Response to MT's post


#52

Thanks for the link.

I really like the info on that side :+1:t2::+1:t2:

God Bless


#53

All you said their I agree totally with. You however ended with a part that very much brings us back to the purpose of my post. That is the point I am making.

Other than that we are in total agreement. :slight_smile:


#54

When Jesus made the statement about the keys, He was alluding to Isaiah 22:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/22

16 “What have you here? Whom have you here, that you have hewn for yourself a tomb here,
Hewing a tomb on high, carving a resting place in the rock?”
17
The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly,
18
And roll you up and toss you like a ball into a broad land. There you will die, there with the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house!
19
I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.
20
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open.
23
I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house;
24
On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25
On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.


#55

Not really.

Look at John 21 (BibleHub):

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Three times Jesus uses terminology for Peter to feed/tend His sheep. Who does this? A shepherd. So the Lord - The Good Shepherd - is telling Peter to be the shepherd to His sheep before His Ascension. He didn’t ask this specifically of any of the other Apostles.

From the Scripture Catholic Website on the Primacy of Peter:


#56

To kainosktisis and MT,

I just got back in town and will eventually get to all of the comments and your perceived corrections. But let me tackle the issue of Peter from a more foundational angle.

In my view this whole doctrine about him, MT and kainosktisis, seems to hinge off of the Isaiah 22 passage you and others quote.

Just to sum up the chapter, it accuses Jerusalem of callous and unthinkable revelry. The verses in question (v22) seem to be set in a parentheses between chapters 21 and 23, and has its own special treatment. The Assyrian king had rampaged through Judah causing death and destruction everywhere and evidently many had died of famine in Jerusalem because of the evil king’s acts.

But instead of mourning and repentance the people of Jerusalem were only relieved that it was over, and so as a result they celebrated it like there was no tomorrow v13 says. This action (v14) invoked divine anger.

In addition, God made a comparison of Shebna to a ball, in verse 18, (Shebna was the previous key bearer) but matched it by his new successor, Eliakim (in verse 20) who was called a peg, or nail, in a wall; v23 These expressions were common poetic language for Isaiah.

The point was, Shebna would be swiftly uprooted and rolled up like a ball, while Eliakim would replace him and become firmly established in the same office with all of the weight and authority his predecessor relinquished and thus Eliakim would be like a peg, or a nail, in a firm place like a wall.

What you seem to say here by using this passage, MT, & kainosktisis is that Eliakim was awarded a position in King David’s house by the placement of a symbolic key resting on his shoulder. This authority would now include all the same duties and privileges Shebna the scribe previously had.

But Peter, centuries later, (and through the prophetic voice of Isaiah) would fulfill this prophecy as Eliakim did. So that Isaiah was actually describing, through his prophetic lens, what we know today as the office of Pope, who has the key of David resting on his shoulder as vicar of Christ, ready to open doors no man can open and close doors no man can close.


#57

continued:
Is this correct?

Again, because Eliakim was awarded the key to the house of David and all of the government would rest on his shoulders (v22) to open and no one could shut, and to shut and no one could open, the CC adopted Isaiah’s prophetic message here, and ascribed it to the position of overseeing Bishop, (Pope.) An interesting side note: The metaphor of a key upon a shoulder is actually rooted in pagan traditions. Isaiah and the Apostle John borrowed, it according to Clarke Adam’s Commentary.

Are these (above) conclusions correct here, so far, in your view?

If so, we still have an ever-so-slight problem here. The famous Isaiah 22:22 passage attributed to Peter, is actually pointing, not to a description of an office here on earth or a redeemed sinner such as Peter,… but to Christ Himself.

You must know, Isaiah’s prophetic word is echoed in Rev. 3:7 about Christ alone. “… He (Christ) who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.”

So which is it? Is Eliakim a type of position/person here on earth called to be the papacy, or Peter? Or is Eliakim a type or parallel figure of Christ Himself, a fulfillment of Rev. 3:7?

Before you answer that, let me add something else to the dilemma. Verse 25 suggest that even Eliakim will not be able to endure his role. “In that day, says the Lord of host, the peg (Eliakim) that was fastened into the “sure place” shall give way and be moved and be hewn down and fall, and the burden that was upon it (the peg) shall be cut off; for the Lord has spoken it.”

If you read verse 25 as part of the immediate context starting in v19, it shows where Eliakim would “fall and his burden would be cut off.” This speech can only be a reference to Christ alone who would be hewn down and finally cut off from His people, according to what Isaiah wrote in chapter 53 verse 8.

To further substantiate this point, the poetic language of the ball and peg or nail in the wall of (Isa.22) is understood as expressive imagery to show the divine strength of the nail, a point that the prophet Zechariah spoke of in Zech 10:4 where he unfolds a beautiful depiction of Christ at His second coming… (See this verse.)

The point here is that Christ’ role in Rev. 3:7 is not, and cannot, be shared with any person because Christ alone is worthy of it.

The CC created a problem (I believe) when they decided Peter’s position as Pope was to be a fulfillment of Eliakim’s new position in the house of David by the key of authority resting on his shoulder, again, a description that only Christ could fulfill based on Rev. 3:7…


Best Way to Explain Papacy ? Matt 16 Isaiah 22?
#58

continued
The (CC) supposition is apparently based on these two scriptures working together in conjunction as a theological hypothesis. (Isaiah 22:22 and Mt. 16:18)

I believe, however, I am arguing these points strictly on the merits of its content and not any imposed idea. In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim was given authority resting on his shoulder to open doors that no man could open, and to shut doors no man could shut. Jesus, in Mt. 16, does not follow through with the same language. Interestingly as I study this, I found that Jesus’s language compliments the Isaiah 22:22 passage but does not directly parallel it.

Peter is given the KEYS of the Kingdom of God but is NOT told he could “open doors that no man can open, or close doors that no man can close.

So to force the idea beyond the divine text, the CC came up with this thing called the vicar of Christ, meaning “substitution.” Peter, was now, supposedly, the Chief substituted-Shepherd over all other Shepherds here on earth, since Christ ascended to heaven. And Christ is now the Chief Shepherd in heaven over ALL Shepherds including Peter here on the earth. This special treatment meant that there are actually two heads of the Church, a concept rarely discussed in my experience on this site.

The whole thing is ludicrous…

I believe Eliakim served only as a TYPE of Christ, meaning that his role as one who held the key of the house of David on his shoulder was limited, as verse 25 suggested, but in a spiritual sense, Christ role, unlike Eliakim went beyond the grave. Nowhere in the Isaiah analogy do we find a duel ruler-ship.

Since we do not find it in scripture, where did this conflicting view come from? Certainly oral tradition cannot contradict inspired scripture. It is a quandary MT.
Be blessed!! in your coming in, and in your going out!


#59

I will respond to the other post when I can.


#60

First of all, that is not exactly what it says in Isaias. I don’t really want to nitpick, but the phraseology is always important in the Bible. It actually says what he opens no one shuts, and what he shuts, no one opens. It’s slightly different than the way you’ve paraphrased it. It was probably just a slip of the lip, so to speak.

“Isaias 22: [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

“Matthew 16: [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Anyway, the point is that the action of “opening & shutting” in Isaias has the equivalent meaning of what Jesus is saying about Peter “binding & loosing”. However, the keys that Jesus gives to Peter are the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is Christ’s Kingdom. On earth, that Kingdom would be the Church that Jesus established through Peter and the Apostles. The keys that the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of David held were the actual keys to Jerusalem, which were also a symbol of his power over the entire Kingdom while the King was away from the city. While Jesus is “away” from His Kingdom (in Heaven, awaiting His second coming), Peter (or his successor) holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (His Church on earth). The Kingdom of Heaven is the Church that Jesus referred to as building on Peter. That’s why the Church refers to that passage in Isaias, because Eliacim is a “type” of Christ (which is why Jesus referenced it in Matthew), to explain what it means to be the holder of the keys in the absence of the King. He holds all the power of the King until he returns. The Church isn’t saying that the passage is only referring to Peter as being the Chief Steward.

The passage in Isaias is certainly a reference to Jesus, as the holder of the keys and as the peg. But, in Matthew He is saying that in His absence, Peter would hold His keys, and have all the power that the keys of the Chief Steward held in the absence of the King in his time. Sorry, but the point is that the King has the power to give the keys to whomever He chooses to hold them while He’s gone. Jesus chose Peter.


#61

Nope. Never claimed the whole doctrine rests on one passage. I’m just pointing you to this passage to give you the interpretation of the keys.

Why are you trying to dig deeper into this passage then the pure and simple interpretation of the keys?

I never claimed this was a prophecy. Just trying to define the meaning of the keys.

Why do you think this is a prophecy?

Nope never said it’s a prophecy.

There are many things the pagans did that we do as well.

I have a question for you to try and understand your view here. I will try to be specific because this is an important question.

Why would it matter if the Apostle John borrowed something rooted in pagan traditions to try and teach us something? The reason I ask is because you tend to bring up objections to scripture such as this one here when you are having difficulty working through a passage that contradicts your beliefs. I thought you believed all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So in the end wasn’t it the Holy Spirit who “borrowed” this from the pagans?

No. You are trying to dig deeper than necessary to try to find something that allows you to disprove the meaning of the keys.

Yeah I already brought that passage up. Not sure what your point here. Never said Jesus no longer holds the authority. Not sure where you are going with this.

Once again not sure why you are saying this is a prophecy. If you want to claim that Eliakim is Jesus then who is the King?

Yeah straw man argument here. Never made that claim. just trying to define the keys.

God Bless


#62

So what is your point.

You admit here that Eliakim is given authority (the keys) resting on his shoulder.

AMEN. That is the only point I am trying to prove. Thank you.

On what basis are we to believe Jesus would need to use the exact/direct parallel of a passage for us to find any meaning in His words?

Once again what’s your point? Take a closer look at the two passages. Which one of the two gives the key holder an even greater authority?

I think someone being able to bind something on earth and have it bound in HEAVEN is a far greater authority than just opening and shutting some doors.

Not sure why you are seeing it this way. The fact that we have a vice-President in this country does not mean we have two heads of the country.

Like I already asked. If Eliakim is a type of Christ then who is the King?

The only conflict I am seeing is what you have written above.

Like I’ve said from the beginning. Just using this passage to define the meaning of the keys. Which you did here…

Thank you. That is all of the farther we need to go.

Everything else you read into the verse is the conflict that you are speaking of.

God Bless


#63

Mt, I may have lumped you in as the primary person when in actuality kainosktisis was using this passage. my bad.


#64

It is prophetic because of Rev. 3:7 in it’s fulfillment.

The meaning of the keys is clear to me MT. They are metaphorical keys but it’s not rocket science. Keys unlock doors, they also lock doors. I believe these are spiritual doors to unlock or lock many things, including knowledge of the kingdom of God as we read in Luke’s account. Mt. 16 has to do with spiritual authority based on a fundamental truth that Jesus is the Christ. The key to the house of David, as others elude to, only points to Christ who alone has the authority of OPEN doors, or close them.

great grace belongs to you, MT


#65

Relax MT. I had no objections about it. I was just intrigued with it. I realize there are many expressions found that do not necessary have a clear O.T. bases. And not everything I say is an objection. I am not some critical spirit searching for wrong. Much like President Trump, I try to only counter punch all of the blame the protestants get on this site.


#66

Sorry if I caused a problem. As MT had explained eloquently, the passage of Isaiah I’d cited was to show authority bestowed. The words “You are Kepha & on this kepha…” come to mind. It’d be interesting to see the rest in Greek as well as Aramaic.


#67

topic:495607"]
Eliacim is a “type” of Christ
[/quote]

I can see how you made that mistake. You relied exclusively on the quote that was placed above from Isaiah 22. You should have gone to the webpage I referenced above on Isaiah which clearly explains this passage. You also have to go to the references I made in Kings.


#68

. Eliakim now becomes second in command under King Hezekiah, the descendant of King David.

Isaiah 22:15,19-24
“Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace… 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family …”

Eliakim becomes the holder of the Keys, and so becomes the vicar, or the regent, or also called the “master of the palace” who ruled as an agent or representative for the king.
Cf. 1 Kings 18:3,4
2 Kings 10:5, and 15:5


#69

In the passages from the book of Kings. See above. You can clearly see that Eliakim is not the king


#70

2 Kings 10:5

10.5
The LORD afflicted the king, and he was a leper until the day he died. He lived in a house apart, while Jotham, the king’s son, was master of the palace and ruled the people of the land.*

As mentioned above the king of Israel is a type of Christ the person beneath his authority is clearly not Christ


#71

kainosktisis, you know as well as I do that there is no original Aramaic text, as is with the Greek.

When you say Jesus spoke in Aramaic, you are guessing. As I am when I insist He was speaking Greek. However, the Greek language was the only popular language in His day and the Aramaic was secondary.

There are other ways to convey the message in Greek in the way you insist it was meant in Aramaic. The Greek translator was not stumped because of the gender issue on the word rock.


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.