“I never said this passage in Isaiah refers to Apostolic Succession, to the Church or to Peter.”
Good! Whew!
“And there you have it. The Key to the House of David is heritary. It is intended to be passed down from father to son, and so on.”
Shebna and afterward, Eliakim, served an administrative function for the House of David. In this instance, the key was a symbol of their authority to act.
In verse 25, Eliakim FAILS, despite being an administrator who represented the House of David, and will be cut off.
Only the throne of David goes to a descendant forever - finding it’s rightful owner, Christ.
This Isaiah passage has nothing to do Matthew’s words.
They are similar in that they mention a key. They are
dissimilar in many ways.
I don’t know why you added this, if you did not think it
had some support for your claim of continuing Apostolic
authority on earth.
In any case, I certainly wish you the very best,
ampu
“This Isaiah passage has nothing to do Matthew’s words.”
You don’t think that the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven and the Key of David are in the least similar to one another? That they represent two hereditary offices where the authority can be passed on?
That is the only point I’m trying to show here. That the keys of the kingdom of heaven were intended to be a heriditary office.
“I don’t know why you added this, if you did not think it
had some support for your claim of continuing Apostolic
authority on earth.”
You misunderstand. You said that Isaiah referenced Matthew. No. Matthew references Isaiah. This is the reference that Christ was making when he gave the Key to Peter. Why give him a key at all?