What does Isaiah 22 prove?

[NotWorthy]

Two points:

In Isaiah, yes God said the Peg would be removed. But in Matthew, where so much of Isaiah was repeated by Jesus, the comment about the peg and removal are not there. Silence is golden!!!

Also,

Does infidelity to an office remove the entire office? Ask Peter in Acts, where he replaces the office that Judas held, even though Judas abused the office as none other could even dream of. No, instead the office remained.

 

[YADA]

So Jesus is not the successor of the Davidic Kingdom? Then who is He? David’s kingdom was promised to last eternally. But you say it ended…

But if Jesus is the “Promised One of Old”, the “Shoot of Jesse” The Davidic King born of the “House of David” then Jesus could [and did] re-institute the office of the Vicar, the Prime Minister, known [as in the people refer to him] as Abba, Father, Papa, Pope.

To fail to see this is to be obtuse; especially when so many non catholic scripture scholars see the connection of Jesus’ renaming of Simon to Peter and the giving of the keys as a reference to Isaiah 22.

 

[Nicene]

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

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?

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?

Realizing what allegory and typology are is important. Applying the same logic of scripture which you have above to Adam as a type of Christ (Romans 5:14) would mean that Christ fell. Which obviously isn’t the case.

Types are person, place, thing, event or institution in the OT that points to a future mystery.

Types of Christ in the OT for example would be Adam, Moses, Elisha (read 2 kings with an eye towards Mark), Nebuchadnez’zar (Dan 2, interpretation of his dream with regards to the body of Christ) Johns opening week with regards towards 1-3 Genesis (one of the most beautifully done IMHO). These OT prefigurements become permanent new testament realities under Christ. The body and bride (Eph 5/ Gen 2/John 19); just to name a few of the types of Christ.

Why are prefigurements important? Because it is how God prepared us (or rather the Jews of the time) through the centuries to expect and accept the Christ. His realities were familiar to them, the showbread, the manna, the Jordan, 12 apostles, 70 disciples sent out, Joseph, the dreams and going to egypt, David and the ark, what the ark contained, Hannahs song and so on.

Each of the gospels is in essence an apology using the OT types and allegory to reveal the truth of the Christ. They aren’t just proof texts, they all point towards Christ and what he will do in the future, who he will be, what he will institute. They are patterns that will be recognizable.

Literature in general follows this now as well. Pick up a good novel and you will see the patterns and understand why you become so engaged in them. (english lit major). A kid runs into a sliding glass door at the beginning of a novel chasing his sister, cracking it. At the end he runs through a sliding glass door, breaking it, chasing a burglar.

We were prepared for it to happen. God did the same for us so we would be prepared for the Christ, recognizing the patterns.

Anyway, tons of neat stuff in the OT that is typed.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

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?

One submits to the church what he thinks may be relevant. The magisterium led by the Holy Spirit,reviews it, which may take a long time, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit will decide if it is relevant or just cherry picking.

It is the same process one would go through with a private revelation, vision or apparition. Using Medjugorje as an example; It has been under review for a very long time. Just because the children, now adults, say they are seeing a vision does not necessarily make it so. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the magisterium will eventually make a determination. (discernment of the spirit)

The same applies to scripture. St. Augustine’s position on sex and sin wasn’t accepted, yet it was discussed for a very long time. His views regarding Pelagianism and semi Pelagiansism took much less time. The mistake of protestant apologists is believing that because someone wrote something that it was immediately church doctrine, or pointing out that other fathers didn’t agree. When the truth is they submitted to the church as a whole.

Jerome went back and forth on what should be canon, but in the end he submitted to the church. He didn’t leave it. The body of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit was more important to him than his personal opinion, which was far from firm. (protestant apologists make the mistake of saying he was forced against his will) Had that been the case, and had he not the understanding the nature of the body, which is Christs, that would be true under protestantism.

The difference is we trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than our own opinions with regard to the body of Christ. It is humbly submitting to have our spirit tested (Thessalonians, Corinthians, 1 John) whether what we have found is authentic or not, or just our opinion. The Holy Spirit guides each of us, but we can also impose our own will and spirit eroniously, which is why we submit our spirit to be tested.

The spirit which refuses to be tested, particularly with regard to interpretation (for public doctrine), visions, apparitions, or private revelations is highly questionable due to the very nature of that refusal. The prideful spirit isn’t the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[RyanL]

I think it helps looking at a broad context. The Gospel of Matthew wasn’t written as a part of a compilation – it was intended by St. Matthew to be a stand-alone book.

Who was Matthew’s audience? Who was he writing to?

The Jews.

What do the Jews care about?

The Scriptures, Moses & King David & Abraham, and authority. They care about authority in particular because of the power struggles going on at the time (see: Pharisees and Sadducees, oppression by tyrants, captivity, exile, etc.), and indeed the question of authority present throughout the entirety of the OT. Matthew would have to address this in some way.

Does Matthew address these things?

Yup.
Scripture: He quotes from the OT more than 100 times. Matthew takes pains to assuage the fears of the Jews that the Old Law would be abolished and their faith for nothing (Matt 5:17 et seq), but then clarifies some misconceptions (ibid).
Patriarchs: He trace’s Christ’s geneology back to David and Abraham, and does a wonderful job of paralleling Moses and Christ.
Authority: As a Protestant I’d be a little stuck. I could try to (mis)use Matt 15 and 23 to condemn tradition, but even if this were so it still wouldn’t tell me what the authority is (and it would really upset the Jews - not exactly Matthew’s intent given the audience). I could try to use the various passages of Christ saying “it is written”, but there are plenty of instances where He did not.

As a Protestant trying to look through Jewish lenses, I can’t find a single place where Our Lord told us who our *earthly *authority would be. Obviously, our eternal authority is Christ - but how will we know with any certainty what Christ meant in the ambiguous phrases? If there’s a dispute on doctrine, there’s no answer given by Matthew to the Jews on how to settle it…reading through Protestant lenses. And this should be rather disturbing, given that the Jews really, really cared about this. One would not expect St. Matthew to let such an important topic to the Jews be completely neglected in a letter to the Jews.

As a Catholic, I can point to Matt 16 and 18. As a Jew I would then look at Matt 16 in light of Isaiah 22 and Matt 18 in light of Deu 17:8-13. The passages parallel, and the answer is pretty clear what’s going on. Further, Matt 10 is pretty explicit about how Christ feels about the Apostles. Finally, the final paragraph of Matthew is rather explicit on who is to be the earthly voice of Christ – i.e., if you have a doctrinal problem, you know to whom to turn to get it answered. If you know your OT (as the 1st Century Jews would), and you know the structure of the OT kingdoms (again, as the 1st Century Jews would), the solution to the question of authority is fairly evident.

So the question isn’t why would Isaiah 22 have any connection to Matt 16, but rather why wouldn’t it?!?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Nicene]

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.

And all of this was completed when King Hezekiah was born, wasn’t it?

Isa 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.

Notice that it says born to a young woman.

All authority of the key was abolished when it fell. Thats a historical fact. The office ceased to exist.

And the above prophecy was fulfilled when King Hezekiah was born. Ergo the prophecy ceased to exist.

Yet Matthew says:

23: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

According to the strict interpretation of peoples and events you are applying, Matthew is dead wrong. The prophecy says a young woman, not a virgin. It is also fulfilled in Hezekiah, ergo, to be consistent with your own argument via exactness of time lines of events, not to mention verbiage, you must be honest and say Matthew is wrong.

Further, Luke is wrong because he doesn’t say Jesus is to be called Imman’u-el, he instead says the child is to be called Jesus. That is a far cry from the fulfillment of that Isa prophesy, isn’t it?

Aren’t you cherry picking in this case? Jews seem to have a point, wouldn’t you say?.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JaneFrances]

Assuming that Fredricks has discontinued his interest in this thread and/or has nothing more to offer, I would encourage attention turned to this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130789

The topic of “the keys” will be soon coming! Some great points have already been made on this thread, and hopefully we can carry this discussion into the ongoing one in the thread cited above.

OR. . .if Fredricks returns and would like to discuss Isaiah 22 some more here, I’m totally in!

 

[Truthstalker]

Well.

There are only three possibilities. Either the Isaiah 22 promise continues (assuming the Catholic interpretation is correct), and there is a valid office, meaning the papacy, or it has not continued, or we cannot determine whether it continues. If you assume a valid office contiues, game over. If you assume we cannot determine whether it continues, then game over: despair wins, and actually you must argue that it has to be determined on some basis aside from Scripture alone, meaning an authoritative tradition or something on which Scripture does not speak. One could make an argument there that an authoritative church is required to interpret Scripture, so game over.

So let’s look at the second possibility: it was as the Catholics interpret, but something changed. There are only two possibilities: either it was the immutable decree of God that the office continue for a while, and then cease, or it was conditional in nature.

Let’s look at the duration of the Petrine primacy in Scripture. Offhand I cannot think of an indication of its cessation, except that a steward may surrender his authority at the return of the master. Then again he may not, as were Daniel and Mordecai before the king. So the opening statement in this paragraph is not rhetorical but a request for data. Did God stipulate when the papacy would cease? Would all the Popes who arrived in heaven still be popes (I am not assuming all will make it; that question I beg we set aside!).

If God did not say that the papacy was a thing for the church in its youth, and when it was grown up it would not be needed (and here I think I am being inventive), or that for other reasons there would be a time limit on the papacy, then for it to have been limited one would have to look for other reasons.

Condition would be one reason: that if God found that those in the position were so abominably corrupt, for example, that he took it away and dispersed it among the faithful, then Protestants would have a little liberty for smugness. I seem to recall warnings being given to the Church to cut out the corruption and repent or judgement was coming from certain saints before the Reformation. A more Protestant interpretation of verse 25 would be allowable, that it does refer to the removal of the individual but the whole institution.

The issue of condition was raised on the sister thread to what JaneFrances referred to. Oddly enough there has been no response to this argument. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130785

 

[JaneFrances]

I’m perplexed. For the third time in these forums, when Isaiah 22:25 is explained in context, the Protestant opposition drops the ball. . .

TS, thanks for your contribution. . .If you’d like to explore your three possibilities more, I’m game. If you were trying to keep this thread alive, I am in your debt.

Fredricks. . .do you understand typology? You say,

Orginally Posted by Fredericks
You say it is “foreshadowed”. How does one argue against a foreshadowing? Rather difficult. No real standard of proof to prove or disprove foreshadowing.

Scripture scholars argue for and against foreshadowing all the time. This is a major point of discussion and contention among the major religions of the world. All strongly argue their case. The case for Jesus is solid. . .the “standard of proof” is enough to have propelled 2000 years of faith in the Messiah. Yet, there is still doubt. There is still arguement. There are still questions.

If you can not support your opposition to the foreshadowing, then I will assume the Catholic position wins by default.

And one final note. . .We throw around this word “prove” quite a lot around here. We always want absolute proofs from primary sources. We want to be right, to know we are right, and to make everyone else wrong while we prove our point or win the battle. We want to win debates with KO’s and no room for questions. . .inching out room for Faith, in the process.

Faith is necessary. Proofs are supplemental.

 

[runandsew]

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

Very simple.
You become Catholic, and listen to the Magesterium of the Church, and stop holding the view that your own personal interpretation is infallible, while the Church which Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to lead it to all truth, is fallible.

Because when you say that the Chruch is wrong in its teaching, that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m perplexed. For the third time in these forums, when Isaiah 22:25 is explained in context, the Protestant opposition drops the ball. . .

TS, thanks for your contribution. . .If you’d like to explore your three possibilities more, I’m game. If you were trying to keep this thread alive, I am in your debt.

It was Fredrick’s thread, but he does seem to have bowed out. I hope to rise to the challenge, but let’s see…

First is the matter of where the keys are. In Revelations, that book of doors being opened and shut, Jesus has the key in 3:7 - not Peter. No mention of Petrine authority, as far as I can tell, is in the book, an interesting assertion for a book related to the end times. There are those who are quick to make all kinds of connections to the Catholic church with its imagery, but I’ll pass on that. Does Peter have the keys? Does Jesus take them back at some point? Perhaps Isaiah 22 actually has little to do with the papacy and more to do with God’s providence in appointing and casting down leaders. Where does it say the papacy continues until the end of time, or judgement? There seems to be a great deal about removal in Isaiah 22, in fact more about that than installation. Having the office seems to be a matter of condition.

Secondly, I am not convinced that the Catholic position is correct based on the exegesis. It is a little too neat. The argument about succession of individuals could be equally applied to the institution as a whole. To go from a prophecy to one person in Isaiah 22 to universal sovereignty over the church in Matthew is breathtaking. Typology can be tricky.

Thirdly, to answer the preceding post, I personally am not convinced I am infallible. I acknowledge I err, and err frequently, about a great many things. I do not hold that everything I believe is right, or even well thought out. But I am not convinced the church is infallible either. I think there is a possibility of the corporate presumption of infallibility where there is none that could be very, very dangerous to all involved, the sort of thing that does bring down the wrath of God, which I am interested in avoiding. Note that I am not asserting there is error, just pointing out the possibility has not been excluded.

 

[runandsew]

Thirdly, to answer the preceding post, I personally am not convinced I am infallible. I acknowledge I err, and err frequently, about a great many things. I do not hold that everything I believe is right, or even well thought out. But I am not convinced the church is infallible either. I think there is a possibility of the corporate presumption of infallibility where there is none that could be very, very dangerous to all involved, the sort of thing that does bring down the wrath of God, which I am interested in avoiding. Note that I am not asserting there is error, just pointing out the possibility has not been excluded.

Do you think God would leave his Church just to drift along with every breeze of doctrine?
I realize that he left us the holy bible, but we can see that even though it is the inspired word of God, what good has that done, if there is no one to infallibly interpret it?
I mean when it comes down to it, who is to say the Catholics are wrong, or the Mormon, or the JW’s, or the Orthodox, or the many Protestant denomination?
Every one of these faiths claims to abide with what the holy scriptures are teaching.

If God indeed wanted to establish a church, he sure picked a funny way to do it.
Especially with the eternal souls of the individual believers at stake.
Unless of course, you believe that everyone will go to heaven, no matter what they believe, as long as they are good human beings.

 

[NotWorthy]

Does Peter have the keys? Does Jesus take them back at some point?

To someone who believes that the Bible is the end-all and be-all of God’s Word, you can’t assume that Jesus took back these keys, because if He did, the Bible would say He did.

These keys obviously, from looking at monarchial history, are a symbol of authority. We see in Matthew a custodial transfer of authority. To a Sola-Scripturalist, this transfer is in effect until the Bible tells us it was taken back.

It does not say it, so this argument does not hold.

 

[NotWorthy]

Perhaps Isaiah 22 actually has little to do with the papacy and more to do with God’s providence in appointing and casting down leaders. Where does it say the papacy continues until the end of time, or judgement? T

God appoints and casts down the Prime Minister in Israel, simply because Israel will be cast down.

Jesus promises that the New Israel, His Church, will exist till the end of the age. Hence, the position, until Jesus’ 2nd coming, is necessary.

 

[NotWorthy]

The argument about succession of individuals could be equally applied to the institution as a whole. To go from a prophecy to one person in Isaiah 22 to universal sovereignty over the church in Matthew is breathtaking.

Yes, quite breathtaking indeed. But Peter confirms this with the replacement of Judas, “Let another his office take” (paraphrase).

But you can’t overlook the words of Jesus.
a) He assigns a position of authority to Peter, and it is a position that mirrors an office of old Israel.
b) He promises that the Kingdom will last forever, and will stand against the gates of hell. (as opposed to the peg falling in Isaiah).
c) We know that Satan will not give up trying to tear down Christ’ Church, so the need for teaching authority to combat heresies will never end, as has been demonstrated throughout the Church’s history.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thirdly, to answer the preceding post, I personally am not convinced I am infallible. I acknowledge I err, and err frequently, about a great many things. I do not hold that everything I believe is right, or even well thought out. But I am not convinced the church is infallible either. I think there is a possibility of the corporate presumption of infallibility where there is none that could be very, very dangerous to all involved, the sort of thing that does bring down the wrath of God, which I am interested in avoiding. Note that I am not asserting there is error, just pointing out the possibility has not been excluded.

If the Church teaches a false doctrine, what would that mean? If Mary was not sinless, where would that place the Church?

We would be teaching something that is not true, and hence goes against God. Doesn’t that mean the Gates of Hell have prevailed?

Jesus, of course, knew this and He PROMISED that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us in Truth. That’s a very powerful promise, indeed!

Truthstalker, your questions are very genuine and valid points. Keep up the work and you will be guided to the only truth that there can be.

May His Grace always be with you!

 

[Truthstalker]

Do you think God would leave his Church just to drift along with every breeze of doctrine?
I realize that he left us the holy bible, but we can see that even though it is the inspired word of God, what good has that done, if there is no one to infallibly interpret it?
I mean when it comes down to it, who is to say the Catholics are wrong, or the Mormon, or the JW’s, or the Orthodox, or the many Protestant denomination?
Every one of these faiths claims to abide with what the holy scriptures are teaching.

If God indeed wanted to establish a church, he sure picked a funny way to do it.
Especially with the eternal souls of the individual believers at stake.
Unless of course, you believe that everyone will go to heaven, no matter what they believe, as long as they are good human beings.

Why should He have left human infallible interpreters when He sent us the Holy Spirit instead to lead us into all truth? But it is not for us to ask why God does anything but rather to ask what He has done and what we should do.

The Bible plus the Holy Spirit is a powerful combination. In your zeal to prove Catholicism correct you could do much damage by disparaging their power.

God did pick a funny way to start a church, with some rural fishermen, zealots, giving a thief and traitor the esteemed position of moneyman, etc. Tax collectors and sinners, not the righteous but the sinners are called. We are a bunch of bums from the get-go. Infallible? Us? You got to be kidding me.

God left us, He tells us, as sheep to be slaughtered, to be killed, persecuted, driven out, rejected, despised and unloved. For this we are to return blessing, love, acceptance, etc., to turn the other other cheek. To follow Christ is to commit suicide in hope of great reward.

You have to trust Christ to lead you into truth. No one else. To become Catholic you have to trust Him to lead the Church. Somewhere I wrote of an imaginary conversation, prayer from a Protestant:
P: Lord, I will follow you anywhere, do anything you wish, die for you.
Jesus: Great. Follow Peter.
P: Say what?

Jesus went, literally, to great pains to save us. He also was very clear some would go to hell. I am not a universalist. I trust God to get me home. It is mind-boggling that He would want me to trust what I have seen of the Catholic Church, but then again sometimes He seems in the business of mind-boggling.

 

[Truthstalker]

To someone who believes that the Bible is the end-all and be-all of God’s Word, you can’t assume that Jesus took back these keys, because if He did, the Bible would say He did.

These keys obviously, from looking at monarchial history, are a symbol of authority. We see in Matthew a custodial transfer of authority. To a Sola-Scripturalist, this transfer is in effect until the Bible tells us it was taken back.

It does not say it, so this argument does not hold.

False argument. For one thing, Sola Scriptura admits there are things besides itself as authoritative - it is only that Scripture always trumps other things. You are thinking of Nuda Scriptura - Scripture alone. For another, a lot has happened that is not recorded in Scripture - John even says so. Twice. My birth, for example, seems to be missing from the text, yet as far as I can tell I was born, or hatched, or whatever.

Jesus might have yanked the keys. Your job is to prove He didn’t.

Sola Scriptura does not pertain to this argument. I am sick of SS threads. Please do not turn this into one.

 

[Truthstalker]

God appoints and casts down the Prime Minister in Israel, simply because Israel will be cast down.

Jesus promises that the New Israel, His Church, will exist till the end of the age. Hence, the position, until Jesus’ 2nd coming, is necessary.

Your second statement seems to be a non-sequitor. Why is it necessary? Why was it ever necessary?

 

[Truthstalker]

If the Church teaches a false doctrine, what would that mean? If Mary was not sinless, where would that place the Church?

We would be teaching something that is not true, and hence goes against God. Doesn’t that mean the Gates of Hell have prevailed?

Jesus, of course, knew this and He PROMISED that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us in Truth. That’s a very powerful promise, indeed!

Truthstalker, your questions are very genuine and valid points. Keep up the work and you will be guided to the only truth that there can be.

May His Grace always be with you!

In warfare gates are defensive in nature, not offensive. The Gates of hell, I think, are a defensive position. I tend to look at it in reference to winning souls for Christ, not for doctrinal purity.

So when did the Church get guided into all truth? Are we there yet? Is it possible we still don’t know everything and are still wrong on some things, even on an official level?

If the Church teaches a false doctrine, it means God has some work to do in the area of doctrine. Sometimes I suspect we focus way too much on doctrinal purity. Some of the coldest people I have known have been deep into doctrine at the expense of other parts of their lives.

Thank you for the compliment.