleged proofs. However, if you’ve been paying close attention, you will have noticed that Catholics have not taken issue with the argument, so there seems to be some justification for continuing my search for refutation of the proposition.

I personally am disappointed greatly of late at the way continual assaults on the Orthodox are allowed on the forum. Establishing where we differ is profitable but talk of ‘hard night’ and ‘inferior Churches’ and returning once again to the dead (and by this point maggot ridden) carcass of a deceased equine that is the ‘we is rignt cos we is bigger and dem Orthodox don’t evangelise anyways’ line of thought makes for a soul wearying sense of ennui.

But Jharek, this is an *apologetics *forum. It exists so that we can explain and defend the Catholic faith. IOW, I WANT non-Catholics to give me their best (or worst) so that I can show them why they are wrong.

Naturally, we Catholics expect our non-Catholic guests to explain and defend their non-Catholic ideas, too. And, naturally, we will give them our best arguments as to why they should A) reject their non-Catholic ideas and B) embrace ours. I expect good answers - or some serious soul-searching.

There is at least one former Protestant poster that I know of who is entering the Catholic Church today after having some pretty serious knock-down, drag-out arguments in the apologetics forum. I guess he needed to get some things out of his system.

Not everyone appreciates this approach, but it has its place. Not everyone has the stomach for this. If you’re not comfortable with apologetics, perhaps you should spend your time elsewhere.

 

[Seraphim73]

In the Orthodox thread, I got, “None of the ECF’s made this argument.” That was about it.

And that’s all the argument we will ever need that you very much. Proud of it too.

 

[daddyd]

Peter – The Royal Steward

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 the above passage Jesus says nothing about an office of “royal steward”. I believe that you are laboring under a misunderstanding of what the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” refers to and which rock Jesus is building His church on.

It is my understanding that a person is bound or loosed to the kingdom to the extent that we (not just Peter) fulfill the great commission.

Matt.28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is how people are bound to or loosed from the kingdom.

In the passage there are two words translated from the Greek for rock. Petros is the word used for Peter. Wherever you see the word Peter in the bible it is translated Petros. The other word is petra. This word is never used as Peters name. It is used here though.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the above passage Jesus says nothing about an office of “royal steward”. I believe that you are laboring under a misunderstanding of what the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” refers to and which rock Jesus is building His church on.

It is my understanding that a person is bound or loosed to the kingdom to the extent that we (not just Peter) fulfill the great commission.

Matt.28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is how people are bound to or loosed from the kingdom.

In the passage there are two words translated from the Greek for rock. Petros is the word used for Peter. Wherever you see the word Peter in the bible it is translated Petros. The other word is petra. This word is never used as Peters name. It is used here though.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

You have not specified which particular segment of Protestantism you are a part of, but here are a wide variety of Protestant scholars who recognize that there is a connection between Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:20-22.

Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah’s position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as ‘over the household’ [2 Kings 15:5]…It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle…The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the ‘keys.’ The clauses ‘on earth,’ ‘in heaven’, have reference to the permanent character of the steward’s work.” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

William Barclay

“We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

“He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

F.F. Bruce

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Adam Clarke

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

Oscar Cullman

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)

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)
Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite)
“The image of the keys likely comes from an oracle in Isaiah, which speaks of the installation of a new majordomo or steward in Hezekiah’s palace.” (Gardner, page 248)
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

New Bible Commentary

“Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3…Godward he is called my servant (20)…manward he will be a father to his community (21)…The key…of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22…emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18)… Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8).” (NBC page 647)

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

NIV Study Bible

On verse 15: “…in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king…”

On verse 22: “…key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David’s dynasty – perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the ‘keys of the kingdom’ given to Peter (Mt 16:19) .”

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Randy,

You are approaching this subject the same way a Bible only Christian would. The craziest thing is that you selected 2 of the most educated Traditions in Christianity to have this argument with, lol.

Neither one of these Traditions can be approached in this manner. No amount of quote mining will help your cause.

You need to first understand where these Traditions are coming from and what they stand for. After you understand these two things, you will be in a much better position to engage them.

These are traditions that stand with Church history and to the same Creeds and first 7 Ecumenical Councils that the Catholic Church holds to. Both of these Traditions disagree with the developments the Catholic Church embraced after the 11th century.

Please take this as constructive criticism and not an attack on you. You have a very strong faith, but this approach will rather shy away people from these communions than to being them closer.

Just my dos centavos.