You are fast becoming relegated as a poster of parroted propaganda with its presuppositions who ignores the questions that challenges these. You have
some questions to
answer from
before..
Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Rev. 3:7 These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Once more we see an RC attempting to enlist Isaiah 22:21-25 in support of a perpetuated Petrine papacy, yet where is this verse infallibly or otherwise officially (whatever that means to you) defined as referring to Peter? Or are you willing to grant the evangelical premise that Scriptural evidence is determinative of Truth?
That being so, i am incredulous (though i should not be, considering the demigoddess status ascribed to Mary) that you make Peter into being the Lord Jesus, as "he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth" in Rv. 3:7 which you link to Peter, is manifestly not referring to Peter - which purported "pope" is conspicuously never even mentioned in any of the letters to these 7 churches - but to the Lord Jesus.
The one addressing the churches is that "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," (Rv. 1:11) and to make this into being Peter is blasphemous, and as such it is another example of the papolatry of Rome.
Regardless, classic commentators Keil and Delitzsch state , the Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa. 22:25. . And whether or not v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not establish perpetuation:
In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall ; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 22:25)
Thus if it refers to Peter then it teaches that he will be cut down!
In addition, nothing is provided by way of literal fulfillment of this prophecy in the Old Testament, nor in the New in support of Peter, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that evident.
But what is evident as concerns perpetuation is that to Christ it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)
So much for Is. 22, while as regards Mt. 16:18, besides the ongoing Aramaic vs Greek argument dealt with recently here , c t interpretation must be done in the light of the whole of Scripture.
The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. > This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
As for inveighing some Prot scholars who affirm Peter was being referred to, including Luther, this does not translate into Peter being the first of a line of assuredly infallible popes whom all the church looked to as its supreme head, which is simply no seen in Scripture.
Luther himself who is invoked here by the RC teaches
"It is true that the keys were given to St. Peter; but not to him personally, but rather to the person of the Christian church. They were actually given to me and to you for the comfort of our consciences." [LW 51:59].
To this [community] Christ gave the power of the keys, saying in Matthew 18 [:18], “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” He said the same to Peter as an individual, representing and taking the place of one and only one church, “[I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and] whatever you bind on earth,” etc., Matthew 16 [: 18–19] [LW 43:28].
In St. John 1 [:42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you...”
See, these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven and they should be used to give eternal retention and remission of sins in the church, not just at the time of baptism, or once in a lifetime, but continuously until the end—retention for the unrepentant and unbelievers, remission for the repentant and believers....
That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315] - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html
Furthermore, many so-called church "fathers" also understood Mt. 16:18 as referring to the confession of Peter and to Christ:
Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
More .
Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
• And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
You are fast becoming relegated as a poster of parroted propaganda with its presuppositions who ignores the questions that challenges these. I don't know why you'd say that. My post 2435 explains the relationship between these parallel verses in great detail. I "listen to the Church," as Jesus commanded us, and I try to share Her Teaching, as "the pillar and foundation of truth." I do not apologize for this. I can't answer ever question posed to me since I work a couple of jobs. I try to answer the strongest arguments.
That being so, i am incredulous (though i should not be, considering the demigoddess status ascribed to Mary) that you make Peter into being the Lord Jesus, as "he that is holy, he that is true
See above. Regardless, don't panic yet. We're actually in agreement. We agree that Jesus holds "the key of David" in Rev 3:7, (since he is the King of the eternal House of David, i.e., the Kingdom He established while on earth, His Church.)
Do you agree, as a matter of historical fact, that in the Davidic kingdom, referred to in Isaiah 22, the King would transfer the keys of the House of David from one "palace administrator" (or majordomo, prime minister or vice-regent) to another?
Do you agree that, as a matter of historical fact, the "palace administrator" would wear around his neck a pouch containing an over-sized key, representing his office and earthly authority?
I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
As King of the eternal House of David (Rev. 3:7), the Kingdom of God, Jesus gives the "key of David," or the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter.
And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"
The power to "bind and loose" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis and refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.
Yes, this power is also given to the Apostles.
But the Apostles weren't given the "keys of the kingdom." In the Davidic kingdom, the keys represented the office of the "palace administrator" who has the "authority" to "be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah." The vice-regent held full plenary authority in the king's absence.
what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
I read the familiar "built on the confession of Peter" argument which is partially true, but a theory which holds absolutely no explanatory power regarding the "key of the kingdom," which is only given to Peter by the King of the Kingdom.
Finally, you seem to adhere to a false dichotomy, that the Church was either built on Peter's confession of faith, or on Peter himself, as the keeper of the keys.
The two ideas are not logically opposed. Both are reflected in the Church Fathers. Augustine, for example, held both ideas to be true.
St. Augustine the Great of Hippo [A.D. 393] [Psalm Against the Party of Donatus 18 in PL 43:30], "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of Hell do not prevail."
Ignatius of Antioch [A.D. 110]
"… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 ).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
Cyprian of Carthage [A.D. 251]
"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition).
St. John Chrysostom
And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of He says to him, "Feed My Sheep." Why does He pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the other ... He entrusts him with the primacy of the brethren; and as He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: "If you love Me, rule the brethren." ... And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem," I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world...
Council of Ephesus
Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.
Patriarch St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople [A.D. 449]
[Epistle to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in ], Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ... Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ... but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ... Further to issue an authoritative instruction ... so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void.
_____________________
In summary then, as did the Davidic kings, Jesus, as the King of the eternal and redeemed Davidic Kingdom, His Church, gives the "key of the kingdom," representing the authority and office of the "vicar," or representative of Christ on earth, to Peter, as recorded in the Bible, an office that has been in continuous existence to this day.
.
.
