Isaiah 22 / Matt 16

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexNumeroUno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlexNumeroUno

Guest
Hi,

I was hoping someone could help me out with a question. What are the earliest documents that explicitly make the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 in support of papal primacy?

Thanks!
 
AlexNumeroUno said:
Hi,

I was hoping someone could help me out with a question. What are the earliest documents that explicitly make the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 in support of papal primacy?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
To tell you the truth, it’s never occurred to me to start reading all the early writings to see just when the first mention occurred. And, I’m not likely to start since I don’t consider that particular bit of info as critical to validate papal primacy. Do you? Maybe someone has ECF software with a search engine that could locate a reference.

Nita

Edit note: I just noticed the opening post was made a year and a half ago. I think Alex is long gone.
 
I’ve brought this up several times:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4150657&highlight=Eliakim#post4150657
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4149834&highlight=Eliakim#post4149834
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=264493
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4105518&highlight=Douay#post4105518
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4119277&highlight=Eliakim#post4119277
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4027068&highlight=Eliakim#post4027068
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3308235&highlight=Eliakim#post3308235
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3288748&highlight=Eliakim#post3288748http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3278963&highlight=Eliakim#post3278963
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3900925&highlight=Eliakim#post3900925
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4186004#post4186004
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3731567&highlight=Eliakim#post3731567
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3725553#post3725553
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3709701&highlight=Eliakim#post3709701
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3453056&highlight=Eliakim#post3453056
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3452261&highlight=Eliakim#post3452261
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4186026#post4186026
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227

I think that’s a start.
 
Nita said:
To tell you the truth, it’s never occurred to me to start reading all the early writings to see just when the first mention occurred. And, I’m not likely to start since I don’t consider that particular bit of info as critical to validate papal primacy. Do you? Maybe someone has ECF software with a search engine that could locate a reference.

Nita

Edit note: I just noticed the opening post was made a year and a half ago. I think Alex is long gone.
Click to expand...
yeah, old post. I bumped it because it’s being discussed now on another forums, which I linked to. This thread in particular was linked and the protestants used the fact that there was no reply to say “see! we’re right, those Catholics don’t even have a defense!”. :rolleyes:
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I’ve brought this up several times:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4150657&highlight=Eliakim#post4150657
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4149834&highlight=Eliakim#post4149834
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=264493
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4105518&highlight=Douay#post4105518
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4119277&highlight=Eliakim#post4119277
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4027068&highlight=Eliakim#post4027068
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3308235&highlight=Eliakim#post3308235
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3288748&highlight=Eliakim#post3288748http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3278963&highlight=Eliakim#post3278963
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3900925&highlight=Eliakim#post3900925
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4186004#post4186004
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3731567&highlight=Eliakim#post3731567
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3725553#post3725553
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3709701&highlight=Eliakim#post3709701
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3453056&highlight=Eliakim#post3453056
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3452261&highlight=Eliakim#post3452261
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4186026#post4186026
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227

I think that’s a start.
Click to expand...
Hi Isa,
Maybe you can explain to me why some seem to place such importance on how early the two passages were linked. What difference does it make? The validity of the papacy is not dependent upon some sort of link being established between those two passages.

As has been explained so many times on the forum, the Isaiah passage is not seen as a prophecy of the papacy. One might consider it a “type” - keeping in mind that types are not the same in every detail when they are fulfilled. It may be just us non-professional Bible enthusiasts that enjoy connecting the two with typology! I know I did when I first read that section in Isaiah. I think Protestants would also if they didn’t have this built in resistance to anything that might seem to support the papal office Jesus established in His Church.

Usually the way I’ve seen the connection used in exegesis, is to show that the Jews were familiar with the office of the keys. When Our Lord gives Peter the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16, Peter knows what Jesus is talking about and so do the other eleven. So did all the other Jews who heard the apostles when they related that event.

Nita
 
AlexNumeroUno said:
Hi,

I was hoping someone could help me out with a question. What are the earliest documents that explicitly make the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 in support of papal primacy?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Isaiah 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.”

The keys to the house of David is a symbol of authority. The key holder, Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is the only one that can open and shut the door.

Matthew 16:19, “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.”

The keys of the kingdom of heaven is the prophesized keys from Isaiah 22:15-22. St. Peter was given the keys and with these keys he has the authority to bind and loose.
 
Nita said:
Hi Isa,
Maybe you can explain to me why some seem to place such importance on how early the two passages were linked. What difference does it make? The validity of the papacy is not dependent upon some sort of link being established between those two passages.

As has been explained so many times on the forum, the Isaiah passage is not seen as a prophecy of the papacy. One might consider it a “type” - keeping in mind that types are not the same in every detail when they are fulfilled. It may be just us non-professional Bible enthusiasts that enjoy connecting the two with typology! I know I did when I first read that section in Isaiah. I think Protestants would also if they didn’t have this built in resistance to anything that might seem to support the papal office Jesus established in His Church.

Usually the way I’ve seen the connection used in exegesis, is to show that the Jews were familiar with the office of the keys. When Our Lord gives Peter the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16, Peter knows what Jesus is talking about and so do the other eleven. So did all the other Jews who heard the apostles when they related that event.

Nita
Click to expand...
That’s the “importance” of the verses in question: if it was so familiar, you would expect the Church Fathers to know it.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
That’s the “importance” of the verses in question: if it was so familiar, you would expect the Church Fathers to know it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I don’t think many of the ECF’s were Jewish. And, when it came to passing on the teaching of papal authority to the gentiles, it certainly wasn’t necessary to connect it to the Isaiah passage.

Some might find the scarcity of early writing about the papacy as a reason to doubt. Just the opposite for me. I see it as a probable sign that there was no challenge to it. No doubt because it was a lived out reality in conformity with the clear, easy to understand, unambiguous teaching in Mt. 16.

Nita
 
Nita said:
Not necessarily. I don’t think many of the ECF’s were Jewish. And, when it came to passing on the teaching of papal authority to the gentiles, it certainly wasn’t necessary to connect it to the Isaiah passage.

Some might find the scarcity of early writing about the papacy as a reason to doubt. Just the opposite for me. I see it as a probable sign that there was no challenge to it. No doubt because it was a lived out reality in conformity with the clear, easy to understand, unambiguous teaching in Mt. 16.

Nita
Click to expand...
I’m not going to deal with the simplification here: such an interpretation has been opposed, as the record amply shows, whether against St. Peter in Galatians, Pope Victor’s being rebuked by the whole Church, Firmilian’s letter condemning Pope Stephan published by St. Cyprian etc.

The only reason why this verse has attracted my attention is that it is presented as a slam dunk bit of typology. As seen in the linked posts and elsewhere, it is presented as if self evident. Which again, is odd since the Fathers seem not to know it (I’ve yet to see anyone post a Father, they instead just launch into begging the question by trying to “prove” the papacy). Bonocore’s attempt at using the word “key” as some sort of reference to Isaiah. This shows that the problem is realized, and trying to hide the fact that it has no solution in support of it.

I have no problem of using it as a proof text, but then, that brings up issues of sola scriptura.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I have no problem of using it as a proof text, …
Click to expand...
And I don’t have any problem with accepting it as one even if it wasn’t used as a proof text within the early centuries.

I didn’t read all the threads you listed, so don’t know if some on those threads were implying that the connection between the two passages had been part of Biblical exegesis from the beginning. Not wise to do without documentation. But there’s no reason why they couldn’t use validly now, even if was noted only very recently. I’m pretty sure you don’t mean to imply that only those typologies recorded in the early writings have merit and can be used to support doctrines.

Nita
 
Nita said:
And I don’t have any problem with accepting it as one even if it wasn’t used as a proof text within the early centuries.

I didn’t read all the threads you listed, so don’t know if some on those threads were implying that the connection between the two passages had been part of Biblical exegesis from the beginning. Not wise to do without documentation. But there’s no reason why they couldn’t use validly now, even if was noted only very recently. I’m pretty sure you don’t mean to imply that only those typologies recorded in the early writings have merit and can be used to support doctrines.

Nita
Click to expand...
As long as it goes along with what has gone before, no problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top