Isaiah 22:21-22


#1

(Objection: The Pope can’t be head of the Church.)

**22:21

and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22:22

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.

**Jesus is drawing from this image of the keys when He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Mt 16:18-19. The keys are a symbol of authority given to the chief official or prime minister of the Kingdom of David. A dynastic succession was also an element of the office of prime minister. When the office was vacated, another was selected to take his place. The Pope is Christ’s earthly representative and is the prime minister of the Kingdom of heaven here on earth, the Church.


#2

[quote=E.E.N.S.](Objection: The Pope can’t be head of the Church.)

22:21

and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22:22

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.

Jesus is drawing from this image of the keys when He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Mt 16:18-19. The keys are a symbol of authority given to the chief official or prime minister of the Kingdom of David. A dynastic succession was also an element of the office of prime minister. When the office was vacated, another was selected to take his place. The Pope is Christ’s earthly representative and is the prime minister of the Kingdom of heaven here on earth, the Church.

[/quote]

This is a serious overclaim.

This office is not made hereditary. God promises the key to Eliakim but not to his offspring. The office continued, but soon lost its exalted character. It was Eliakim who was exalted, not the office. We are told that at the time (“in that day”) when they hang all the glory of his father’s house upon him he will be removed. The usefulness of the office will have been exhausted. The usefulness of Eliakim’s exalted position was at an end.

Isaiah 22:23-25
I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
“In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

These verses do nothing to bolster the case for a permanent Apostolic office. Even if there was a permanent office being referred to here, then it would be hereditary. Now there were some popes who were blood relatives, but they (the popes)certainly have not conformed to the pattern that you claim is established here.

Keep trying!


#3

EA_Man, brother, you ask for evidence, and then when I supply it to you, you don’t even acknowledge it (I am not asking you to agree with it as this point), that shows your extreme biasness (which we are all bias at least to some extent.) The evidence is overwhelming from every perspective; whether it be Scripture, history (secular included), or the testamony of the Early Church Fathers. You may disagree, but your total disregard for any and all evidence/logic severely diminishes your creditbility in your own arguments.

The evidence for the Church was so clear (to me) that I put aside my previous beliefs - and believe it or not, I used to argue from your standpoint-and I converted, because I saw what I believed to be irrefutable evidence…and now I believe whole-heartedly.

I ask you, as your brother in Christ, to just take a second and try to reduce your own biasness and look at the evidence provided - not asking you to convert, but just to realize that it’s not that far-fetched of an idea. What have you go to lose? (And if you do see some truth in it, you don’t even have to tell me.)

God bless.


#4

The Early Fathers believed that authentic teaching and authority came through apostolic succession.

**Clement of Rome

**
**
**

Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 A.D. 95]).

**Ignatius of Antioch

**
**
**

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *8:1 A.D. 110]).

**Irenaeus

**
**
**

It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 A.D. 180-199]).

It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).

**Tertullian

**
**
**

Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.

Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (*The Demurrer Against the Heretics *32:1 A.D. 200]).

**
**


#5

[quote=E.E.N.S.]EA_Man, brother, you ask for evidence, and then when I supply it to you, you don’t even acknowledge it (I am not asking you to agree with it as this point), that shows your extreme biasness (which we are all bias at least to some extent.) The evidence is overwhelming from every perspective; whether it be Scripture, history (secular included), or the testamony of the Early Church Fathers. You may disagree, but your total disregard for any and all evidence/logic severely diminishes your creditbility in your own arguments.

The evidence for the Church was so clear (to me) that I put aside my previous beliefs - and believe it or not, I used to argue from your standpoint.

I ask you, as your brother in Christ, to just take a second and try to reduce your own biasness and look at the evidence provided - not asking you to convert, but just to realize that it’s not that far-fetched of an idea. What have you go to lose? (And if you do see some truth in it, you don’t even have to tell me.)

God bless.
[/quote]

The evidence that you offer does not support the claim that you are making. There is no permanent office being established in the verses that you cite.

Please, overwhelm me with your evidence - this is not sarcasm.

I have to go, I’ll be back on Monday - may God Bless you always.


#6

[quote=EA_Man]These verses do nothing to bolster the case for a permanent Apostolic office. Even if there was a permanent office being referred to here, then it would be hereditary. Now there were some popes who were blood relatives, but they (the popes)certainly have not conformed to the pattern that you claim is established here.

Keep trying!
[/quote]

Who says it must be hereditary?.

The keys refer to AUTHORITY, not hereditary.

“I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Rev 1:18)

So for Jesus to hold the keys of death and hell (authority over death and hell), are you saying he has to be the son of Satan or something? Hereditary has nothing to do with it. Keys represent authority.

Now how did authority pass from king to king or from steward to steward in a secular state - usually from father to son.

Now how did the apostles replace apostles - they chose a [size=2]successor, a replacement. They did not choose Judas’ son to be the replacement of Judas.
[/size]


#7

[quote=EA_Man]The evidence that you offer does not support the claim that you are making. There is no permanent office being established in the verses that you cite.

Please, overwhelm me with your evidence - this is not sarcasm.

I have to go, I’ll be back on Monday - may God Bless you always.
[/quote]

Yes, it does.

Jesus gives authority over the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, the Kingdom that Jesus is establishing and bringing about. It is clear right there in the passage.

Does the authority of the apostles die with them? No, in Acts, the successor of Judas is chosen. Jesus is appointing a Steward so there is a head of the Church while He is gone. That is one of their main roles. It is logical that Jesus does not want the line of stewards to die off when Peter dies.

Did the successors of St. Peter have authority over other local churches? Yes.


#8

Furthermore, if Peter has the authority, he has the authority to pass it on, which he did. Nothing says it has to be hereditary. Even the other Apostleships, particularily that of Judas, were bestowed upon others in the New Testament. If you deny the authority to pass such things on, then you are denying the Apostles authority as it is demonstrated in Holy Scripture.


#9

[quote=Hildebrand]Who says it must be hereditary?.

The keys refer to AUTHORITY, not hereditary.

"I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." (Rev 1:18)

So for Jesus to hold the keys of death and hell (authority over death and hell), are you saying he has to be the son of Satan or something? Hereditary has nothing to do with it. Keys represent authority.

Now how did authority pass from king to king or from steward to steward in a secular state - usually from father to son.

Now how did the apostles replace apostles - they chose a [size=2]successor, a replacement[/size]. They did not choose Judas’ son to be the replacement of Judas.

[/quote]

Who are you arguing with? Me or yourself?

I did not say that the office HAD to be hereditary.

Sure the keys represent authority - but who has them?
Jesus has them - present tense, not had.

Furthermore, Judas was replaced by Matthias - great!
Who replaced James? Acts 12:1.
Who replaced Phillip? Who replaced John? There isn’t one other instance in the Bible where apostles are replaced - except Judas.

Apostle is a vocation - a calling. It is not an office.

Peace


#10

[quote=EA_Man]Who are you arguing with? Me or yourself?

I did not say that the office HAD to be hereditary.

Sure the keys represent authority - but who has them?
Jesus has them - present tense, not had.

Furthermore, Judas was replaced by Matthias - great!
Who replaced James? Acts 12:1.
Who replaced Phillip? Who replaced John? There isn’t one other instance in the Bible where apostles are replaced - except Judas.

Apostle is a vocation - a calling. It is not an office.

Peace
[/quote]

Paul.


#11

[quote=EA_Man]Sure the keys represent authority - but who has them?
[/quote]

Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and along with them the power to loose and bind.)


#12

[quote=E.E.N.S.]Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and along with them the power to loose and bind.)
[/quote]

So Jesus gave them to Peter in Matthew 16?

But in Revelation, written after the events described in Matthew, Jesus says He has the keys. So which is it? Does Jesus have them or does Peter?

Also your citation of Isaiah 22 refers to only one key, not two. So which of the two keys does this passage refer; the key of death or of Hades? It doesn’t say which one it is. Perhaps that is because it doesn’t refer to either of the keys that Jesus is speaking about…

Peace


#13

[quote=Church Militant]Paul.
[/quote]

Can you cite a verse to substantiate this claim?

Peace


#14

[quote=EA_Man]So Jesus gave them to Peter in Matthew 16?
[/quote]

Yes. Do you doubt this?

[quote=EA_Man]But in Revelation, written after the events described in Matthew, Jesus says He has the keys. So which is it? Does Jesus have them or does Peter?
[/quote]

Peter is the Vicar of Christ, his authority is not his own but Christ’s.

[quote=EA_Man]Also your citation of Isaiah 22 refers to only one key, not two. So which of the two keys does this passage refer; the key of death or of Hades? It doesn’t say which one it is. Perhaps that is because it doesn’t refer to either of the keys that Jesus is speaking about…

[/quote]

It says, "…he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." Just like the binding and loosing that the keys that Christ gave Peter signify. Simple enough, right? (Though I know it doesn’t fit with you preconceived ideas, so you will probably continue to block it out.)


#15

[quote=][T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (*Modesty *21:9-10 A.D. 220]).-Tertullian
[/quote]


#16

[quote=E.E.N.S.]It says, "…he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." Just like the binding and loosing that the keys that Christ gave Peter signify. Simple enough, right? (Though I know it doesn’t fit with you preconceived ideas, so you will probably continue to block it out.)
[/quote]

Why not? You seem content to continue to anachronistically superimpose the Catholic Church onto the text.

What unbiased reader would would detect either the Papacy from Matthew 16 or an allusion to a permanent office in Isaiah 22?

Peace


#17

[quote=]The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).-Cyprian

[/quote]


#18

[quote=EA_Man]What unbiased reader would would detect either the Papacy from Matthew 16 or an allusion to a permanent office in Isaiah 22?
[/quote]

Me. These passages played a big part in my conversion. (I used to be protestant myself.) We all have our biasness EA_Man, just some are smart enough to admit it.


#19

[quote=EA_Man]What unbiased reader would would detect either the Papacy from Matthew 16 or an allusion to a permanent office in Isaiah 22?

Peace
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

Jews. The Gospels were written for Jews, who had a vast knowledge of the Scriptures. As Steve Ray points out in his book, Upon this Rock (which I highly recommend you read; it leaves no doubts about the papacy), any Jew who read Matt. 16:18 would pick up instantly on the reference to Isaiah 22:22 and the office of stewardship being established. There are some quotes I’ll post in a little bit from prominent Protestant theologians who state that any other interpretation of Matt. 16:18 (“Protestant interpretations”) are to be ignored and that the Catholic interpretation is correct; Peter was the Rock.

In Christ,
Rand


#20

[quote=Rand Al’Thor]Peace be with you!

Jews. The Gospels were written for Jews, who had a vast knowledge of the Scriptures. As Steve Ray points out in his book, Upon this Rock (which I highly recommend you read; it leaves no doubts about the papacy), any Jew who read Matt. 16:18 would pick up instantly on the reference to Isaiah 22:22 and the office of stewardship being established. There are some quotes I’ll post in a little bit from prominent Protestant theologians who state that any other interpretation of Matt. 16:18 (“Protestant interpretations”) are to be ignored and that the Catholic interpretation is correct; Peter was the Rock.

In Christ,
Rand
[/quote]

I know R.T. France in his highly regarded commentary on Matthew makes the case that Jesus is referring to Peter as the Rock. All well and good. However, where is there a permanent office being created. The above mentioned text in Isaiah is not instituting a permanent office. The exalted nature of this office passes away with the man. I don’t really know how you can get any other meaning from it - read it to the end of the chapter.

Peace


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.