“...You are attributing the type/shadow of Eliakim to Peter instead of Christ”?
I am not attributing this - this is the correct meaning and self evident by the plain meaning of the scripture passage.
Apocalypse 3:7; Jesus is clearly the holder of the key of David (”he that hath the key of David ...”)
Luke 1:32-33 Jesus IS the heir to the throne, thus He is the king.
In Isaiah 22, Eliakim holds the key FOR his master, the King.
In biblical tradition, the servant of the household who holds the keys carries DYNASTIC authority with the power of succession.
Peter identifies Christ as the King (messiah).
Christ as King uses His authority to NOW give the keys to Peter as steward symbolizing authority to bind and loose.
Rabbinical tradition contains the authority of determining who has the power of binding and loosing. (what is permitted and what is forbidden) so this concept was very familiar to Peter and the apostles who witnessed this and they knew exactly that the Lord had given special authority to Peter.
The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors. The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud.
“There is no special sense in which binding and loosing is ascribed uniquely to Peter”.
Incorrect:
The binding and loosing IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY unique to Peter because THE POWER WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY JESUS THE KING, HIMSELF. That is why it is unique.
This is not due to RC’s reading into the text - it is due to a logical reading of the text.
The early Church recognized the primacy of the Office of Peter. The letter (extant) of Pope Clement the 1st, writing an Epistle to the Corinthians, he as Bishop of Rome with particular authority gives them clear doctrinal instructions. This was done in the 1st century, showing the succession of this thought from the beginning. He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.
On Topic:
This Pope shold have stuck to doctrine. He has jumped the shark by believing in fake climate change; but the encyclical is NOT an ex Cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals that is required belief.
He upholds that abortion is wrong, and Genesis does tell us to be steward’s of God’s creation.
I wish he had stuck to Faith and morals, but it doesn’t prove that the Chair of Peter had no succession.
He wrote iin
According to you, but where is this an infallible or otherwise binding interpretation? And since what Rome says of Scripture, Tradition and history must be your basis for Truth as a faithful RC (indeed, Cath. teaching is that we cannot even validly know what Scripture consists of apart from faith in her as its instrument), then why should what you think be of any consequence?
If you hope to convert us by condescending to appeal to Scripture as being the supreme authority, your end is bring us to abandon the weight of Scripture as being the basis for the veracity of Truth claims, and instead rest upon the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome.
And if you disagree with that as being your end, then you are in disagreement with far more weightier RCs then yourself, and are another example of the diverse liberal and conservative amalgam called Catholicism (but which you cannot separate from without being sectarian or schismatic).
This needs to be said as while we can debate you on Scripture, experience shows that RCs are bound to defend Rome not matter what expense to credulity, and thus no matter how much their attempts to defend Roman tradition are refuted and they are silenced, they end up posting the same parroted polemics again as if nothing was said.
In biblical tradition, the servant of the household who holds the keys carries DYNASTIC authority with the power of succession. Peter identifies Christ as the King (messiah). Christ as King uses His authority to NOW give the keys to Peter as steward symbolizing authority to bind and loose. The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors. The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud.
But which simply does not translate into this being a fulfillment of Is. 22, while if anything in that regard is fulfilled it seen in Christ, as shown and ignored. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit invoke Is. 22 this as pertaining to Peter, nor does the use of language denote that, nor does the Spirit reveal Peter as exercising a uniquely authoritative binding and loosing rule over all the churches or having a perpetuated office, which Is. 22 does not teach.
Instead, as said and ignored, not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 3622, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually foretells:
"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." (Isa 22:25)
Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.
Yet if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).
For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)
Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father). Thus if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.
Rabbinical tradition contains the authority of determining who has the power of binding and loosing.
Which was not new, and certainly did not require ensured infallibility. Peter was given binding/loosing power, which aspect itself corresponds to Is. 22, and Peter was the street-level leader among the 11 (which type of leadership all should pray for), but that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome over all as their supreme head is not seen in Scripture, or early history Read on.
The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors.
But which is not what Is. 22 promises to this office, as shown above.
The binding and loosing IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY unique to Peter because THE POWER WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY JESUS THE KING, HIMSELF. That is why it is unique.
Still wrong, regardless of how much you may shout it. For while Peter was the initial object of this reception, yet as said and ignored, the "key (to the kingdom) is the gospel, by which one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13)" and which word all the church preached. (Acts 8:4)
And the power and function of binding and loosing pertained to all the apostles, judicially to the elders, while spiritually to all believers. (Mt. 18:15-20; Ja, 5:14-19)
Scripture teaches that one can be bound by sickness and thus Christ, who came to loose captives, (Lk. 4:18) set such free, (Lk. 13:11-16) as did others.
Being set free from sins by faith in the gospel of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus is a form of loosing, with unbelief leaving souls bound. And Paul who received the gospel by special Divine revelation, and not from man, preached justification by faith before Acts 15.
And in which we do not see Peter binding anyone to his judgment, but instead he merely exhorted the church not to yoke the Gentiles into having to keep all the Law (though the moral law was reinforced as manifesting obedient saving faith).
Instead, the final conclusive sentence awaited the judgment of James, which provided it as being Scripturally substantiated, after Paul and Barnabas added their testimony confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony, and which the elders collectively bound the churches to accept.
In church discipline, Paul together with the church bound an incestuous man in 1Co. 5 to chastisement by the devil.
The elders (primarily) of the church as well as other holy intercessors can also obtain the loosing of deliverance of sins for which one may be chastened for. (Ja, 5:14-18)
In addition, Elijah bound and loosed the heavens, which James invokes as an example of what holy believers may do. For while the judicial aspect of binding and loosing pertained to the magisterium, as in the OT. (Dt. 17:8-13) spiritually it is provided for all holy believers. (Mt. 18:15-20; Ja, 5:14-19)
This is not due to RC’s reading into the text - it is due to a logical reading of the text. The early Church recognized the primacy of the Office of Peter. The letter (extant) of Pope Clement the 1st, writing an Epistle to the Corinthians, he as Bishop of Rome with particular authority gives them clear doctrinal instructions. This was done in the 1st century, showing the succession of this thought from the beginning. He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.
Rather, it is evident that you have uncritically ingested papal propaganda, which even RC scholarship provides testimony against .
First Epistle of Clement is actually anonymous, and is only traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome, And it exhorts to "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle" (xlvii. 1) who can hardly be said to teach , much less promote, Peter as the supreme infallible head to whom all the churches were to look to.
Not once does Paul tell any church to submit to Peter as supreme head, even to those which had problems (nor do the letters to the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3). And Paul mentions Peter second after James in Gal. 2 among those who "seemed to be pillars," and who collective affirm Paul's ministry which many were discrediting. Yet Paul proceeds to mention how he publicly rebuked Peter for his duplicity. (Gal. 2)
The only support we have in the NT for Peter's position is that he was the street-level leader among the 11, and pastor of the first church, but there is no teaching o any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or for any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
And as the esteemed (by many RCs also who often invoke him) Anglican scholar J.N.D Kelley finds that the letter indicates a plurality of elders at the church at Rome, which is a scholarly consensus of regarding the early church, versus a monarchical episcopate. More .
And another others , Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221, 222,2 24
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.
Which means, if he referenced them as Scripture, that he was one of those who held to these as being so, while other notable figures (ss Jerome) did not, and scholarly doubts and disagreements about books continued down thru centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first infallible, indisputable canon for RCs after the death of Luther .
That Luther was some maverick in judging the apocrypha as not being Scripture proper, and that he was in dissent from an infallible canon, and did not include in his Bible, is Cath propaganda.
This Pope shold have stuck to doctrine. He has jumped the shark by believing in fake climate change; but the encyclical is NOT an ex Cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals that is required belief.
And just what makes you think that encyclicals, or this encyclical, do not require religious assent of mind and will, and preclude public dissent? What kind of RC are you? (There are different types, all of which Rome counts and treats as members in life an and in death.)