On Isa 22 and Matt 16:
What is frequently overlooked, however, is the fact that
there are several indications that Isaiah 22 was understood as describing
Eliakim as a priestly figure. In fact, that Eliakim was seen as a priestly
figure is clear from the Targum on Isaiah 22; he is given a "turban"
(v. 18), said to wear a "cincture" (v. 21), and receives "the
key of the sanctuary" (v. 22). Likewise, the Midrash Rabbah
specifically identifies Shebna, the man whose office Eliakim takes, as the
"high priest" (see Lev. Rab. 5:5).
How did ancient interpreters come to the conclusion that
Eliakim was a priestly figure? This view appears to be rooted in the language
of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 22 itself. Eliakim is portrayed as wearing the
garments (a כתנת ["tunic"] and a אבנט["sash"]; Isa
22:21)-two garments specifically associated with the high priest (see, e.g.,
Exod 28:4).28 Indeed, Eliakim's role in the sanctuary may be suggested by Isa
22:24, where he is given authority over "every small vessel, from the cups
to all the flagons." Such table vessels appear elsewhere in contexts
describing the cult, especially in connection with descriptions of the table of
the bread of the presence.29 That the LXX additionally speaks of Eliakim's
being "crowned" (στεφανον;
Isa 22:21) probably also relates to high priestly imagery, since we learn from
other Jewish sources that the high priest was "crowned" (στεφανον; Sir 45:12; 50:12; Zech 6:11; 1 Macc
10:20).
Given the priestly language associated with Eliakim’s
role in Isaiah 22, it is probably significant that the imagery of
"keys"- which are also associated with Eliakim in Isaiah 22 - had
priestly associations in ancient Israel. In 1 Chr 9:27, the priests
responsibilities involve "the key" of the temple ( כי־עליהם משׁמרת והם
על־המפתח ולבקר לבקר). Moreover, Josephus suggests that keys played a central
role in the ceremony in which one division of priests handed over the temple
responsibilities to another:
For, although there are four priestly tribes, each
comprising upwards of five thousand members, these officiate by rotation for a
fixed period of days; when the term of one part ends, others come to offer the
sacrifices in their place, and assembling at mid-day in the temple, take over
from the outgoing ministers the keys of the building and all its vessels, duly
numbered. {Ag. Ap. 2.108; Thackeray, LCL)
The priestly responsibility for the keys of the temple is
attested also in the Mishnah. In m. Mid. 1:8 we read that, in the
temple, “the eldest of the father’s house used to sleep with the keys of the Temple
Court in their hand.” The keys are also referenced in t. šeqal. 2.:25, where the priestly treasurer’s
duties are laid out. (Michael Patrick Barber, “Jesus
as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19,”
Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 [2013]: 944-46)
Under the heading, “Binding,
Loosing, and Priestly Responsibilities”:
First, many have viewed the language as relating to
teaching authority. In rabbinic Judaism, the terms for "binding" and
"loosing" (Hebrew אסר and התיר; Aramaic אסר and שרא) were associated
with the responsibility of determining what was and was not "bound"
by the Law (e.g., b. Hag. 3b; b. Šabb. 31a-b; y. Ber. 5b; y.
Sanh. 28a; cf. Luke 11:52). A particularly noteworthy passage is found in
the Sipre on Deut 32:25, which speaks of such authority in connection with
Eliakim's charge to "open" and "shut," a clear allusion to
Isa 22:22. Other texts link the authority of "binding" and
"loosing" to language of "opening" and "shutting"
(see b. Sanh. 38b; b. Hag. 14a). It seems, then, that
"binding" and "loosing" were terms that could easily be
associated with Eliakim.
What is often overlooked is this: prior to the temple's
destruction, definitive interpretation of the Law was especially associated
with the priests, who clearly held an authoritative role as interpreters of the
Torah (see, e.g., Deut 17:9; 2 Chr 19:8-11). In fact, it is well known that the
priests are described as the principal teachers of the Law (e.g., Deut 17:11;
Mal 2:6-7; Sir 45:17). Even the Talmud traces the rabbinic authority to bind
and loose to the priests' authority to rule on what was "clean" and
"unclean."
That Peter's power to "bind" and
"loose" refers to teaching authority is suggested by the facts
that (1) the episode immediately follows Jesus' instruction to beware of the
teaching of the Pharisees (cf. Matt 16:5-12); (2) Matthew later has Jesus use
the terminology of "binding" in his condemnation of the Pharisees'
teaching authority; (3) terminology of "loosing" is also used in Matt
5:19, where Jesus uses the phrase as the antithesis of upholding the enduring
validity of the Torah.
Furthermore, as we have seen, it is clear that
eschatological themes are in play in Matt 16:13-19. Significantly, the teachers
of the eschatological age were usually described as priestly figures
(e.g., Ezek 44:23; 4Q541 9 I, 2-3; 4QpIsaa 8-10 III, 18-25). Given such
expectations, if Jesus is being portrayed as appointing Peter as the teacher of
the eschatological community, it would be natural (if not even expected) for
him to be portrayed as having a priestly role.
Second, the terminology of binding and loosing is
associated with the authority to include/exclude members of the community (see
Matt 23:13). This notion would be closely connected with teaching authority,
since such competence implies the ability to define what constitutes acceptable
behavior for members of the community. Authoritative teachers thus have control
over social boundaries. Indeed, the terms "binding" and
"loosing" seem especially linked with this idea also in Matt 18:15-20.
Notably, this meaning is associated with such authority in the Talmud (b. Mo’ed
Qat. 16a).
Of course, if juridical authority over the community is
in view, it should be recalled that such power was also linked with priesthood
in ancient Judaism. According to the Torah, "judging" the twelve
tribes was principally a priestly task (see Deut 17:9; cf. also 2 Chr 19:8-11).
This was particularly true in Jesus' day. Josephus assigns the task of judging
uniquely to the priests (see A.J. 2.165; 4.304). (Michael Patrick
Barber, “Jesus
as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19,”
Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 [2013]: 947-49)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
