Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Nice.. Blind triumphalism!
Larry, you have a knack at making unsubstantiated statements while those with whom you are in dialogue plaster their posts with substantiation (i.e., evidence).
Perhaps I missed something. I was referring to your post trying establish a connection between Isaiah and Matt 16. There was no evidence there. Perhaps you are referring to another post or perhaps you meant to include some and simply forgot. The point is, Carson, that your idea of "evidence" is tremendously different because of your persuasion. For you, "evidence" means that the Church said so. For me, I operate on the basis of Scripture. There is nothing in Matthew 16 that would lead us to believe that Christ was referring to Isaiah. Nothing at all!!
Exegesis means "reading out." We should go to the text and read out of it what is already in it. You have practiced "eisogesis" ... you find what you want in the text. This reference to Isaiah is eisogesis. It is not in the text. The most you might get is an allusion, or a borrowing of a key phrase (no pun intended).
You will have to do substantially more exegetical work on the text to prove your point. If you have done so, and would like to post it, I would like to see it. You will probably, like someone else who I asked (Ron I think) defer to actually post your evidence.
I just sustained the claim from Scripture itself, so how are you able to say this?
Because the Scripture does not say what you said. I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. Perhaps you are jesting here ... apart from that, it is inconceivable that you think what you posted above is evidence. That would never be accepted as an argument for something anywhere I attended school. If it is at your school, then so be it ... I am unconvinced because of the lack of evidence.
You say so, so give us this supposed close analysis of the OT without the bias of need. Your assertion requires substance.
I didn't assert anything. I said that Isaiah cannot be legitimately used as you use because the language of Christ in Matthew 16 provides no connection for us. You and your church have made the connection; not Christ. The bias of need simply means that you and your church need to find support and so you go looking for it. In so doing, you have not used the text fairly to this point. As I say, perhaps you have done more work on this than you have posted here. If so, please post it. Let's see the exegesis so we can take a look at it.
This final statement of yours is a poor description of my exposition, which gives excellent OT background and parallels to Matthew's Gospel.
Are you kidding??? You think that post is "excellent OT background and parallels"?? What kind of academic world are you in??? Let's take a look at what you said:
God revealed a mystery to a man. That man revealed the mystery to the King. The King then anounced this fact and appointed this man over his household as vizier or prime minister.
No scriptural support. Weak on connection for your point. Here you have this sequence: God-man-King-vizier. In Matthew 16, the best you have is God-King-vizier; but believing in teh deity of Christ you really only have: Christ-vizier. Therefore, this line is irrelevant inasmuch as it is not supported either before or after and inasmuch as it is not a parallel thought to the text of Matthew 16.
#. King, Man, Passage
1. Pharoah, Joseph, Genesis 41:39
2. Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Daniel 2:47
3. Jesus, Peter, Matthew 16:13ff
So what??? This is not what you said above. IN the first two cases, the man appointed is of higher spiritual value than the man appointing. In the last, you reverse the order, thus proving your parallels invalid. In the first two, the man appointed is given political authority, not spiritual authority. Therefore, your parallel yet again breaks down. There is no argumentation here. There is no connection to what Christ said or did. Lastly, Scripture never makes these parallels. You have created those from your own mind, not from Scripture.
Jesus' language also parallels Isaiah 22:20-22, wherein Isaiah prophesizies that the evil prime minister Shebnah will be replaced by Eliakim.
Now, after all of that, we finally get to an attempt at relating the passages together.
Isaiah 22:20-22 20 "Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant (a)Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 And I will clothe him with your tunic And tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your (1)authority, And he will become a (a)father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 "Then I will set (a)the key of the (b)house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will (c)open.
Let's ask about the parallels?? Where are they? You said they exist. Show them to us. Christ is not deposing anyone from leadership (as the Isaiah passage mandates). The passage is historical by the time of Christ ... in other words, it has already been fulfilleD (CF. Isa 36:3). There are too many dissimilarities to equate the two. There is nothing in the two passages that would lead us to connect them.
Demonstrate to us that the Key of David in Isaiah is the same as the key ot the kingdom in Matthew. Tell us how the two situations are parallel. That would be evidence and substantiation. You did neither. (BTW, there is a better NT passsage to deal with in respect to Isa 22; that would be a better place to make your point ... Of course, I think it would fail your point, but it is an actual allusion).
This is what I mean when I say you didn't support it. To say that there are "parallels in the language" is not the least bit shown. You did not demonstrate those parallels. Secondly, you must show why those parallels involve intended connection. Thirdly, you must tell us why a prophecy directed to a specific person and fulfilled in that specific person has a broader intent than what it spoken on in the passage. To this, I suspect your only answer will stem from the bias of need, i.e., We need this authority from the OT so let's go find it.
In the OT, the office of Prime Minister entailed its holders replacing one another by means of succession (e.g., Isaiah 22:20-22), and in the Messianic Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Bishop of Rome) holds this office instituted by the King, the Messiah, the Christos.[/qutoe]But again, there is no argument here. You have not attempted to do anything but assert something. Assertions are not evidence, no matter how strongly you believe them. This is contrary to your claim that you gave evidence. Your statements, no matter how bold they are, do not constituted evidence for a position. You must use the text to support your assertion. This is where you have failed. If you are persuaded by what you put forth here, then you have a very low bar. You need to raise it. I have provided more evidence in this post than you did in yours.
Larry, your unrestrained and vocal bias hurts your reputation on this board.
My unrestrained and vocal bias?? Hardly ... My bias is to the word of God and Jesus Christ. I have no other bias. I generally stay out of these discussions in depth becuase of the futility. YOu accept a different authority than I do. That is why discussions are futile. I have constantly asked for reasonable argumentation and biblical support. Most often, my request fall on deaf ears, as this one probably will. I am more than willing to talk about Scripture as deep as you want to go with it. In most cases, it is not very deep in here. I wish that would change. If my reputation is damaged becasue I insist on the authority of God's word, then so be it. I will gladly have that kind of reputation. I go out of my way not to be rude or tactless. In a forum such as this, it is not always possible to avoid that appearance but I certainly make the effort.
In the end, the word of God is the authority. The sooner we get to talking about that, the sooner we will make headway.
I would love to have an actual exegetical conversation insteading this bandying about of opinions. But I have wanted that for a long time.
