Thesis
Biblical authority is a stewardship, not a possession. Jesus Christ explicitly contrasted the pattern of authority among the Gentile rulers with the pattern among His own disciples: among the Gentiles authority is held as property and exercised as dominance; among His disciples authority is held as office and exercised as service. The four texts examined in this paper—Matthew 20:25–28, Luke 22:24–27, John 13, and 1 Peter 5—together establish that every legitimate authority in the kingdom of Jesus Christ is the authority of a servant, accountable to the Chief Shepherd, exercised for the good of those over whom it is set.
Introduction
Papers 1 through 3 of this suite have argued that the Son of God is equal with the Father and yet truly sent by Him; that biblical submission is relational and vocational, not a verdict on worth; and that headship is a representative office held under the higher headship of Jesus Christ. The present paper turns from the offices themselves to the manner in which they are to be exercised. It is one thing to establish that a husband, an elder, a magistrate, or a master holds a real office. It is another thing entirely to determine how that office is to be held. Scripture is not silent on this question. The Lord Himself addressed it directly, and the apostles after Him echoed His teaching with unmistakable consistency.
The argument proceeds in four sections, one for each of the texts named in the title. Each section examines the text in its setting, draws out its central teaching, and notes its implications for the exercise of authority in households, congregations, and commonwealths. A fifth section gathers the four witnesses into a doctrinal synthesis, and a pastoral conclusion closes the paper.
I. Matthew 20:25–28 — The Cup, the Baptism, and the Pattern of the Gentiles
The mother of James and John came to Jesus Christ with a request: “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom” (Matt. 20:21). The Lord answered first the sons themselves: “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” (Matt. 20:22). They answered that they were able. He told them that they would indeed drink His cup, but that the seats at His right and left were not His to give—those positions were prepared by the Father (Matt. 20:23).
The other ten disciples heard the exchange and were “indignant at the two brothers” (Matt. 20:24). Their indignation, on the surface, was righteous: James and John had presumed. But the Lord’s response treated the indignation as no better than the presumption. The ten were not angry because they had risen above the desire for the highest seats; they were angry because someone else had asked for them first. The whole company was in the grip of the same mistake.
The Lord called them to Himself and answered the mistake at its root:
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:25–28).
Three points repay close attention.
First, the Lord names the contrast bluntly. The pattern among the Gentile rulers is not a neutral structure of authority; it is lording over (Greek katakyrieuō) and exercising authority (katexousiazō)—both compounded with the prefix kata-, which here carries a downward, oppressive force. The rulers among the Gentiles use their offices to bear down upon the ruled. They hold authority as a possession from which they extract status, comfort, and service.
Second, the Lord forbids this pattern absolutely among His own. “It shall not be so among you.” The contrast is not a matter of degree; it is a flat prohibition. The disciple of Jesus Christ who exercises authority in the manner of the Gentile rulers has thereby placed himself outside the pattern of his Lord. The office may remain real, but the office held in the wrong manner cannot bear the name of Christian authority.
Third, the Lord supplies the positive pattern in His own person. “Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The disciples have been concerned with seats; the Son of Man has been concerned with a cross. The disciples have been comparing themselves with one another; the Son of Man has been measuring His coming against His giving. The pattern of authority in the kingdom is the pattern of the cross.
The implication is that authority among His disciples does not differ from Gentile authority by being weaker, smaller, or less consequential. It differs by being held in a different register. It is the same kind of fact—real authority over real persons—exercised for a different end and in a different manner. To be great in this kingdom is to serve; to be first is to slave for the others; to come, as the Lord came, is to lay down what one has for the sake of those one has been sent to.
II. Luke 22:24–27 — The Greatest as the Youngest
Luke records a similar exchange on the night before the crucifixion. “A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest” (Luke 22:24). The setting is striking: the same disciples who would, within hours, scatter from their Master’s arrest were, at the very table of His Last Supper, arguing about their own greatness. Even at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the leaven of self-importance was alive.
The Lord answered them as He had answered them before, but with a fresh image:
“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves” (Luke 22:25–27).
Three elements deserve attention.
First, the Lord names a particular hypocrisy of Gentile rule. The kings exercise lordship, and “those in authority over them are called benefactors.” The Greek term euergetēs (“benefactor”) was a title taken by Hellenistic kings who lorded over their subjects while flattering themselves and being flattered with the language of generosity. The point is sharp: Gentile rulers extract and call themselves givers. They dominate and accept the praise of those they dominate. The Lord refuses this whole arrangement of words and deeds.
Second, the Lord substitutes a strikingly humble image: the youngest. In the ancient household, the youngest was the one with the least standing, the most service to render, and the smallest claim to honor. “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest.” The principle of the kingdom is not that greatness is forbidden but that greatness takes the form of youngest-ness. The most senior in office takes the most junior of postures. The leader, in this kingdom, is not the one who is exempt from serving but the one most marked by serving.
Third, the Lord places Himself at the center of the picture in a manner of arresting humility: “But I am among you as the one who serves.” At the table where He is the host, He has been serving. In the kingdom where He is the King, He is serving. In the eternity in which He is the Lord, He has come not to be served but to serve. The disciples are commanded to be like Him in this. They are not commanded to renounce the offices to which He has appointed them; they are commanded to occupy those offices as He occupies His.
The same pattern observable in Matthew is here intensified. Luke’s version is the more pointed because it occurs in the very setting where the disciples were on the brink of their failure. The Lord did not say “later, when you are mature, learn to lead by serving”; He said “now, at this table, become as the youngest.” Authority as service is not an advanced discipleship for the few; it is the basic shape of authority in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
III. John 13 — The Towel and the Basin
John, alone among the Gospel writers, records what the Lord did on that same evening. “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him” (John 13:3–5).
The introductory clause is decisive. The Lord washed feet knowing what He knew. He knew that the Father had given all things into His hands; He knew He had come from God; He knew He was going back to God. It is not the case that the Lord washed feet because He had forgotten His glory or did not yet realize His authority. He washed feet because of His glory, in the exercise of His authority. Authority and service are not in tension in His person; they are the two sides of the one office of Lord.
Peter resisted the washing. “Lord, do you wash my feet?” he said (John 13:6). The Lord answered, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand” (John 13:7). Peter then refused: “You shall never wash my feet” (John 13:8). The Lord’s answer is severe: “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Peter then asks to be washed entirely; the Lord answers that the bathed need only their feet washed; he is clean, “but not every one of you” (John 13:9–11). The contrast with Judas is left bare.
The Lord then explained the act:
“When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, ‘Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them'” (John 13:12–17).
Several features of this passage are crucial for the doctrine of authority.
First, the Lord does not abdicate His titles in order to serve. He affirms them: “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am.” Servanthood is not the abandonment of authority but its proper manner. The Lord is most truly Lord at the moment He is most truly Servant. The disciple who supposes that to serve is to lose the office, or that to hold the office is to be exempt from serving, has not learned what the Lord taught at this basin.
Second, the act is given as an example to be followed. “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet… For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” This is not allegory dispensable for the modern leader. The disciples were to wash feet, and the church was to live in the pattern of foot washing. Whether the physical act is to be ritualized or generalized is a matter on which Christians have differed; that the posture is to be lived without dispute is not in doubt.
Third, the principle is generalized to all authority among Christians. “A servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” No disciple may stand above this pattern. No husband may stand above it; no elder may stand above it; no magistrate, if he calls himself a Christian, may stand above it. The Lord washed feet; the disciple cannot decline to do so.
John 13 is therefore the most concentrated visual image in the New Testament of the doctrine this paper is arguing. It is also, deliberately, set on the night of the Lord’s betrayal and at the threshold of His cross. The Lord did not first wash feet, then later go to the cross, as two unrelated acts. The foot washing is the same act of self-giving lordship that culminates the next day in the offering of His life as a ransom for many. To wash feet is to be in the train of the One who was going to a cross.
IV. 1 Peter 5:1–5 — Shepherds, Not Lords
Peter, who had once refused to have his feet washed, wrote in his old age to the elders of the churches of Asia Minor with the most pastoral concentration of this same teaching in all the apostolic writings:
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble'” (1 Pet. 5:1–5).
Three points are worth marking carefully.
First, Peter writes “as a fellow elder.” He has the apostolic authority that the Lord conferred upon him (John 21:15–17), and yet in this exhortation he writes as a brother elder among brother elders. He does not erase the office, but he refuses the posture of standing above those to whom he is writing. The apostle, in this letter, is teaching by the manner of his speaking as much as by its content. He is, even in writing, washing feet.
Second, Peter prescribes a triple “not… but” that maps onto the abuse and the cure of the office. Shepherd “not under compulsion, but willingly”; “not for shameful gain, but eagerly”; “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Each pair distinguishes a counterfeit from the genuine. The reluctant shepherd, the greedy shepherd, and the domineering shepherd are three forms of the same disease: the office held as possession. The willing, eager, exemplary shepherd is the man whose office is held as stewardship.
Third, Peter sets the whole exhortation in the light of the Chief Shepherd. “When the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” The undershepherd is, at all times, under a Shepherd. He is not the owner of the flock; the flock is “the flock of God.” He is not the highest authority over them; the Chief Shepherd is. He is not laying up his own crown; he will receive an unfading crown from the One who is the Crown-giver. Every line of the exhortation presupposes that the elder is himself a servant of a higher Lord. The conflation of office with possession is forbidden at the root.
Peter’s closing application reaches beyond the elders themselves: “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another.” The exhortation to humility is universal in the congregation. The elders are not to lord; the younger are to submit; all are to clothe themselves with humility. The whole congregation is to live in the pattern that the Chief Shepherd has set.
V. Synthesis: The Doctrine of Authority in the Kingdom
The four witnesses examined above agree.
The Lord forbids the Gentile pattern of authority among His disciples (Matt. 20:25–26; Luke 22:25–26). He commands that the greatest become as the youngest and the leader as one who serves (Luke 22:26). He gives the foot washing as the example to be followed (John 13:14–15). He gives Himself as the pattern in His coming, His serving, and His giving His life (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:1–17). And the apostle who learned this lesson late wrote in his old age to teach elders the same pattern (1 Pet. 5:1–4).
The synthesis can be stated in a single doctrinal sentence: In the kingdom of Jesus Christ, every office of authority is held as a stewardship under the Chief Shepherd and exercised in the manner of the One who came not to be served but to serve. The doctrine is not optional. It is not the pattern of mature leaders only. It is not a discipline for monks and missionaries while ordinary husbands, elders, and magistrates may go on holding their offices in the Gentile pattern. It is the universal shape of Christian authority.
Three corollaries follow.
First, the legitimacy of an office is not the same as the legitimacy of its exercise. A father may genuinely be a father, and yet exercise his fatherhood in the Gentile pattern; he is then a genuine officeholder living in a pattern his Lord has forbidden. The same is true of husbands, elders, magistrates, employers, and every other Christian holding authority. The office is to be honored; the manner is to be repented of where it is wrong.
Second, those under authority are not thereby authorized to despise the office because the manner is bad. Peter wrote, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution… For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people” (1 Pet. 2:13, 15). The biblical response to bad authority is not the abolition of authority but its reform under the Chief Shepherd. The full account of the limits of submission belongs to Paper 9; the present paper holds the line that the abuses of authority do not justify the contempt of the office.
Third, the abuse of authority is a serious matter before God. “And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:4)—but the same Chief Shepherd will examine the work of every undershepherd. James warns, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas. 3:1). Hebrews warns those in authority that they “will have to give an account” (Heb. 13:17). Every officeholder will stand before the Lord, and the Lord will not accept the Gentile pattern from those who took His name.
Pastoral Conclusion
The doctrine of this paper is not aimed first at the institutions but at the men and women who hold the offices the institutions house. The husband who reads it should ask himself whether his wife meets in him a head who serves her or a head who lords over her. The elder who reads it should ask himself whether the flock encounters in him a shepherd who feeds them or a hireling who feeds himself on them. The magistrate who reads it, if he is a Christian, should ask himself whether the citizens meet in him a servant of God for their good or another exemplar of the Gentile pattern who calls himself a benefactor while extracting.
It is worth repeating what was said at the close of Paper 2: the cure for the abuse of office is not the abolition of office but the recovery of office as service. The Lord did not retreat from being Lord when He took the towel. He was most fully Lord at the basin. So with every Christian officeholder: the office is to be exercised, not abdicated; held, not surrendered; honored, not despised; but always in the manner of the One who came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.
The next two papers in the suite turn to the perversions of this pattern. Paper 5 will examine the abuse of equality—the way in which “equality” can be made into a weapon against rightful office, discipline, honor, and order. Paper 6 will examine the abuse of rank—the way in which rank can become domination, clericalism, and spiritual rent-seeking. The doctrine of authority as service, established here, is the standard against which both abuses will be measured.
Notes
- All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).
- The Greek verbs katakyrieuō and katexousiazō in Matthew 20:25 are compounded with kata-, which in this context conveys a downward, oppressive force. The contrast with the manner of authority commanded by Jesus Christ is therefore not merely a matter of personality or style but of the direction in which authority bears upon those under it.
- The title euergetēs (“benefactor”) in Luke 22:25 was widely taken by Hellenistic kings and other powerful men who used the title to flatter themselves while extracting from those they ruled. The Lord’s reference to this title is a pointed critique not only of Gentile authority in itself but of the hypocrisy of its self-description.
- John 13 has been understood in some traditions as instituting a formal ordinance of foot washing. This paper does not adjudicate that question. It holds that, whatever the proper ritual expression of the act, the pattern that the Lord commanded—the disciple washing the feet of the disciple, the officeholder serving the one under his charge—is binding on all Christians at all times.
- The exhortation in 1 Peter 5:2 to shepherd “not for shameful gain” (Greek aischrokerdōs) speaks both to literal financial corruption and, by extension, to every form of spiritual rent-seeking by which an officeholder enriches himself at the expense of those entrusted to him. This anticipates Paper 6’s treatment of the abuse of rank.
- The pastoral implication that authority and humility are not in tension is grounded in the conjunction of John 13:3 (“knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands”) with John 13:5 (“began to wash the disciples’ feet”). The Lord washed feet because of what He knew, not despite it. The disciple may therefore exercise office and serve at the same time; indeed, must.
- The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are referred to throughout by their scriptural names. The Son is named “Jesus Christ” in the form most frequently attested in the New Testament writings.
References
Bauckham, R. (2008). Jesus and the God of Israel: God crucified and other studies on the New Testament’s Christology of divine identity. Eerdmans.
Bavinck, H. (2008). Reformed dogmatics: Vol. 3. Sin and salvation in Christ (J. Bolt, Ed.; J. Vriend, Trans.). Baker Academic.
Beale, G. K. (2011). A New Testament biblical theology: The unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Baker Academic.
Bock, D. L. (1996). Luke 9:51–24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2). Baker Academic.
Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster John Knox Press. (Original work published 1559)
Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John. Eerdmans.
Carson, D. A. (1995). The expositor’s Bible commentary: Matthew (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.). Zondervan.
Clowney, E. P. (1988). The message of 1 Peter: The way of the cross (The Bible Speaks Today). InterVarsity Press.
Crossway. (2016). The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles.
Davis, J. J. (1993). Evangelical ethics: Issues facing the church today (2nd ed.). Presbyterian and Reformed.
Edwards, J. R. (2002). The Gospel according to Mark (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Eerdmans.
France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Garland, D. E. (2011). Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Zondervan.
Green, J. B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Grudem, W. (1988). The first epistle of Peter: An introduction and commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Eerdmans.
Hendriksen, W. (1973). Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew (New Testament Commentary). Baker Book House.
Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Baker Academic.
Köstenberger, A. J. (2004). John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Baker Academic.
Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Eerdmans.
Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel according to John (Rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: Aspects of biblical ethics. Eerdmans.
Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A commentary on the Greek text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Eerdmans.
Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (New American Commentary, Vol. 37). Broadman & Holman.
Stott, J. R. W. (1990). The message of Acts: To the ends of the earth (The Bible Speaks Today). InterVarsity Press.
Strauch, A. (1995). Biblical eldership: An urgent call to restore biblical church leadership (Rev. ed.). Lewis & Roth.
VanDrunen, D. (2014). Divine covenants and moral order: A biblical theology of natural law. Eerdmans.
Vos, G. (1948). Biblical theology: Old and New Testaments. Eerdmans.
Witherington, B., III. (2007). 1 and 2 Peter. SCM Press.
