Isaiah 22:21-22

[Church_Militant]

EA_Man:

Can you cite a verse to substantiate this claim?

Peace

Gladly:

1st Corinthians 15:8 And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
This shows that the office of apostles was not just a calling. The office did indeed pass on.

 

[Church_Militant]

EA_Man:

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

Me, before I returned to the Catholic Church. From simply reading the Word of God.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Church Militant:

This shows that the office of apostles was not just a calling. The office did indeed pass on.

It is extremely clear even among the early Church Fathers as well, for example:

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]).

or even:

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]).

And more of course…

The Faith of the Early Church Fathers also played a big role in my conversion.

 

[Ghosty]

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

Right here. Before I even knew about the Papacy (I was raised secular), after reading that passage and deciding I wanted to become Christian, I said to myself “Gotta go where the keys are today.”

If Peter was given the keys, why couldn’t he give them to someone else?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

EA_Man:

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

Peace be with you!

Regardless of whether or not it specifically states it in the Bible, the office of the steward was just that–an office. Steve Ray points out that “The office of royal steward was a permanent office within the Eastern kingdoms.” Everyone who lived in one of the kingdoms already knew this; it would be redundant to explain it in Scripture. And we do, in fact, see a succession in Isaiah 22.
Let’s start from Isaiah 22:19 (bold added for emphasis)…“I will thrust you from **your office **andpull you down from your station. [20] 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.”
How is a succession not clear here?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[EA_Man]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

Regardless of whether or not it specifically states it in the Bible, the office of the steward was just that–an office. Steve Ray points out that “The office of royal steward was a permanent office within the Eastern kingdoms.” Everyone who lived in one of the kingdoms already knew this; it would be redundant to explain it in Scripture. And we do, in fact, see a succession in Isaiah 22.
Let’s start from Isaiah 22:19 (bold added for emphasis)…“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; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority.”
How is a succession not clear here?

In Christ,
Rand

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.

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.

Where does it indicate that anyone else will be replacing Eliakim?
Where is the succession?

The example of Matthias replacing Judas fails at the same point of comparison; we see the traitor Judas being replaced, but what of the other Apostles? Where is the pattern?

Why don’t you cite Saul being replaced by David who was then replaced by Solomon, etc, etc…? At least there is a real chain of succession.

Peace

 

[E.E.N.S]

^

Is anyone else here reminded of, “you can lead a horse to water…”?

 

[Church_Militant]

^

Is anyone else here reminded of, “you can lead a horse to water…”?

Or more like …“I don’t really want answers or discussion, I just want to post my agenda driven comments and mess with Catholics because I’m bored with the n-C/a-C forums that I’m on…”

 

[E.E.N.S]

Church Militant:

Or more like …“I don’t really want answers or discussion, I just want to post my agenda driven comments and mess with Catholics because I’m bored with the n-C/a-C forums that I’m on…”

Although it may seem to be like this, I bet he is just a frustrated as us on the matter…I know before I came to the understanding that I do now that I used to argue with Catholics about sola fide…so I believe EA_Man truly believes his view is the correct one.

When I used to argue from the protestant side, I used to hear these statements that we are presenting, however they never sank in - in fact I don’t really remember hearing them!! It wasn’t until I sat down and asked the Holy Spirit to guide me through prayer and study (I was trying to be more effective at debating Catholics!), it was then that I started to see the truth of the Catholic Church…and for some reason it was so clear that I was astonished that I hadn’t picked up on it sooner!

That’s just the way it goes I guess.

 

[Hildebrand]

EA_Man:

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

Where did anyone say they were the same keys as Isaiah 22? That was a completely different office and authority - the key (authority) given in Isaiah 22 was Steward of the Kingdom of Judah. The point of going back to Isaiah 22 is to understand Matthew 16 in context. Jesus was telling Peter he would give him authority over the Kingdom that Jesus was establishing and bringing to all peoples.

The keys Jesus has over death and hell are symbolic of Jesus’ authority over death and hell. His death and resurrection have given Him victory over death and hell and dominion over them

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Rev 3:7) The authority here signifies “the absolute sovereignty of Christ in the messianic Kingdom” (Navarre Bible).

The authority Jesus has is Kingship. Jesus NEVER abdicated his kingship to Peter. Both have authority: Jesus has authority as King, and Peter has authority as Steward.

 

[EA_Man]

Hildebrand:

Where did anyone say they were the same keys as Isaiah 22? That was a completely different office and authority - the key (authority) given in Isaiah 22 was Steward of the Kingdom of Judah. The point of going back to Isaiah 22 is to understand Matthew 16 in context. Jesus was telling Peter he would give him authority over the Kingdom that Jesus was establishing and bringing to all peoples.

The authority Jesus has is Kingship. Jesus NEVER abdicated his kingship to Peter. Both have authority: Jesus has authority as King, and Peter has authority as Steward.

The Kingdom that Jesus is establishing is in us.

And when He was demanded of the Pharisees when the
kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said,
“The kingdom of God comes not with observation. Neither
shall they say 'Lo, here! Or, “Lo, there!” For behold, the
kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

Your exegesis of the verses in Isaiah is weak.

You claim that Jesus made Peter steward of His Kingdom, but Isaiah 22 clearly points out that the stewardship extends to only one person: Eliakim - NOT a line of successors (your understanding of Matt 16 suffers from the presumption). And when his family became proud of the office it was taken away. There is no succession of this office beyond Eliakim.

Secondly, it is clear from the text that the office was removed from Eliakim’s family because of performance, or lack thereof. If this was truly a passage pointing to the papacy, Catholics would have no basis to claim that popes such as Liberius, Honorius, Alexander VI, and others cannot break the line of succession of the church. Does that conform to what we see here in Isaiah 22? No, not at all.

Peace

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

EA_Man:

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.

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.

Where does it indicate that anyone else will be replacing Eliakim?
Where is the succession?

The example of Matthias replacing Judas fails at the same point of comparison; we see the traitor Judas being replaced, but what of the other Apostles? Where is the pattern?

Why don’t you cite Saul being replaced by David who was then replaced by Solomon, etc, etc…? At least there is a real chain of succession.

Peace

I never said it was hereditary! Neither is the papacy! And don’t try to use that whole “the office was no longer important” thing. The house of David, while still carrying the name, was also no longer “important” by Jesus’ time either. Mary was of the house of David, but a simple Jewish girl. Jesus himself, while the King of kings and being of Davidic descent via Mary, was basically the poorest man in the world. But since Jesus is the King of kings and of Davidic descent, wouldn’t it make sense that he would have a steward as his ancestors did?
But to insinuate that there is no need for a steward over the Church on earth is ridiculous. The Bible is NOT all we need and Jesus never once promised us a book. Not a single one of the Apostles were ordered, or even asked, to write anything (the obvious exception being the Revelation of John). If the Bible is all we need, and there is no need for a Pope and Magesterium, then how in the world are we EVER to “all be one” as Jesus prayed??? We already have over 33,000 Protestant denominations ALL claiming to have the right interpretation of Scripture and doctrine. And they ALL disagree with each other on what that is.
But as long as there is no need for the Pope and the Catholic Church, then why do you trust your Bible? If it were not for the Church you would not have it. By accepting the fact that the canon is closed and that the books that make up the Sacred Scripture of your Bible, you are–regardless of whether this is conscious or not–recognizing the authority of the Catholic Church and the INFALLIBLE (and it HAD to be) list of books given by Pope Damascus I in the 4th century AD.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Pax]

If the position of apostle is only a vocation and not an office than why please explain why it is referred to as an office in the book of Acts. In reference to replacing Judas we read in Acts 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; **and ‘His office let another take.’ ** "

If it is not an office then why does Paul say the following?:

Colossians 1:24-25
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,

1 Timothy 3:1
THE SAYING is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task

 

[Kristina_P]

EA_Man:

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

That’s the type of objection I’m used to hearing from my non-Christian friends. What unbiased reader would detect the claims of Jesus in the Old Testament passages that the gospel-writers and apostles cite as prophecies fulfilled in Christ?
That being said, I’m inclined to look at verse 25 and reject this particular passage as a prophecy of the Chair of Peter – a type, maybe, but not an actual prophecy. Has the Church defined this as the official interpretation?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Kristina P.:

That’s the type of objection I’m used to hearing from my non-Christian friends. What unbiased reader would detect the claims of Jesus in the Old Testament passages that the gospel-writers and apostles cite as prophecies fulfilled in Christ?
That being said, I’m inclined to look at verse 25 and reject this particular passage as a prophecy of the Chair of Peter – a type, maybe, but not an actual prophecy. Has the Church defined this as the official interpretation?

Peace be with you!

It’s not a prophecy; it’s just the reference Jesus chose to use for the papacy when he named Peter the Rock. I believe it is the official teaching of the Church that Matt. 16:18 refers to Isaiah 22:22. That’s what Steve Ray and other apologists always say, so I’m pretty sure it’s the official teaching.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Kristina_P]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

It’s not a prophecy; it’s just the reference Jesus chose to use for the papacy when he named Peter the Rock. I believe it is the official teaching of the Church that Matt. 16:18 refers to Isaiah 22:22. That’s what Steve Ray and other apologists always say, so I’m pretty sure it’s the official teaching.

In Christ,
Rand

So, are we to take verse 25 to mean that the Pope really is the anti-Christ and that all Catholics are going to hell?

 

[Ghosty]

It’s not a prophecy, but rather a simple indication of what such keys imply. I doubt very much that the passage in Isaiah has anything in particular to do with Peter or the Church. All it shows is that the keys mean something *very significant, *and that meaning has been upheld by the Church from day one.

The beauty of Isaiah is that we don’t have to go to outside, fragmentary sources to establish the meaning of keys being handed off to someone

 

[E.E.N.S]

Kristina P.:

So, are we to take verse 25 to mean that the Pope really is the anti-Christ and that all Catholics are going to hell?

Only if you don’t think Jesus can uphold His own promise; “…and the gates of hell will never prevail against it.”

 

[Hildebrand]

EA_Man:

The Kingdom that Jesus is establishing is in us. And when He was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God comes not with observation. Neither shall they say 'Lo, here! Or, “Lo, there!” For behold, the kingdom of God is within you

." (Luke 17:20-21)

What it is saying is the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, not a temporal kingdom and Peter was given authority over the spiritual kingdom - Christ’s Church.

EA_Man:

You claim that Jesus made Peter steward of His Kingdom, but Isaiah 22 clearly points out that the stewardship extends to only one person: Eliakim - NOT a line of successors (your understanding of Matt 16 suffers from the presumption). And when his family became proud of the office it was taken away. There is no succession of this office beyond Eliakim.

I was never saying the office of Peter was given by Christ is the same office of Eliakim. You keep coming to this, but always fail to admit that Jesus gave Peter authority over the Church. And you will never admit this, always come back to Peter’s lineage, etc. Peter’s family could never result in the taking away of the office because the office is not hereditary. But that is neither here nor there because of the reference of Matt 16:19 to Isaiah 22:22 is not that Shebna is the previous steward of Peter, nor that there was any other previous steward of the Kingdom (the Church), nor Peter’s children will inherit the office, nor etc. The reference to Isaiah 22:22 is so the reader would more understand that Jesus was giving authority to Peter as steward. This new Kingdom is not a temporal Kingdom, of lines of hereditary successors. It is a spiritual Kingdom, a completely new kind of Kingdom. First, succession was chosen by the apostles themselves. Once the apostles established their churches, if my memory serves me correctly, the successors were chosen locally, the accepted practice of the time.

EA_Man:

Secondly, it is clear from the text that the office was removed from Eliakim’s family because of performance, or lack thereof. If this was truly a passage pointing to the papacy, Catholics would have no basis to claim that popes such as Liberius, Honorius, Alexander VI, and others cannot break the line of succession of the church. Does that conform to what we see here in Isaiah 22? No, not at all.

For succession you are to look at Acts (and also other texts of the time period), not the family line of Eliakim in Isaiah. Isaiah is useful to understand that the keys that will be given to Peter are symbolic of authority. For what happens after the death of an apostle also read Pax’s response.

 

[Hildebrand]

Kristina P.:

So, are we to take verse 25 to mean that the Pope really is the anti-Christ and that all Catholics are going to hell?

Jesus said to the apostles: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:16-20) The apostles died within the next 60 years, so what is this end of the age? Is Jesus promise only to the 11 apostles? No, it is a promise to be with their successors (as leaders of the Church) and the Church to the end of the age.

Jesus Christ’s promise that the “gates of hell would not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18) What is it? The Church.

So, in conclusion, Jesus will always be with the apostles and their successors and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.