James bishop of Jerusalem

[Thal59]

Hildebrand:

Well maybe the Greeks cannot read Hebrew?

Turn to Isaiah Chapter 22:22 in your bible… Or I post it:

“And I will place on his (Eli’akim) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” In the passage, God appoints Eli’akim to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Now turn to Matthew Chapter 16:18-29:

“I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In the passage, God appoints Peter to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Jesus said He was a King. Christ’s Kingdom was and remains the Kingdom of Heaven. Since He was leaving earth to ascend into heaven, He appointed a Steward to lead the flock in His absence. Just as in ancient Israel, when the king would leave for whatever reason, the steward would be the acting ruler and would have authority in governing the kingdom.

The duty of a Steward is NOT to stand in front of the gates of a city and hold a piece of paper letting some people in and keeping some people out. That is duty for guards. For both Peter and Eli’akim, the key(s) represented the authority to govern/rule in the place of the King.

James was not appointed Steward by Jesus, Peter was!

Excellent post, though it may help to also point out that in the first century Jewish idiom of the time, to “bind and loose” referred to either the high priest or the sanhedrin confering upon the congregation what was required of them regarding religious observation. In other words, what the people “had to do” (binding) and what they did not have to do. (Loosed from.)

Thal59

 

[Hildebrand]

Here is more of Isaiah Chpater 22:

"14 The LORD of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: “Surely this iniquity will not be forgiven you till you die,” says the Lord GOD of hosts. 15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, 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 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.”

 

[Hildebrand]

Thal59:

Excellent post, though it may help to also point out that in the first century Jewish idiom of the time, to “bind and loose” referred to either the high priest or the sanhedrin conferring upon the congregation what was required of them regarding religious observation. In other words, what the people “had to do” (binding) and what they did not have to do. (Loosed from.)

Thal59

That is a good point. Peter was to be the spiritual Steward of his people. Hence, “bind and loose”.

The “open” and “shut” of Isaiah may represent temporal/worldly powers of the office held by Eli’akim.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hildebrand:

Well maybe the Greeks cannot read Hebrew?

Turn to Isaiah Chapter 22:22 in your bible… Or I post it:

“And I will place on his (Eli’akim) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” In the passage, God appoints Eli’akim to be the Steward of the Kingdom.

Well, it wouldn’t be only the Greeks who cannot read Hebrew but also the Vatican.

This connection with the passge in Isaiah is a very recent one, post Vatican II. It has no mention in any of the Church Fathers or in any of the Roman Catholic conciliar statements concerning the papacy.

I guess this means that Catholics only started learning Hebrew after Vatican II and they finally noticed Eliakim’s key

I have never encountered the Catholic claim that Eliakim’s key and Peter’s keys are connected until I joined this list. Is it something new in Catholic apologetics?

Could you please offer some solid references, either in the Church Fathers, liturgical texts, or papal pronouncments. I am keen to learn when the idea first appeared and who promoted it.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

Could you please offer some solid references, either in the Church Fathers, liturgical texts, or papal pronouncments. I am keen to learn when the idea first appeared and who promoted it.

Here is an New Advent link:

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

“In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna: “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.” In all countries the key is the symbol of authority.”

Other links:

ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/keys.htm

BTW, this passage is all over the place. Dr. Scott Hahn and many other theologians and apologetics use it.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, it wouldn’t be only the Greeks who cannot read Hebrew but also the Vatican.

I guess this caught you off guard!!

What say you on Isaiah 22:22?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/keys.htm

This link makes the connection with Christ Himslef as the holder of the key.

Isaiah 22:22:
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.

Rev. 3:7 :
"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open…

BTW, this passage is all over the place. Dr. Scott Hahn and many other theologians and apologetics use it.

Will you reference Eliakim’s key in any of the Fathers of the Church (I don’t know who Scott Hahn is -maybe a German theologian?- but I am sure he is not among the Fathers.) Are there references in papal writings? In Trent or Vatican I which made important definitions about the petrine office and the keys?

 

[Hildebrand]

Br. Ambrose,

I know I am wasting my time with you because you love to jump all over the place and pick out tangent lines that lead to nowhere… Remain obstinate if you must.

Jesus did not abdicate his Kingship, if must know the answer. But that does not matter to you…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hildebrand:

Br. Ambrose,

I know I am wasting my time with you because you love to jump all over the place and pick out tangent lines that lead to nowhere…

I have remained focused on one thing. It is wrong to have accused me as you have, Hildebrand. I am asking for statements in the Fathers or in papal documents or in conciliar documents which have made the connnection between Heliakim’s key and Peter’s keys. It is not me but you who have jumped all over the place, offering various tangents to avoid answering my perfectly valid question. Obviously there is no answer and the Heliakim-Peter connection is something previously unknown in the Church.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

I have remained focused on one thing. It is wrong to have accused me as you have, Hildebrand. I am asking for statements in the Fathers or in papal documents or in conciliar documents which have made the connnection between Heliakim’s key and Peter’s keys. It is not me but you who have jumped all over the place, offering various tangents to avoid answering my perfectly valid question. Obviously there is no answer and the Heliakim-Peter connection is something previously unknown in the Church.

What Church? Your Church, or the Catholic Church?

If I am not mistaken, the keys given to St. Peter was the authority (keys) of Stewardship. Those keys did not make him King. Christ always has the authority (keys) of Kingship. Hence, Jesus did not abdicate his Kingship.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

connnection between Heliakim’s key and Peter’s keys.

Huh? Are you making the assumption that Heliakim’s key and Peter’s keys are the same keys? I am stating the keys represent authority and generally an office. I made a correlation and I think you jumped to the conclusion that I was saying they were the same exact keys? I was pointing out the similarity in wording and how God appoints Eliakim Steward and by almost the same words, Jesus appoints Peter to the office of Steward.

I hope you did not jump to that conclusion…

If you did, my pardon.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hildebrand:

Huh? Are you making the assumption that Heliakim’s key and Peter’s keys are the same keys? I am stating the keys represent authority and generally an office. I made a correlation and I think you jumped to the conclusion that I was saying they were the same exact keys? I was pointing out the similarity in wording and how God appoints Eliakim Steward and by almost the same words, Jesus appoints Peter to the office of Steward.

I hope you did not jump to that conclusion…

If you did, my pardon.

I’d still be interested to hear the patristic support for this novel correlation of the keys.

It is simply a recent theory and I’d never encountered it before coming on this Forum. It is something from Scott Hahn?

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

I’d still be interested to hear the patristic support for this novel correlation of the keys.

It is simply a recent theory and I’d never encountered it before coming on this Forum. It is something from Scott Hahn?

I am not sure where the origin lies. I may have heard it from Dr. Scott Hahn? I have not heard him speak in over 8 years, so I am not quite sure.

My whole point of my original post (#20) was to give a response to someone saying, “Well we don’t even know how a Steward is appointed. So how can we be sure if Peter became a Steward in Matt 16:19?” The Answer: Well flip to Isaiah 22:21-22 and compare that with Matthew 16:19. VERY close in wording.

Except Jesus makes Peter the spiritual steward in Matthew 16:19, not a steward of a temporal state. As Thal59 pointed out:

in the first century Jewish idiom of the time, to “bind and loose” referred to either the high priest or the sanhedrin confering upon the congregation what was required of them regarding religious observation. In other words, what the people “had to do” (binding) and what they did not have to do. (Loosed from.)

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

We seem to have taken Catholic Dude’s thread off into new territory with our discussion. Maybe better to let it drop or the thread may be closed?

 

[jordan]

Catholic Dude:

So does anyone know what to say about Gal2:9 when James is mentioned first out of the few times Paul mentions Peter? And what does it mean when Paul says they ‘seemed’ to be pillars?

Consider the big picture. All of the Apostles began from Jerusalem at what we Christians call the birthday of the Church…the manifestation of the Holy Spirit recounted in Acts 2 at the Pentecost. Peter was in Jerusalem for the first seven or so years after that Pentecost as the head of the Church. This is the time frame when Paul conferred with Peter and remained with him for 15 days (Gal 1:18). Paul then begins Gal 2 with an account of the Council of Jerusalem “after fourteen years…” During these fourteen years, Peter is busy spreading the Gospel in Samaria, Palestine, and Antioch. He returns to Jerusalem, is imprisoned (ca. 42 AD), escapes, and then departs for seven years traveling to Rome. He is expelled from Rome by the edict of Claudius against the Jews in 49 AD, and is in Jerusalem for the council ca. 50 AD.

So while Peter has been out taking the Word to the world, Jerusalem has been left in James’ capable hands. When Peter returns for the event Paul describes in Gal 2:1-10, something significant happens in Paul’s account. The man he refers to in the Greek “Petros” five times in Galatians, he now lists among James and John as “Kepha.” Why the switch to the Aramaic for “rock” when listed with two other Apostles unless Paul wanted to emphasize something? Paul here refers to him by the same term Our Lord would have used when he named him “Rock.”

The word “pillar” should probably be taken at face value. A pillar is a structural support. They were particularly important members of the Church…the first Bishops. I don’t know that you can read in more than that. Of course, pillar is a term used for the special presence of God among the Israelites (fire/cloud).
Catholic Dude:

And another thing I always hear is that Paul hardly mentions Peter in his Letters, I tell people it was understood who Peter was. Also I told that guy that the local churches that Paul wrote to were already established and they already knew about Peter, and if they were having problems relating to authority then there was a bigger problem then what Paul could fix by a simple Letter. Is there anything else I can say to people who ask this?

Paul hardly mentions the other Apostles at all in his letters, but Peter/Kepha he mentions by far the most. Had he much knowledge of Peter’s status, he may have deliberately withheld it for protective purposes in his correspondence. Many of those churches would have had personal knowledge of Peter from his travels. Rome itself, where Peter was again from about 62-67, was a dangerous place with ongoing persecutions of Christians. Peter and Paul were both martyred in/near Rome in 67 AD.

jb

 

[jordan]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, it wouldn’t be only the Greeks who cannot read Hebrew but also the Vatican.

This connection with the passge in Isaiah is a very recent one, post Vatican II. It has no mention in any of the Church Fathers or in any of the Roman Catholic conciliar statements concerning the papacy.

I guess this means that Catholics only started learning Hebrew after Vatican II and they finally noticed Eliakim’s key

I have never encountered the Catholic claim that Eliakim’s key and Peter’s keys are connected until I joined this list. Is it something new in Catholic apologetics?

Could you please offer some solid references, either in the Church Fathers, liturgical texts, or papal pronouncments. I am keen to learn when the idea first appeared and who promoted it.

One of the linked references Hildebrand provided earlier showing this passage in connection to the authority of the Church is the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917! version). So much for a post-VII novelty. I’m sure the writers of the old encyclopedia didn’t pull it out of the air. You don’t think the God/Man had Isaiah 22:22 in mind when He uses the paraphrase in Mt 16:19? What need would the Fathers have had to make this any more clear? Our Lord was giving the “Rock” His own authority on earth. This immediately preceeds the first prediction of the Passion (Mt 16:21). He had His departure on His mind and was providing for it.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

I’d still be interested to hear the patristic support for this novel correlation of the keys.

Hope this helps a bit…

In the New American Bible for Isaiah 22:22, the footnote reads:
{Key: symbol of authority; cf Mt 16, 19; Rv 3, 7}

In the New American Bible for Matthew 16:19, the footnote reads:
{The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Is 22, 15-25, where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David”, which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (22,22)}

I assume the Vatican is aware of all this, since the New American Bible includes a page of Nihil Obstat(s) and Imprimatur(s). It also includes an Apostolic Blessing of Pope Paul VI from 1970.

 

[dumspirospero]

What I find funny about protestants, is that they spend so much time trying to discredit Catholics, that they can’t even decide what they actually believe is the truth…there is no cohesiveness among them…except for the rapture fairytale…I find it humerous personally…sometimes I think their only doctrine is “continual bashing of the Catholic Church”.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

We seem to have taken Catholic Dude’s thread off into new territory with our discussion. Maybe better to let it drop or the thread may be closed?

You are probably correct.

Although he wanted to know: “Is there anything else I can say to people who ask this?” The debate over Peter’s "keys’ " link to Isaiah 22:22 is technically apart of this discussion because it helps prove Peter has the authority, not James.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hildebrand:

You are probably correct.

Although he wanted to know: “Is there anything else I can say to people who ask this?” The debate over Peter’s "keys’ " link to Isaiah 22:22 is technically apart of this discussion because it helps prove Peter has the authority, not James.

Yea, but wasnt there a passage in James16:18 where the keys are given to James?