Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[KathleenGee]

If people look at the New Testament…hierarchy was already there with bishops, deacons, presbyters…all set up by the apostles, the founders.

 

[clem456]

Christ could have settled all this by simply sitting on a visible earthly throne forever. But instead he had to go and accept an ignominious death on a cross and entrust his Church to PEOPLE!.
What was he thinking? Not very powerful, that Christ…

 

[benhur]

He just didn’t HAVE to have one during his 3 year ministry.

Yes ,that it what you said and what i said you said.

Because without one you have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming to have the Holy Spirit, yet offering different interpretations of the very same Bible verses. Sometimes even contrary interpretations!
And that’s why we need a steward with us today.

Though not obscene, isn’t just one or two differing interpretations confusing ? Jesus during His ministry on earth also allowed/endured differing views (Mat 16) and did not have a royal steward, so why would not the Holy Spirit do the same ?

 

[benhur]

If people look at the New Testament…hierarchy was already there with bishops, deacons, presbyters…all set up by the apostles, the founders.

Amen. Too bad we still don’t do it as the very next generation did, each church appointing its own successors.

Politics as C.S. Lewis wrote.

 

[benhur]

Well…then can you explain the why Constantinople wanted to overtake Rome in eminennce in early church history?

Live by politics, die by it. Sow politics, reap politics.

 

[benhur]

Christ could have settled all this by simply sitting on a visible earthly throne forever. But instead he had to go and accept an ignominious death on a cross and entrust his Church to PEOPLE!.
What was he thinking? Not very powerful, that Christ…

And if Christ did not leave what would not happen ?

 

[benhur]

Hi. Can you direct me to where the early Church brought up the point that a hierarchy was rejected? Pls provide a link. Thanks in advance.

MJ

if we argue over plain writ, well purposely to be discerned, why would we agree on Augustine, or Tertullian, or Cyprian, or Gregory 1, or one council over another etc., etc. on this matter ?

 

[benhur]

Hi Benhur…if we are not participating, if we are not accessing Church History and have prior experience of communion, and of purpose and intent…this communal ‘knowing’ of each other…then it cannot make sense.

Amen

It is no issue for me if the title Bishop of Rome, which Peter really never was, rather solely co-founder and martyr with Paul, bishops chosen successors, and an unbroken line where the title pope was added…because the Church has grown and become more complex.

Not a bad concession, to our history.

Paul very clearly went to Peter to consult with him to make sure he understood all before beginning his mission, And later Paul confronted Peter, and ended saying, “Peter said I was right”, again acquiescing leadership to Peter.

Yes, a type of leadership, “first amongst equals” many say (and not).

Peter was named over 180 times in Scripture over all other apostles.

Amen. The leader of the pack.

St Paul is actually mentioned more often.

when the Byzantine Church developed along side the imperial court,

And politics, it was divorced form the Latin church ?

when there was a dispute…the Church of Rome would always say we are to intend for the Church alone - minus the imperial

Not fair. The Imperial was hostile to the universal church at this time. The Roman Church letter to Corinthians is inconclusive to legitimize papacy.

You can go on and on and on and on disputing and doubting…but for us…we are in this communion and unity that goes on and on and on…our focus…Psalm 95…the first prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours…The Lord our Rock and salvation amidst the turbulence and up and down of life…

Cool.

There is this continuity that once you board the Barq of Peter…the peace you receive is supernatural and divine…you cannot go anywhere else.

Understand. Almost impossible to see it , experience it any other way then.

Peace is definitely a gift and many have it irregardless of a particular “church”.

They greeted me coming in, the pastor went back to show me he had saved his homily in paper form regarding my client who was a great steward to them, the assistant pastor gave me a most sincere and thoughtful hug and visits with the other members of the congregation…I felt I was so blessed being with my Lutheran brethren…and yes, I told them I wish we were all one at one table…the usual.

Yes, we crave oneness, and have much now, but only perfectly in that Great day.

Thanks for sharing. Blessings.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not a good reason. Sorry. I guess I didn’t make it clear that I reject the whole idea of a ‘royal steward’ - a hierarchy was not mandated in the beginning. It’s as if the argument about who the greatest disciple was has been carried into the present day. Jesus had something else in mind.

Paul missed the memo then

 

[PRmerger]

St Paul is actually mentioned more often.

How many times?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I’m jumping in waaaaay late on this, and didn’t bother to read the entire thread. I’ll just say what is on my mind regarding Peter and Paul:

Paul presented himself to Peter after a time in order to ensure he was not preaching a false or different gospel. Even before this, he entrusted himself to the presbyters for a time before he began preaching (probably to learn about the faith which he had persecuted).

Paul rebuked Peter, which is perfectly fine to do. Peter was in the wrong. There have been popes that have failed before. For instance, Theresa of Avila (I believe, it could have been Catherine of Sienna) told the pope that Jesus wanted the papacy back in Rome, and not in France (as it had moved to France). There is nothing wrong with correcting someone in the wrong, even if they are the pope.

 

[Tomyris]

Hi. Can you direct me to where the early Church brought up the point that a hierarchy was rejected? Pls provide a link. Thanks in advance.

MJ

I think you can find Matthew 23:11 and Luke 22:26 and parallel passages.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter calls himself Simon Peter in 2 Peter 1:1. There were numerous times when he was called Simon AFTER the so-called name change in Matthew 16.

The whole Peter-Petra-Petros thing is overblown.

If there IS a royal steward, it is the Holy Spirit, NOT a man. Jesus sent Him while He was away.

I’ve got quotes from 16 Protestant scholars and commentaries that say the opposite.

Here’s one:

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)

 

[PRmerger]

Though not obscene, isn’t just one or two differing interpretations confusing ?

Indeed!

Jesus during His ministry on earth also allowed/endured differing views (Mat 16)

He allowed it? As in, “This is my will to have 2 different beliefs about my teachings”?

I don’t think so, ben.

 

[Randy_Carson]

More than you have, I think. It will be removed suddenly. Are you willing to appropriate that with your steward?

Let’s start from the beginning.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about 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 to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – 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.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scripture Parallels: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

16 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)

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘keys’ are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house – symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). ‘Bind’ and 'loose” are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)

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)

The rest are available upon request.

 

[Tomyris]

I’ve got quotes from 16 Protestant scholars and commentaries that say the opposite.

Here’s one:

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)

Whoopee. It’s an argument from authority. The statement is right, you think, because someone says it is right, regardless of how it relates to truth.

F.F. Bruce is widely respected. I respect him.

What if I had 17 that agreed with me? Then you’d come up with 18? And I’d come back with 19? The whole premise is silly. I am not going to play that game.

Have you read verse 25 of Isaiah 22? “In that day,” declares the Lord of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.” (NASB).

Sounds like if the pope IS the steward, we had best avoid him. We’ve been warned.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Whoopee. It’s an argument from authority. The statement is right, you think, because someone says it is right, regardless of how it relates to truth.

F.F. Bruce is widely respected. I respect him.

What if I had 17 that agreed with me? Then you’d come up with 18? And I’d come back with 19? The whole premise is silly. I am not going to play that game.

Have you read verse 25 of Isaiah 22? “In that day,” declares the Lord of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.” (NASB).

Sounds like if the pope IS the steward, we had best avoid him. We’ve been warned.

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the ‘keys of the Kingdom of heaven’ are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as ‘binding and loosing’ …the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding” and ‘loosing’ refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding…For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter…Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer, page 343)

 

[MartinJordan]

I think you can find Matthew 23:11 and Luke 22:26 and parallel passages.

So if this is against hierarchy, Jesus isn’t a leader then too?

Nonetheless which early Church father used the verses from Matthew and Luke to signify that the said passages proclaim no hierarchy?

MJ