What does Isaiah 22 prove?

[Fredricks]

Isaiah 22 is being used as an example of…
well actually I am not sure! In a recent thread, Jane said:

Jane Frances So, yes, you are correct, the key is taken away, but you seem to be missing the fact that the key is immediately placed on the shoulder of Eliakim, once taken from Shebna. This is the context of verse 25. This is the model for succession in general. One is removed, another takes his place.

In this passage;

1. The power of the key in Isaiah 22 is temporary. It was taken away and in 586 BC it fell. Do Catholics believe this applies to the Papacy
2. The possessor would eventually “break off and fall” because of
   Sin or Greed?

Isaiah 22:16
Who do you think you are, building a beautiful tomb for yourself in the rock?

Do Catholics believe this can happen to the Papacy as well?

This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality.
Catholics like the succession part but not the rest?

 

[VociMike]

Isaiah 22 is being used as an example of…
well actually I am not sure! …

In this passage;

1. The power of the key in Isaiah 22 is temporary. It was taken away and in 586 BC it fell. Do Catholics believe this applies to the Papacy

Christ’s kingdom is not temporary (though it is “temporary” on earth, for the material world will not last forever)

This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality.
Catholics like the succession part but not the rest?

You do understand (at least, I hope you do!) that Old Testament prefigurings of New Testament truths are not perfect duplicates of the latter.

Even so, one could easily argue that God may take away the power He grants through death. So your argument is even weaker than you think.

 

[Fidelis]

This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality. Catholics like the succession part but not the rest?

You seem to forget that ALL the Old Testament types were temporary shadows and prefigurements. For example, the Davidic Kingdom promised to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 was said to last forever. We know, in fact, that with the destruction of the first temple and the exile of the Jews into Babylon, this earthly kingdom did effectively come to an end. There were no more Davidic kings after this. David’s earthly kingdom, however, was but a foreshadow of the True Son of David, Jesus’ eternal kingdom.

Just as David’s earthly kingdom was a temporary foreshadowing of Jesus’ eternal kingdom, the key-holding office of Eliakim in Isaiah 22 was a temporary foreshadowing of Peter and his successors continuing role as holders of the Keys in this same eternal kingdom.

As far as the dire words directed at Eliakim: as an unfaithful servant filling a temporary, earthly role at a specific time in history, they were clearly being applied to his specific case.

Hope this helps.

 

[Fredricks]

How does one determine what part of this is to be “prefigured”?
Does the Catholic church have a position of this verse from the Catechism or preferably something infallible?
How does one avoid “cherry picking” the parts you agree with or are predisposed to see?

 

[Penitus]

How does one determine what part of this is to be “prefigured”?
Does the Catholic church have a position of this verse from the Catechism or preferably something infallible?
How does one avoid “cherry picking” the parts you agree with or are predisposed to see?

Jesus is a Davidic King, with a Kigdom. Scripture makes this clear (Luke 1:32-33). Thus, we should see elements of Davidic Kingdoms take place within Christ’s perfect and everlasting covenant with us.

This Prime Minister-esque position of the OT is simply one example. the language between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is too similar to be coincedence.

 

[epostle]

Rev. 1:18; and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

9:1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the **key **of the shaft of the bottomless pit; (some say this is Martin Luther, a star in apocalyptic language is a priest)

20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the** key **of the bottomless pit and a great chain. -

“keys” undeniably represent authority of some kind. By using the word “keys,” Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

How does one determine what part of this is to be “prefigured”?

One can determine anything they like, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the teaching authority of the Church.

Does the Catholic church have a position of this verse from the Catechism or preferably something infallible?

Yes. The position of this verse is clear, in keeping with Matthew 16 and Rev. 3:7, in keeping with what we know of early church history, and the writings of the early Church Fathers.
Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, SubSection 3, Heading 2
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

How does one avoid “cherry picking” the parts you agree with or are predisposed to see?

see above

Isaiah 22:16 Who do you think you are, building a beautiful tomb for yourself in the rock?
Do Catholics believe this can happen to the Papacy as well?

No. Jesus promised to be with us (the magisterium) for ever. Jesus did not give that promise to Shebna, and He did not give that promise to Caiaphas, who held the seat of Moses. The “Seat of Moses” poses a difficulty for Protestants, because it is a Jewish Tradition not found in the Old Testament. Jesus elevated that seat when it was transfered to Peter and the Apostles and their successors. Notice the word “sit” in Matthew 19:28-29. It implies a seat or chair. You cannot have an office (chair) without succession, or its not an office or chair.
[28] Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. THAT IS A LOT OF AUTHORITY. There is no proof using the bible alone, or history, or any writings of the earliest Christians, that the authority of the Apostles died with the death of John.

This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality.
Catholics like the succession part but not the rest?

Catholics do not deny there have been bad popes in the past, but their morality has nothing to do with infallibility. No pope, no matter how evil, has ever made a false teaching from the Chair of Peter. What that proves is that even we can’t destroy our own Church!!! Infallibility is not impeccability. It comes with the office, not the personality.

“This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality.”

Shebna had authority in his own palace, and held an office and a station, but he was never declared a father to the people of Jerusalem by God (foreshadowing the papal office), much like Caiaphas was never declared a father to the people of Jerusalem, even though he held an office like Shebna.

Lastly:
Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
What is the expiration date of this verse?

Now try and connect the dots.

 

[Fidelis]

How does one determine what part of this is to be “prefigured”? How does one avoid “cherry picking” the parts you agree with or are predisposed to see?

*By going to the constant teaching of the Church as it has believed from the very beginning. *Do a little research into this with the Early Church Fathers, and you will be surprised what you find out.

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant - John Henry Newman

 

[Fredricks]

What is the earliest ECF to mentione Isaiah and this having a connection? My understanding was much later from the Orthodox forum when Father Ambrose was arguing this was a recent thing.

 

[runandsew]

Here is a link of Scott Hahn’s on

the Papacy.

He uses references from many protestant theologians showing the papacy of Peter.
It worth a look.
Plus he can explain all this a lot better than I can.

 

[Fredricks]

Here is a link of Scott Hahn’s on

the Papacy.

He uses references from many protestant theologians showing the papacy of Peter.
It worth a look.
Plus he can explain all this a lot better than I can.

I did not see anything on Isaiah from ECF.
Bored to tears with talking about the Papacy but not Old Testament typeology. So far the responses are interesting!

 

[Fidelis]

I did not see anything on Isaiah from ECF.
Bored to tears with talking about the Papacy but not Old Testament typeology. So far the responses are interesting!

I don’t have access to my ECF references now, but in the meantime, the connection between the office of Peter and that of the Davidic prime minister can be justified on purely on exegetical grounds. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong, in his book, “Biblical Evidence For Catholicism,” points out:

The power of the “keys,” in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name “rock,” this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God’s “vice-regent,” so to speak. In the Old Testament, a steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a “governor” in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of “prime minister.”

“In Isaiah’s time, this office was over three hundred years old.”

"In the New Testament, the two words often translated as “steward” are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). **Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). **He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The “opening” and “shutting” (in Isaiah 22:22) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister’s prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah’s time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh’s “vizier,” who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8)."

Matthew 16:15-19 "He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And 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 ( in the Greek it is “you - singular”) 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.’ " RSV ( clarification added according to the Greek text.)

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.” NAB

Isaiah 36:1-3 “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, … 3 there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph.” NAB

The keys represent absolute power to rule. They are owned by the King of Israel who entrusts them to his representative the “master of the palace.” Christ is the true King of Israel who gives his keys to Peter. Another similarity between this passage and the office of Papacy is the reference to him being a “father.” Pope comes from the word “Papa” meaning father.

The key of the “house of David” implies succession because King David had been dead for hundreds of years at the time of King Hezekiah’s rule. Just as the king had a successor so did the head of the household, or the “master of the palace.”
catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html

 

[runandsew]

I did not see anything on Isaiah from ECF.
Bored to tears with talking about the Papacy but not Old Testament typeology. So far the responses are interesting!

I googled church fathers and Isaiah 22, and though I didn’t find the part about the keys,but i did find Origen talking about the power to bind and loose in his
commentary on the Gospel of John
and making reference back to Isaiah 22, So this would show that your reasoning that "the power of the key in Isaiah 22 is temporary. It was taken away and in 586 BC it fell " was not held by Origen, this passage applies to all the deciples, not just Peter in this passage, but it shows that Origen thinks that Isaiah 22 was this passage that Jesus was referring to .

 

[JaneFrances]

Isaiah 22 is being used as an example of…
well actually I am not sure!

Really, Fredricks? I think you are actually quite aware of what I was trying to explain, but let me clarify for the benefit of new readers.

I was citing Isaiah, Chapter 22: 15-23, as an Old Testament foreshadowing of the role of the papacy within God’s household, the Church. In this passage, the office of the chief steward is described in ways that parallel the office of the St. Peter. This parallel is discerned by the giving of the key in Isaiah 22:22 and the giving of the keys in Matthew 16:19. The key is a sign of authority within the kingdom.

You countered with a misrepresentation of Isaiah 22:25, insinuating that it meant that God intended to abolish all authority represented by the key.

I responded with the correct context of this passage, proving succession. See here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130785&page=3 post #122 for the full treatment.

You, then, said:

Originally Posted by Fredricks
That is the first time I have seen someone contend what you said about Isaiah.

Thus, begins this new thread in which you write:

In a recent thread, Jane said:

Jane Frances So, yes, you are correct, the key is taken away, but you seem to be missing the fact that the key is immediately placed on the shoulder of Eliakim, once taken from Shebna. This is the context of verse 25. This is the model for succession in general. One is removed, another takes his place

Right. And you still have not provided any information that would prove otherwise.

1. The power of the key in Isaiah 22 is temporary. It was taken away and in 586 BC it fell. Do Catholics believe this applies to the Papacy

Wrong. The individual power of Eliakim and all successors is temporary. The power of the key, forshadowed in Isaiah, is perfected in Jesus Christ.

As others before me have keenly pointed out, Isaiah 22 is not an exact representation of the New Testament fulfillment. For as we know, all prophetic realizations in the New Covenant are perfected through Jesus Christ. Thus, the prophecy of authority, vested in the holder of the key, is fulfilled and perfected by the authority of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

The key He gives is eternal, until the end of the age.

1. The possessor would eventually “break off and fall” because of
   Sin or Greed?

And so many have, to be sure. Individuals, like Eliakim, have indeed broken off and fallen. However, as in the case of Shebna succeeding Eliakim, we see precedent for God’s Providence in bringing forth a new "sure peg, " a new “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Thus, we see the forshadowing perfected in Christ’s giving the keys to His kingdom, the New Jerusalem, to Peter.

We have no doubt, through confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit and historical witness, that God has indeed prevailed in providing sure pegs throughout Christendom.

Some, indeed, have broken off and fallen, but by God’s Mercy and Providence, the Church has maintained this holy office, this Divinely placed authority as new “sure pegs” have succeeded those who fell to sin, greed, or even the passing of earthly life.

Quote:
Isaiah 22:16
Who do you think you are, building a beautiful tomb for yourself in the rock?

Do Catholics believe this can happen to the Papacy as well?

Yes, we do. We believe strongly that what we DO affects our standing before the Lord. If the Lord chooses to strink down a disobedient Pope who has given himself to sin and greed, I doubt anyone would object.

Here’s the thing. . .He doesn’t always choose to do this. God does what He will. Sometimes, he chooses to take extraordinary measures to remove evil and disobedience from the world (as in Eliakim and Noah, for instance). But this is not always the case. Sometimes He allows, by his Will of good pleasure, evil to persist. But, as Christians, we know that He is sovereign and and by grace He makes everything work for good for those who love Him. Even acknowleding evil, sinful, greedy Popes can serve to turn our hearts more towards Christ.

This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality.
Catholics like the succession part but not the rest?

No, Fredricks. We like all the parts. The succession is not contingent on personal conduct. Succession is contingent on the promise of God. Personal conduct is an individual matter. Eliakim’s personal conduct affected his particular standing, in this particular case. His fall from grace, so to speak, did not truncate succession.

The succession part is strong witness for God’s eternal plan of salvation. He always provides. He does not abandon us, even when sometimes we abandon Him. Throughout the ages, he has beckoned us back to Himself. And even in the face of a few disobedient Popes (very few, incidently), we see the authority of the key sustained by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JaneFrances]

bump. . .

 

[Sixtus]

This verse shows a person granted power in a temporary succession contingent upon their personal conduct or morality.
Catholics like the succession part but not the rest?

Let me guess, his late Holiness JP2 is alleged to have had a concobine, countless children and once featured in a porn movie

We Catholics have been there, bought the tee shirt, read the book, seen the video, in fact we are so familiar with the script, you could forgive us for thinking we actually wrote it

 

[mercygate]

Prove? Proving is not the purpose. It demonstrates that the image of the keys as used by Jesus in Matthew 16:18-19 would have been perfectly well understood by every Jew who read those words as meaning that Peter was being singled out for a stewardship position, one of authority: the authority of the one who promises them.

Elsewhere Matthew says: The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, . . ." Everybody knows that Simon was not the first called. What can this mean? Just as in English (you can check your Strong’s), it means first in rank, influence or honor; principal or chief.

 

[JaneFrances]

bump. Fredricks?

 

[Fredricks]

bump. Fredricks?

I do not really no what else to say. You do not think personal morality matters in “this particular case”.
You say it is “foreshadowed”. How does one argue against a foreshadowing? Rather difficult. No real standard of proof to prove or disprove foreshadowing.

You say:

You countered with a misrepresentation of Isaiah 22:25, insinuating that it meant that God intended to abolish all authority represented by the key.

All authority of the key was abolished when it fell. Thats a historical fact. The office ceased to exist. In the NT, I have never said all authority was abolished. We disagree on what that authority is.
I appreciate my friend pointing this out to me and I wish you well.

 

[JaneFrances]

I think I understand now. This is difficult.

I do not really no what else to say. You do not think personal morality matters in “this particular case”.

You have entirely misunderstood my position.

I just reread my post and noticed that I mistakenly said Eliakim when I should have said Shebna, but the meaning should not be misunderstood despite my mistake. This is what I meant to say (my correction will be in bold):

The succession is not contingent on personal conduct. Succession is contingent on the promise of God. Personal conduct is an individual matter.** Shebna’s **

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Fredericks,

Hope you still visit this thread.

I’ve actually wondered something similar to what you are asking. For me it was “why in verse 25 does Scripture say that the peg fastened in the sure place give away, it will be cut down and fall?” To me that was like saying that, by our allegorical approach, saying that the Papacy would fall.

Which is inconsistent with the whole point of using Isaiah 22 in the first place!!!

Then I realized the principle that others have alluded to above. There is hardly ever a “one for one” relationship in allegorical or typological comparisons.

A clear example is the typology of the “Son of David.”

II Samuel 7:12-14, 16
“When your days are fullfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son…And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before Me; your throne shall be established for ever.”

Ok, that’s pretty clearly talking about Jesus. Right? Remember the First Joyful Mystery, the Annunciation:

**Luke 1:32 - **He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David.

Wow, how could it be any more obvious??

But there’s that little part in there about this “everlasting King” and his sin…
II Samuel 7:14
… When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with he stripes of the sons of men…

Well, part of that applies in a round about way to Christ the King. But one would be more apt to think in the more immediate sense to David’s successor, Solomon. “*He shall build a house for My Name.” *

Solomon was responsible for building the Temple. Christ was responsible for building the Church, His Mystical Body.

Christ was without sin. Solomon did sin. However, Christ took our sins upon His Body and by His stripes we are healed. Us Catholics would even say that by Christ’s stripes King Solomon was healed.

Beautiful!! But not a “one for one” analogy. At least not on the surface level.