The New Eliakim Typological Argument for the Papacy

Special thanks to St. John of Cologne (OP), Daniel Vecchio, Joe Schmid, Seraphim Hamilton, Scott Hahn, Matt Fradd, Catholic Answers family, and Gavin Ortlund. The Argument Phase One – textual allusion 1. There is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. Phase Two – typology 2. The best explanation for the textual allusion is either (a) a Jesus-Eliakim typology, (b) the similar function of the keys, or (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology. 3. The best explanation is not (a)-(b). 4. Therefore, the best explanation is (c). 5. If the best explanation is (c), then the textual allusion is probably a Peter-Eliakim typology. 6. So, the textual allusion is probably a Peter-Eliakim typology. Phase Three – papacy 7. But the textual allusion’s being a Peter-Eliakim typology is much more expected on the hypothesis that the papacy is true than on its negation. 8. If the textual allusion is probably a Peter-Eliakim typology and this is much more expected on the papacy hypothesis than on its negation, then the textual allusion strongly favors the papacy hypothesis over its negation. Papacy hypothesis • Christ established a successional Roman Petrine ministry that is supreme and infallible. Scripture (NASB) Isaiah 22:22 “Then I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder; When he opens, no one will shut, When he shuts, no one will open.” Matthew 16:19 “ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Premise One: There is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Availability Volume Recurrence Thematic coherence Historical plausibility History of Interpretation Satisfaction “Probably the most referred-to criteria for validating allusions is that offered by Richard Hays.” Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012, 32. See Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989, 29-32; Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2005, 34-44. Premise One: Availability (1/7) “The source text (the Greek or Hebrew OT) must be available to the writer. The writer would have expected his audience on a first or subsequent reading to recognize the intended allusion” (Beale 33 cf. Hays 1989 29-30; Hays 2005 34). Premise One: Availability (1/7) Isaiah 22:22 Great Isaiah Scroll (356-100 BCE) Fred P. Miller translation “And I will give him the key of the house of David upon his shoulder and he will open and no one shall shut and shut and no one will open.” Isaiah 22:22 LXX (3rd century BCE) Moises Silva translation “And I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and there shall be no one to contradict him.” Isaiah 22:22 Isaiah Targum (2nd Century AD) Bruce Chilton translation “And I will place the key of the sanctuary and the authority of the house of David in his hand; and he will open, and none shall shut; and he will shut, and none shall open. Isaiah 22:22 MT (6-10th century AD) JPS 1917 translation “And I will give the key of the House of David on his shoulder, and he shall open and no one shall close; and he shall close and no one shall open.” Premise One: Availability (1/7) • Jesus spoke Matthew 16:17-19 in Aramaic. • “This blessing and promise to Peter appears only in Matthew (vv. 17-18), but the Aramaic influences on the language of the passage make it probable that it derives from an early tradition of the Jesus community. The Greek contains a transliteration of Simon’s Aramaic name, ‘Simon bar Jonah,’ and uses the Semitic idiom ‘flesh and blood’ for ‘human.’” • Saldarini, Anthony J. “Matthew.” Chapter in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, edited by Dunn James D G. and J. W. Rogerson, 1000–1063. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003, 1037. • Jesus’ phrase appears to more closely align with the Hebrew text of Isaiah which we know was available during His time. • Moreover, Jesus does not quote Isaiah 22:22 verbatim, so we can’t locate the precise source. Premise One: Volume (2/7) Repetition “The primary factor is the degree of verbatim repetition of words and syntactical patterns” (Hays 2005 35; emphasis in original). Precursor “‘Volume’ also depends however, on the distinctiveness, prominence, or popular familiarity of the precursor text” (36; emphasis in original). Ex. “For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6 cf. Deut. 6:4; Hays 36). Rhetoric “Finally, the volume of an echo is affected subtly by the rhetorical stress placed upon the phrase(s) in question, both within the precursor text and in Paul’s discourse” (37). Ex. “The echo of Gen. 1:3-5 in 2 Cor. 4:6 is an example of this sort of thing” (Ibid). Premise One: Volume (2/7) Example of Repetition (35). Romans 8:33-34 “Who will bring charges against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies [Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν]; who is the one who condemns [τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν]? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” Isaiah 50:8 LXX “because he who justified me draws near [ἐγγίζει ὁ δικαιώσας με]. Who is the one who contends with me [τίς ὁ κρινόμενός μοι]? Let him confront me at once. Yes, who is the one who contends with me? Let him draw near me.” Premise One: Volume (2/7) • Hays intends that both be present – verbatim repetition of words and syntactical patterns. • However, we have great syntactical correspondence without verbatim repetition of words between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. Syntactical Correspondence God [God vs. Jesus; first-person] will [future tense] give key(s) [key vs. keys] of kingdom [house of David vs. kingdom of heaven] to man [Eliakim vs. Peter] whose authority is exercised in a definitive [no one shall vs. in heaven] and contrastive [open-shut vs. bind-loose] manner. Premise One: Volume (2/7) • Richard Hays’ work is a useful starting point. We should only differ from it if given sufficiently good reason. • I will offer three reasons here. 1. Jesus will sometimes modify the scriptures that He uses given His context and intention. 2. A reasonable explanation can be offered for the lack of verbatim repetition here. 3. The syntactical correspondences are accepted by scholars as a valid means for sustaining an allusion. #1: Jesus modifies scripture. • R.T. France in Jesus and the Old Testament (1998) notes 12 examples where NT quotations of the OT differ from both the MT and LXX (240241). • Mark 10:19; Matt. 19:18-19; Luke 18:20 – Jesus places the command to honor one’s parents last (or near last) in His summative list. However, the OT places this command first in its summative lists (Exod. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20). • Mark 14:27; Matt. 26:31 – Jesus quotes Zech. 13:7 but changes the mood from imperative to indicative (“Strike the shepherd” to “I will strike the shepherd”). • Luke 17:31-32 – Jesus alludes to Gen. 19:17, 26 but replaces “look back” (περιβλέπω; ἐπιβλέπω) with “turn back” (ἐπιστρεψάτω). • “But this is in any case no more than a verbal reminiscence, and the grammar of the sentence in Luke requires the 3rd singular imperative while the context requires the idea of turning, not simply looking, back” (241). #2: Reasonable explanation [open-shut vs. bind-loose] • “The fact that the actions of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ occur in Matt. 16:19 – instead of ‘opening’ and ‘closing’ – indicates that ‘opening’ and ‘closing’ were not natural options to refer to teaching authority at that time.” • Rucker, Timothy M. The Temple Keys of Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7, and Matthew 16:19 the Isaianic Temple Background and Its Spatial Significance for the Mission of Early Christ Followers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021, 162. • “This is interesting not only because it involves the house (kingdom) of David but because the language of authority, ‘open-shut’ is not dissimilar to ‘bind and loosen’ here in Matt.” • Lachs, Samuel Tobias. A Rabbinic Commentary on The New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 1987, 256. #2: Reasonable explanation [no one shall vs. in heaven] • “Many Jewish people felt that the Jewish high court acted on the authority of God’s tribunal in heaven, in a sense ratifying its decrees. ‘Binding’ and ‘loosing’ (also 18:18) could refer to detaining or releasing prisoners, hence could function figuratively in a judicial setting. Rabbis also used these terms regularly for legislative authority in interpreting Scripture (‘prohibiting’ and ‘permitting’). Because ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ also were figurative images for punishing and releasing, they could likely be used judicially as well (cf. 18:18).” • Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014, 87. • Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 23b • “There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, the same question applies…” • More citations: Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, 454-455 n. 24. #2: Reasonable explanation [house of David vs. kingdom of heaven] There is great overlap between the two. • 2 Samuel 7:16, “Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.” • 1 Chronicles 17:14, “But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne will be established forever.” • Later Jewish thought: “The fact is that, strictly speaking, the blessing 'Who buildest Jerusalem' also does not require it, but since the kingdom of the house of David is mentioned, it is not seemly that the kingship of heaven also should not be mentioned” (b. Berakhot 49a). #2: Reasonable explanation [house of David vs. kingdom of heaven] • “Thus, by stepping back and analyzing Matthew’s rich and varied use of heaven language we can see that behind it all is an intentional focus on the theme of heaven and earth, specifically highlighting the current contrast or tensive relationship between the two realms, between God and humanity. Yet Matthew does not only emphasize the contrast, but also the fact that this contrast or tension will be resolved at eschaton when heaven and earth are reunited through Jesus (6:9–10; 28:18). In fact, only by recognizing the intensity of the tension that currently exists between heaven and earth can we fully appreciate the significance of the eschaton in which the kingdom of heaven will come to earth.” • Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. Boston: Brill, 2007, 342-343. #2: Reasonable explanation [key vs. keys] 1. A trivial difference. • “and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” Rev. 1:18 • “He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this…” Rev. 3:7 • “(the difference in singular ‘key’ and plural ‘keys’ is likely not significant)” (Beale 2012 141). 2. The keys are plural, because they reflect the fact that Jesus is the Son of David and the Son of God. #2: Reasonable explanation [key vs. keys] “Now Peter’s function as a rock is stated. The issue is no longer the church as ‘building,’ but the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whoever has the keys is either the gatekeeper or—what is more probable with several keys—the manager who has authority over his Lord’s rooms and buildings.” Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8-20: A Commentary. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E. Crouch. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, 364. See France 2007 625. #3: Syntactical Correspondences • “Our finding in respect of the attitude conveyed in the targumic paraphrase of Isaiah 22 would be strengthened if a similarly voiced promise to Eliakim could be found elsewhere, but in the relevant period. As it happens, a generally recognized reference to Isa 22:22 is to be found in Matt 16:19, where Peter is promised that, whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and that whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven… Despite the distinction of the diction from the Masoretic Text and the Targum, the syntactical similarity has been taken to be enough to warrant the judgment.” • Chilton, Bruce D., Craig A. Evans, and Bruce D. Chilton. “Shebna, Eliakim, and the Promise to Peter.” Chapter. In Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity and Restoration, 319–37 at 334. Leiden: Brill, 1997. #3: Syntactical Correspondences “Here a reference to Isa. 22.22, despite the apparent absence of the words from the LXX, is inescapable.” Green, H. Benedict. Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 135. Premise One: Volume (2/7) Repetition “The primary factor is the degree of verbatim repetition of words and syntactical patterns” (Hays 2005 35; emphasis in original). Precursor “‘Volume’ also depends however, on the distinctiveness, prominence, or popular familiarity of the precursor text” (36; emphasis in original). Ex. “For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6 cf. Deut. 6:4; Hays 36). • The NT, especially Matthew, has novel interpretations of seemingly obscure passages (Jer. 31:15 & Hosea 11:1 cf. Matt. 2:15, 18). Rhetoric “Finally, the volume of an echo is affected subtly by the rhetorical stress placed upon the phrase(s) in question, both within the precursor text and in Paul’s discourse” (37). Ex. “The echo of Gen. 1:3-5 in 2 Cor. 4:6 is an example of this sort of thing” (Ibid). • Definitely the same rhetorical stress. Premise One: Recurrence (3/7) • “There are references in the immediate context (or elsewhere by the same author) to the same OT context from which the purported allusion derives” (Beale 33). • Isaiah 22:20 “Eliakim son of Hilkiah” – Matthew 16:17 “Simon barJonah” (Aramaic for “son of”) • Isaiah 22:23 “firm peg/throne of glory” – Matthew 16:18 “this rock” • Thematic coherence Premise One: Thematic Coherence (4/7) “The alleged OT allusion is suitable and satisfying in that its meaning in the OT not only thematically fits into the NT writer’s argument but also illuminates it” (Beale 2012 33). Premise One: Thematic Coherence (4/7) Corruption to Purity Pharisees and Sadducees to Peter: “Rather, the actions of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ are fitting substitutes in context: a transfer of teaching authority for the kingdom of the heavens from the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5-12) to Peter (16:16-19). Additionally, this shift of leadership from one authority to another understandably evokes the context of Isa 22:22 for some scholars” (Rucker 162). Premise One: Thematic Coherence (4/7) Shame and Glory Peter as Eliakim and Shebna: “We may extrapolate, as the church always has done, to recognize that immediately after this high investiture of Peter, the very next paragraph in Matthew condemns him as a would-be Shebna who is unfaithful: ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things (Matt. 16:23). Thus Shebna and Eliakim model the shame and glory that is always being enacted toward ‘the second in command’ in service to the king” Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 1-39. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, 182. Premise One: Thematic Coherence (4/7) Rise and Fall Peter as Eliakim: “The sequence of Peter’s God-revealed confession of Jesus (Matt 16:17) followed by Peter’s Satan-motivated objection to Jesus’ proclamation that he must suffer and die (Matt 16:21-23) corresponds strikingly to the sequence of God’s elevation of Eliakim to Shebna’s office (Isa 22:20-23) followed by a prophetic announcement that he and all his household will fall (Isa 22:24-25). The language of Jesus’ promise to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven calls to mind God’s promise to Eliakim to Isa 22:22. And the sequence of Peter’s confession of and opposition to Jesus calls to mind the sequence of Eliakim’s rise and fall.” Willis, John T. “Isaiah 22:15 and Its Function in the New Testament.” Essay in Instruction Shall Go Forth: Studies in Micah and Isaiah, edited by Timothy M. Willis and Mark W. Hamilton, 303– 18 at 317. Eugene, OR: PICKWICK Publications, 2014. Is combining recurrence and thematic coherence legitimate? • Recall that I gave two examples for recurrence and maintained that my examples here in thematic coherence could likewise be applied to recurrence. Is this a legitimate move? • It is acknowledged that Hays’ criteria can overlap. • “Indeed, ‘thematic coherence’ and ‘satisfaction’ are so overlapping that they could be combined into one criterion. They both focus on how the theme from the OT context functions in the NT context and how much that OT theme illuminates the NT author’s argument in the context. Likewise, the first [availability] and fifth criteria [historical plausibility] have some overlap. Thus one could reduce Hays’s seven criteria to five” (Beale 2012 35). Premise One: Historical Plausibility (5/7) • “Could Paul in fact have intended the alleged meaning effect of any proposed allusion, and could his first-century readers have understood it?” (Hays 2005 41). • “The value of the test is to make us wary of readings that turn Paul into (say) a Lutheran or a deconstructionist. One implication of this criterion is to give serious preference to interpretative proposals that allow Paul to remain a Jew” (Hays 1989 31). • Replace “Paul” with “Matthew” here. Premise One: Historical Plausibility (5/7) • The text of Isaiah was widely considered scripture during the time of Jesus (Hays 2005 34). It is constantly used by the NT writers to validate the Messianic claims of Jesus. • Isaiah 22, however, is not widely discussed by Jews during this time: “The Messianic interpretation of this verse [is] unknown in Judaism.” • (Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley. Vol. 3. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1965, 748). • Later Jewish sources allude to it much more frequently (Rucker 90-94). • Nonetheless, it is used messianically in Revelation 3:7, • “Additional points of note in Isaiah 22 are: (1) the possible priestly connotations of Eliakim's rule (22.2la); (2) Eliakim was to be like a 'father' for the Israelites in the exercise of his office (22.2lb); (3) apparently Eliakim's authority was to be equal to that of King Hezekiah's (22.22); and (4) Eliakim is referred to as the 'servant' of Yahweh (22.20). All of these elements, together with the messianic overtones of the 'house of David' (22.22) enhance the idea that John was quite aware of the context of Isa. 22.22 and intentionally escalated these aspects of Eliakim' s reign to the grander scale of Christ's reign. Perhaps the correspondences were just too good to miss” • Beale, Gregory K. John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation . Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd , 1998, 73. Premise One: Historical Plausibility (5/7) Does an allusion to Isaiah 22:22 fit within the historical context of Matthew 16? • The usage of Isaiah here fits well with the expectation of a Davidic messiah and the foretold reconstruction of David’s kingdom. • “Fifth, Matt 16:13-23 assumes the reader knows the context of Isa 22:15-25, and in Matt 16:19 Jesus borrows the language of Isa 22:22. According to Matt 16:16, Peter confesses that Jesus is ‘the Christ,’ ‘the Son of the living God,’ that is, that Jesus is king. The expression ‘Son of God’ is one of the common Old Testament titles for a king, and the context of Matt 16:16 shows Peter had that nuance in mind in his confession, not the idea that Jesus is divine as in other New Testament contexts. Jesus commends Peter for the words he used, but not for his understanding of those words” (Willis 318). • Context: Peter understood everything Jesus was saying in Davidic messianic terms, but he is condemned for his refusal to reconcile this truth with the Cross. Premise One: History of Interpretation (6/7) • “It is important to survey the history of the interpretation of the NT passage in order to see if other have observed the allusion. Yet this is one of the least reliable criteria in recognizing allusions. Though a study of past interpretation may reveal the possible allusions proposed by others, it can also lead to a narrowing of the possibilities since commentators can tend to follow earlier commentators and since commentary tradition always has the possibility of distorting or misinterpreting and losing the fresh and creative approach of the NT writers’ intertextual collocations” (Beale 2012 33). Premise One: History of Interpretation (6/7) • “The readings of our predecessors can both check and stimulate our perception of scriptural echoes in Paul. While this test is a possible restraint against arbitrariness, it is also one of the least reliable guides for interpretation, because Gentile Christian readers at a very early date lost Paul’s sense of urgency about relating the gospel to God’s dealings with Israel and, slightly later, began reading Paul’s letters within the interpretive matrix of the New Testament canon” (Hays 1989 31). Premise One: History of Interpretation (6/7) “And I will give the glory of David to him, and he shall rule, and there will not be someone contradicting, and I will give to him the key of David’s house upon the shoulder of him, and he shall open, and no one shall shut, and he shall shut and there will be not be someone opening” (Greek variant of LXX Isaiah 22:22). On this matter, too, our own realities are (proto-)typified. For he [Jesus] says: “Whatever you should bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens and whatever you should loose on the earth shall loosed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:18-20). “And I shall establish him a ruler in a faithful locale, and he shall be unto the throne of glory by the house of his father” (LXX Isaiah 22:23). According to this quote, too, he gives to him [St. Peter] the priestly (hieratikên) and governing (archontikên) jurisdiction (eksousian). Wherefore, too, he was mindful of David: For David is not a priest but a king, but all the same he [Jesus] ordered the priesthood.” Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) Translation by Rev. Dr. C. W. Kappes. • The citation is Matthew 16:19. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca, Tomus LXXI, pg. 355). A Pope Gone Wild (Unpublished; 15 March 2021) by Rev. Dr. C. W. Kappes & William Albrecht “The principal Patristic commentators on the Book of Isaiah were Theodoret of Cyrus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea.” Manley, Johanna. Isaiah through the Ages. Holy Fathers Series. Menlo Park, CA: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1995, xv. Premise One: History of Interpretation (6/7) Premise One: Satisfaction (7/7) • “With or without confirmation from the preceding six criteria, does the proposed allusion and its interpretative usage make sense in the immediate context? Does it illuminate the surrounding context? Does it enhance the rhetorical punch of the point being made by the NT writer? Does the use of the allusion result in a satisfying account of how the author intended the allusion and how this use of the allusion would have made its effect upon the reader?” (Beale 2012 33). Premise One: Satisfaction (7/7) • The “rhetorical punch” of Matthew 16 is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Identities are being revealed. • An allusion to Isaiah 22:22 enhances the deity of Christ and His royal status as king through Him bestowing the keys. • Peter understands Jesus to be the triumphant, foretold Davidic king. Jesus responds in such a way where He is both God and the Davidic king. After all, the keys are His to give. Premise One: There is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Availability Volume Recurrence Thematic coherence Historical plausibility History of Interpretation Satisfaction “Probably the most referred-to criteria for validating allusions is that offered by Richard Hays.” Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012, 32. See Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989, 29-32; Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2005, 34-44. #8? Character: Jesus’ use of Isaiah • Jesus cites Isaiah 58:6 and 61:1-2 when He reveals in the synagogue that He is the Messiah (Luke 4:16-21). Isaiah’s appearance in Matthew fits this pattern. Premise One: There is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. • “In the symbolism of the keys, which become a standard element in Petrine iconography and in popular presentations of Peter standing guard at heaven’s pearly gates, many scholars discern an allusion to the ancient Israelite practice of the king granting authority to a prime minister who, as holder of ‘the key of the house of David,’ is deputized to make binding decisions on his behalf (Isa. 22:20–23).” Gray, Patrick. The Routledge Guidebook to the New Testament. Abingdon, VA: Routledge, 2017, 76. • “‘the keys to the kingdom’ (16:19) almost certainly is based on the identical metaphor in Isa. 22:22.” Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew.” Chapter in Commentary on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament, edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson , 1–110 at 55. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009. • “In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of the keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Eugene, OR: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989, 247. Premise One: There is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. • “Several published sources indicate where quotations and allusions occur in the NT… The first source to turn to is the twenty-seventh edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. The editors have placed in the outer margins of each page an OT reference where they think a quotation or allusion occurs in the corresponding part of the body of this Greek NT text… Interpreters must decide whether the references to allusions meet the criteria for being valid” (Beale 2012 35). Institute for New Testament Textual Research, ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. German Bible Society, 2012, 52. Premise Two: The best explanation for the textual allusion is either (a) a Jesus-Eliakim typology, (b) the similar function of the keys, or (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology. Jesus – the Keys – Peter • (a) a Jesus-Eliakim typology • (b) the similar function of the keys • (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology Premise Two: (a) a Jesus-Eliakim typology • (a) a Jesus-Eliakim typology • GK Beale argues for a typological relationship between Isaiah 22:22Matthew 16:19 (2012 133-147). Eliakim is a type for Jesus. • I anticipate that some might argue there is also a Jesus-Eliakim typology occurring here in Matthew’s gospel. Premise Two: (b) the similar function of the keys • (b) the similar function of the keys • I anticipate that the most popular response will be to argue that only the keys are being played on and not any person. Premise Two: (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology. • (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology • The nature of typology • Identification of typology The Nature of Typology • “… inner-biblical typologies constitute a literary-historical phenomenon which isolates perceived correlations between specific events, persons, or places early in time with their later correspondents… they will never be precisely identical with their prototype, but inevitably stand in a hermeneutical relationship with them.” • Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, 531. See Robinson 15 (below). • “Young’s definition is chosen here to avoid anachronistic categorical precision. For example, in commentaries on Galatians and 1 Corinthians debates over whether Paul employs allegory, typology, or analogy potentially miss the point. These are not distinctions Paul would necessarily have made. When applied to ancient authors these distinctions create unnecessary and potentially misleading analytical categories. Correspondences of all kinds were potentially significant and could be employed. Thus the term typology is here intended to be heuristic.” • Robinson, Jonathan Rivett. “Markan Typology: Miracle, Scripture and Christology in Mark 4:35–6:45.” Dissertation, University of Otago, 2020, 17. • “In this limited sense a Markan type is a correspondence between persons or events in the Gospel with persons or events from scripture which Mark has used in the composition of the Gospel and which can be expected to contain hermeneutical significance” (Ibid; emphasis in original). Uncontroversial Examples of Typology • New Moses • Establishing text: Deut. 18:15 – Acts 3:22-23. • Consequent texts: • • • • • • • • • • The Transfiguration (Exod. 24:15-18; Matt. 17; Mark 9:2-13) six days, 3 main disciples, cloud “Sheep without a Shepherd” (Num. 27:16-17; Matt. 9:36; Mark 6:34) The 70 elders: Num. 11:16; Luke 10:1) maybe 72? The Bronze Serpent (John 3:14-15) Exodus 16-John 6 Passover Meal/Lamb: John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7 Second Adam: Romans 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45-49 type Jonah: Jonah 1:17 – Matt. 12:40 Baptism-Flood: 1 Pet. 3:18-22 Jesus-Eliakim: Isa. 22:22 – Rev. 3:7 Definitions of Typology “A type thus presents a pattern of the dealings of God with men that is followed in the antitype, when, in the coming of Jesus Christ and the setting up of His kingdom, those dealings of God are repeated, though with a fulness and finality that they did not exhibit before” France, R.T. Jesus and The Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. Canada: Regent College Publishing, 1992, 39. Definitions of Typology “The best solution is to understand the ancient Jewish and Greek use of typology. The word τύπος (typos, ‘type’) means a pattern or model. One helpful definition is ‘the recognition of a correspondence between New and Old Testament events, based on a conviction of the unchanging character of the principles of God’s working, and a consequent understanding and description of the New Testament event in terms of the Old Testament model.’ In the theistic worldview of the ancient Mediterranean world, the assumption was that God revealed himself in consistent, discernable ways. For the Christian, it could not have been coincidence that, just as the children of Israel had to come out of Egypt when God gave Moses the revelation on Mount Sinai, now again Jesus, the inaugurator of the new covenant, had to return to Israel from Egypt before he began his ministry. The same God must be disclosing himself in both contexts. The events of old are being ‘filled full’ or given additional meaning, but it is meaning consistent with and even analogous to the original meaning. The apologetic is less straightforward than with direct predictive prophecy and its fulfillment, but no less powerful.” Blomberg, Craig L. A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, 193. See France 1985 40. Definitions of Typology “What all these correspondences do have in common, however, is at least implicitly the notion that they are all determined by the divine will: it is of the nature of God’s providence that he should, as it were, stamp salvation history and the religious practices of his people with the character of his saving power, making them reflections of his heavenly glory. The correspondences are of the nature of things, revealed but not created by the way in which the Old Testament is written.” Ounsworth, Richard. Joshua Typology in the New Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 40. My Definition • Typology is the divinely authored historical correspondence between an earlier pre-figured type and later fulfilling antitype such that God’s providence is made evident to His people. Identifying Typology • Textual Appraisal – There must be textual features that warrant a connection between one passage of scripture and another, providing the scriptural bridge for a typological connection to be made. • Natural Substitution – The antitype must naturally substitute the type in the context (or even the construction) of the later passage. • Significant Correspondence(s) – A correspondence should not be trivial but uniquely direct the reader to the type from the purported correspondence with the antitype. Correspondences might cluster, however, and collectively point towards a type. • Divine Intent – The alleged typology must have divine approval or authorization (e.g., covenants, prophecies, explicit validation, etc.). • Authorial motivation – The author has conceivable motives for wanting to identify a typological correspondence. Peter-Eliakim • Textual Appraisal – There must be textual features that warrant a connection between one passage of scripture and another, providing the scriptural bridge for a typological connection to be made. • Natural Substitution – The antitype must naturally substitute the type in the context (or even the construction) of the later passage. • Significant Correspondence(s) – A correspondence should not be trivial but uniquely direct the reader to the type from the purported correspondence with the antitype. Correspondences might cluster, however, and collectively point towards a type. • Divine Intent – The alleged typology must have divine approval or authorization (e.g., covenants, prophecies, explicit validation, etc.). • Authorial motivation – The author has conceivable motives for wanting to identify a typological correspondence. Peter-Eliakim • Significant Correspondence(s) – A correspondence should not be trivial but uniquely direct the reader to the type from the purported correspondence with the antitype. Correspondences might cluster, however, and collectively point towards a type. Eliakim Peter First on the list First on the list (except in Gal. 2:9) Compared to object Compared to object Open-Shut Bind-Loose Replaces Shebna Replaces Pharisees & Sadducees “son of Hilkiah” ben Hilkiah “son of Jonah” bar-Jonah Dynasty falls apart Rebukes Christ Serves Davidic king Serves Davidic king PeterEliakim Peter-Eliakim • Textual Appraisal – There must be textual features that warrant a connection between one passage of scripture and another, providing the scriptural bridge for a typological connection to be made. • Natural Substitution – The antitype must naturally substitute the type in the context (or even the construction) of the later passage. • Significant Correspondence(s) – A correspondence should not be trivial but uniquely direct the reader to the type from the purported correspondence with the antitype. Correspondences might cluster, however, and collectively point towards a type. • Divine Intent – The alleged typology must have divine approval or authorization (e.g., covenants, prophecies, explicit validation, etc.). • Authorial motivation – The author has conceivable motives for wanting to identify a typological correspondence. Premise Two: (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology. • (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology “The Old Testament type for Peter here is Eliakim the principal officer in the court of the Davidic king – not merely the controller of the royal household, but the vicegerent in the kingdom (cf. 22.21), and thus the saliyah whose actions bind his principal. What Eliakim is to be to the kingdom of Judah (as distinct from the palace), Peter is to be to the kingdom of heaven (as distinct from the Church); his role is concerned with admission to the final eschatological reign.” Green, H. Benedict. Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 135. Premise Two: (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology. • (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology “The point here is that, as Aaron serves as Moses’ spokesperson and assistant, so Shebna and later Eliakim serve as stewards or prime ministers to the Davidide king, and Peter as authorized lieutenant (in the etymological sense of place-holder or locum tenens) to Jesus. It is a case of Mosaic and Davidide typology, but among the characters of secondary rank.” Viviano, Benedict T. “Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16.13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4.10-17 and Other Models.” Essay. In The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition, edited by Craig A. Evans, 312–41 at 317. Sheffield, England: Sheffield academic Press, 2000. Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). • Jesus-Eliakim • Similar Functions 1. Natural substitution 2. The nature of Christ’s response 3. Natural Harmonizations Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). #1: Natural Substitution God [God vs. Jesus; first-person] will [future tense] give key(s) [key vs. keys] of kingdom [house of David vs. kingdom of heaven] to man [Eliakim vs. Peter] whose authority is exercised in a definitive [no one shall vs. in heaven] and contrastive [open-shut vs. bindloose] manner. “Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house. There exists a relation between the house of the ekklesia – whose building was mentioned just before, and whose foundation is Peter – and the heavenly house whose keys he receives” Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr . Translated by Floyd V. Filson. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press LTD, 1962, 209-10. Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). #2: The nature of Christ’s response – it is a declaration about the person of Peter. “The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus.” France, R. T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985, 254. Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). #2: The nature of Christ’s response “The Greek phrasing of this declaration, when compared with that of v. 16, conveys a reciprocity which can be rendered in English only by heavy overtranslation. Simon has declared, ‘You are the Messiah,’ to which Jesus now responds, ‘And I in my turn have a declaration for you: You are Peter.’ Each ‘naming’ also goes on to mention the father (‘Son of the living God’; ‘son of Jonah’). ‘Messiah’ was a title which implied a functional role (though that has not yet been spelled out); now Jesus gives to Simon a ‘title,’ a nickname, which (like the famous renamings in the OT: Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel) also speaks of his future role, and that role is spelled out in vv. 18-19.” France, Richard T. The Gospel for Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids , MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007, 620. Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). #2: The nature of Christ’s response “Jesus is speaking of Peter in 16:18 just as clearly as Peter is speaking of Jesus in 16:16 (France 1985: 254)...” Turner, David L. Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, 406. Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). #2: The nature of Christ’s response Grammar “‘You are Peter’ matches ‘you are the Christ’ (συ εἶ in both cases). And just as Peter spoke revelation, so now does Jesus” (625). One unit “More significantly, v. 19 cannot be isolated from vv. 17 and 18, and in these last Peter is spoken of in terms not applicable to anyone else” (635). Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. 3 vols. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Premise Three: The best explanation is not (a)-(b). #3: Natural harmonizations • House of David (Gray 76). • Immediate context “The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, until they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is ‘an expert builder.’ In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:1920, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the ‘cornerstone.’ Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is ‘the light of the world’; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts.” • Carson, Donald A. “Matthew.” Chapter in The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol. 8, edited by Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, Revised Edition, 23–670 at 419. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010. Premise Seven: But the textual allusion’s being a Peter-Eliakim typology is much more expected on the hypothesis that the papacy is true than on its negation. • Eliakim’s office • Petrine typology • Most plausible interpretation Premise Seven: Eliakim’s Office • Eliakim in scripture • Eliakim’s connection to Joseph • Priestly • The office was supreme in nature. • It was successional in nature. • Eliakim’s office Eliakim in scripture • 2 Kings: 18:17-18, “17 Then the king of Assyria sent Tartan, Rab-saris, and Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah with a large army to Jerusalem. So they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they went up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the road of the fuller’s field. 18 Then they called to the king, and Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the household, Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the secretary, went out to them.” • v. 26-27, “26 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, ‘Speak now to your servants in Aramaic, because we understand it; and do not speak with us in Judean so that the people who are on the wall hear you.’ 27 But Rabshakeh said to them, ‘Has my master sent me only to your master and to you to speak these words? Has he not also sent me to the men who sit on the wall, doomed to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?’ • v. 37, “37 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the household, and Shebna the scribe and Joah the son of Asaph, the secretary, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and they reported to him the words of Rabshakeh.” Eliakim in scripture • 2 Kings 19:1-2, “1Now when King Hezekiah heard the report, he tore his clothes, covered himself with sackcloth, and entered the house of the LORD. 2Then he sent Eliakim, who was in charge of the household, with Shebna the scribe and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz.” • Isaiah 36:3, 11, 22; 37:2. Eliakim’s connection to Joseph • “In 2 Kgs 18:17, the king of Assyria sends three messengers, entitled the Tartan (viceroy), the Rabsaris (chief eunuch), and the Rabshakeh (chief butler), along with a great army, to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. Their message for the king is transmitted by the Rabshakeh through three Israelite functionaries: Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the palace; Shebna the secretary; and Joah the recorder (18:18).” Reinhartz, Adele. Why Ask My Name?: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative. Oxford University Press, 1998, 52. Emphasis added. Eliakim’s connection to Joseph “In Israel the powers of the master of the palace were far more extensive and the similarity between his functions and those of the Egyptian vizier is even more important than the verbal resemblances. This vizier used to report every morning to the Pharaoh and receive his instructions. He saw to the opening of the ‘gates of the royal house’, that is, of the various officers of the palace, and then the official day began. All the affairs of the land passed through his hands, all important documents received his seal, all the officials were under his orders. He really governed in the Pharaoh's name and acted for him in his absence. This is obviously the dignity which Joseph exercised, according to Genesis. He had no one above him except the Pharaoh, and he was appointed over the whole land of Egypt; he held the royal seal (Gn 41:40-44), and to describe his dignity the Bible says that the Pharaoh ‘put him in charge of his house’; he made him, in fact, his master of the palace (Gn 41:40; 45:8). The master of the palace had similar functions at the court of Judah. Announcing the promotion of Elyaqim, Is 22:22 says: I lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder; If he opens, none will shut; If he shuts, none will open. Eliakim’s connection to Joseph The Egyptian vizier’s instructions are described in a very similar fashion. Every morning ‘the vizier will send someone to open the gates of the king’s house, to admit those who have to enter, and to send out those who have to go out’. One is reminded of our Lord’s words to Peter, the Vizier of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 16:19). Like the Egyptian vizier, the master of the palace was the highest official in the state: his name comes first in the list of 2 K 18:18; he alone appears with the king in 1 K 18:3; and Yotham bears this title when he acts as regent of the kingdom (2 K 15:5), as the vizier did in the absence of the Pharaoh.” Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1997, 130. Emphasis added. Eliakim’s connection to Joseph • “Recall that all of Pharaoh’s possessions, including his own house or palace, were placed under Joseph’s care (Gen. 39:5; Ps. 105:21). Eliakim is similarly described as “over the [king’s] house” as its master or chief steward (2 Kings 19:2; Isa. 36:22).” Sonna, Suan. “Where Is the Papacy in the Old Testament?” Catholic Answers, February 7, 2022. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/where-is-the-papacyin-the-old-testament. • JPS Tanakh 1917 • Gen. 39:5, “And it came to pass from the time that he appointed him overseer [‫]הִ פְ ִ֨ ִקיד‬ in his house [‫]בְ בֵ ֗יתֹו‬, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had, in the house and in the field.” • 2 Kings 19:2, “And he sent Eliakim, who was over [‫ ]עַל־‬the household [‫]הַ ַּ֜ ַביִ ת‬, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.” Eliakim’s connection to Joseph • Genesis 45:8, “So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God; and He hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and ruler over all the land of Egypt.” • Isaiah 22:21, “And I will clothe him with thy robe, And bind him with thy girdle, And I will commit thy government into his hand; And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.” See Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerups Forlag, 1971, 77. Eliakim’s connection to Joseph • “Against this background, it becomes rather difficult to assume that the circles in Jerusalem, that handed on this piece of literature, regarded the office of the Israelite houseminister as something fundamentally different from that of Joseph” (Mettinger 77). An Egyptian office in Israel? • A strong line of evidence for the Exodus from Egypt is that the Israelites maintained Egyptian practices, strongly implying that they were once in Egypt: Egyptian vocabulary and names (transliterated into Hebrew), place names (toponyms), Israelite economic practices (e.g., brick quotas), Egyptian law (e.g., beat and then interrogate), ritual furniture (e.g., ark of the covenant). See This Egyptologist Has Strong Evidence for a REAL Exodus on Capturing Christianity. • Mettinger suggests that the word “ephod” which Eliakim wears in v. 21 might be of Egyptian origin (71 fn 4). • I think there were Joseph/Egypt-inspired influences on the description of the chief steward’s office in the Biblical text, especially in Eliakim’s case. Questions and Limits • Joseph received an incredible degree of authority, but it is unknown if his office is vizier (de Vaux 130), great house overseer (Mettinger 70-77), or an entirely unique office (Fox 92). • There are similar offices among Israel’s neighbors from whom Israel could have taken inspiration as well (Fox 96). • My position is that Isaiah’s description of Eliakim’s authority echoes Joseph’s position. Perhaps de Vaux’s stance is too strong. Mettinger’s thesis is more accepted (96) – the chief steward’s authority was certainly over the king’s palace complex but could be extended state-wide. • Eliakim certainly acted as diplomat and military commander (89; Hezekiah’s “commander of the army” is strangely absent during the negotiations with the Assyrians; Eliakim acts as head of that delegation). Finally, Eliakim’s tenure constitutes the highest point of the chief steward’s authority. He is the right-hand man of Hezekiah’s kingdom. Fox, Nili Sacher. In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000. Priestly: previous sources • “Isaiah 22:22 portrays Eliakim, prime minister to king Hezekiah, as having ‘the key of the house of David on his shoulder’ because he controlled who could enter into the king’s presence and service. There were priestly connotations associated with Eliakim’s kingly administration, since Isaiah 22:21 portrays him clothed with a ‘tunic’ and a ‘sash securely about him’. The Aramaic translation of Isaiah 22:22 says that God ‘will place the key of the sanctuary and the authority of the house of David in his hand’. And then Isaiah 22:24 (of the Aramaic version) says that even Eliakim’s relatives will be ‘priests wearing the ephod’.” • Beale, G K, and D A Carson. The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004, pg. 188. • “Eliakim will wear the badges of honor and carry out the functions assigned to him (cf. Gen. 41:41-44). Evidently the prime minister at least, and perhaps other high officials, wore special uniforms. The terms used here for robe and sash appear elsewhere only for garb worn by the priests. This does not mean necessarily that the court officers had usurped the prerogatives of the priests, but rather that there were standard terms for ceremonial clothing.” • Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Ch. 1-39. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986, pg. 422. • There was not a neat distinction between Church and State in Ancient Israel. The king had priestly responsibilities. The Temple was the primordial model for government. (1 Chronicles 9:27) • “David is dressed like a high priest, wearing a linen ephod. And he is functioning like a priest, officiating over the ceremony, offering sacrifices (6:13,17), and setting up the tabernacle (6:17). Interestingly, ‘the bearers of the ark’ were Levites, but they are not named. It’s like the biblical author doesn’t want us to be distracted by the Levitical line because something new is happening. The king and all of the tribes of Israel are coming together in Yahweh’s presence in a recreation of Eden, with David as Israel’s priest and king.” • “David, the Leaping Priest-King Podcast: Bibleproject™.” BibleProject, March 22, 2021. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/david-the-leaping-priest-king/. Priestly: new sources • “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)… Priestly: new sources • 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 ]”‫כתנ‬tunic”] and a ]”‫אבנט‬sash”]; 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’ (στέφανον; Isa 22:21) probably also relates to high priestly imagery, since we learn from other Jewish sources that the high priest was ‘crowned’ (στέφανον; 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 ( ‫ר המפתח על־ והם משמרת כי־עליהם ולבקר המפתח‬.” • Barber, Michael Patrick. “Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16–19.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013): 935–53 at 944-5. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2013.0060. Priestly: new sources • “The other allusions to the solemn act of the investiture (v. 21) point to the high rank of the house-minister: he gets a ‘long robe’, and for his girdle the text uses a word (‫ )אַ ְבנ ְֵֽט‬which is otherwise used especially in connection with priestly apparel” (Mettinger 77). Priestly: new sources • “Likewise, the Jewish commentary of the Midrash Rabbah Exodus 37.1 understands Eliakim in Is. 22:23 to be a ‘high priest’.” (Beale 2004 329 n51). Priestly: new sources • “Nevertheless, only priests wear an ‫“( אַ בנט‬sash”) in every other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, Prakasam argues, ‘Eliakim’s investiture with ‘robe’ (‫ )חלוק‬and ‘sash’ (‫ )אַ בנט‬in Isa 22:21 indicates that his authority was not merely over the royal house but also over the house of God, the Temple’” (Rucker 61; see Antony Dhas Prakasam “Pride of Babylon and Zion in Isaiah in Light of the Theory of Self-Conscious Emotions”. CUA PHD dissertation. 2018. pg. 9). • “The pairing of a ‫תנֶת‬ ֹ ְ‫“( כ‬tunic”) with an ‫“( אַ בנט‬sash”) increases the likelihood of a temple background. A tunic belongs to a priest in about half of its instances in the Hebrew Bible. Although the presence of a tunic in 22:21 does not necessitate a temple background, its pairing with a sash is exclusive to priests. For example, compare Exod 28:4 with Isa 22:21…” (Ibid). • “In regard to the Hebrew text of 22:15-25, the strongest pieces of evidence for a temple background are the ‘sash’ (22:21), the ‘tunic’ (22:21), and the turban ‘wrapping’ (22:18). These three, along with the ‘key’ (22:22), comprise the four pegs of the (Mesopotamian) loom for the temple tapestry. Within the context of this loom, many other terms and phrases may be seen to contribute to temple connotations” (95). Priestly: new sources • I think these together constitute a definitive refutation of the idea that Eliakim was totally disconnected from the priesthood. Eliakim’s office was supreme in nature. • “Still it is generally agreed that occupants of this office were administrators of the highest status” (Fox 83). • “The jurisdiction of this official, in Israel and elsewhere, could cross administrative divisions when deemed appropriate” (96). • Fox, however, denies that the chief steward was second to the king or had authority over other officials. I take issue with some of her arguments, but she does acknowledge that the office evolved and gained greater authority in the Davidic house (Ibid). • For example, she says that the Genesis account of Joseph is “legendary” and her position conflicts with Isaiah’s description of Eliakim (91). Her arguments are overly critical at times in my estimation. • None shall shut… none shall open…“The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).” Guthrie, Donald, et al., editors. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. 3rd ed., vol. 6, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970, pg. 603. • Eliakim’s jurisdiction Isaiah 22:21, “And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” Eliakim’s office was supreme in nature • 2 Kings 15:5, “And the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a house set apart. And Jotham the king’s son was over [‫] עַ ל־‬the household [‫]הַ ַּ֔ ַביִת‬, judging [governing] the people of the land.” (emphasis added) • Possibilities: • Although Azariah was technically still king, Jotham fills his father’s role since he was already master of the palace or he becomes master of the palace. • Although Jotham is not in the office of master of the palace, his actions show what authority was possessed by such an individual through the same described action. JPS Tanakh 1917 Eliakim’s office was successional in nature. • Roland de Vaux’s succession list: Ahishar (Solomon), Arsa (Elah) [1 K 16:9], Obadyahu (Achab) [1 K 18:3], Yotham (Ozias) [2 K 15:5], Shebna (Ezechias) and then Eliakim (129). • The office first appears in 1 Kings 4:6 under Solomon’s administration and continues onward through the Biblical narrative up to Hezekiah. • Petrine Succession Premise Seven: Eliakim’s Office • Christ established a successional Roman* Petrine ministry that is supreme and infallible*. Infallibility • The idea of a definitive or unchangeable ruling is at the core of infallibility. • Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4. Par. 9 (EWTN translation) emphasis added. Infallibility • Eliakim had the capacity to be make definitive rulings (Isaiah 22:22). • On doctrine concerning faith and morals? • Jotham, a previous chief steward, had the power of judging the people (2 Kings 15:5). He had judicial powers. • “… Cogan and Tadmor also note that Jotham took over his father’s judicial duties (II Kings, 167)” (Fox 85 fn. 15). • If this is the case, then he would be interpreting and applying the scriptures in a civil context. Recall my arguments for the Jewish precursor to the magisterium. Infallibility • “But if it is translated as the future perfect (‘shall have been bound’), the passage could be taken to support the notion that the disciple [Peter] must therefore enjoy infallible communication from God in every question of ‘binding and loosing’…” (Carson 422). Infallibility – Divine Causality • “The translation will have been bound/loosed in heaven represents in Greek a periphrastic future perfect passive. Traditionally this has been interpreted to mean not that heaven ratifies Peter’s judgment but that Peter’s judgment reflects what God has already determined (Gundry 1982, 335; Chamberlain 1957, 80). Stanley Porter (1989) has tried to overturn this reading. He argues that Greek tenses carry no inherent temporal dimension (76–83). Instead, there are three aspects (257): perfective (reflected in the aorist tense), imperfective (reflected in the present and imperfect tenses), and stative (reflected in the perfect and pluperfect tenses). Only context can determine the temporal dimension. The basic problem with this contention is that Greek contains both imperfect and pluperfect tenses. Why these extra tenses if Porter’s thesis is correct? Furthermore, the traditional reading accurately reflects the theological context of the First Gospel (cf. 13:11; 16:17). Like the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 12:13), the prophet Jesus pronounces God’s forgiveness of sin (Matt. 9:6). Like their master Jesus (Matt. 9:6), Peter (16:19) and the other disciples (18:18) reflect the discernment that God has given to them (13:11–12). It is with the traditional reading that this commentary sides. When Peter interprets, it is a reflection of what has been revealed to him.” • Talbert, Charles H. Matthew. Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, 196-197. Emphasis added. Infallibility – Divine Causality • God the Father reveals to Peter the truth about Christ (Matthew 16:17). Recall Saldarini 1037. • Peter’s dream (Acts 10:9-16). • “Luke describes Peter as the spokesman of the apostles, who have just received Ananias’s gift. He also describes Peter as having the gift of prophecy, which allows him to see into Ananias’s heart – something only God can do (cf. Heb 4:13).” • Schnabel, Eckhard J. Acts: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012, 283. • Divine inspiration of scripture. Moreover, OT precursors for infallibility (e.g., Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 14:38-46; 1 Sam. 28:6). The office of the priesthood is probably the best candidate (e.g., Exodus 18:152 Kings 22:13, etc.). Rome • “The bearer of the royal, as opposed to private, title is always attested in the Biblical text in connection with a king or a capital city” (96). Eliakim, for example, is linked with Jerusalem (Isaiah 22:21). • “A more traditional account of the messiah is found in 4 Ezra 11-12. Here he appears as a lion, symbolizing his Judahite descent (cf. Gen 49:9-10). The lion is interpreted explicitly as ‘the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of David’ (12:32). The lion confronts an eagle, symbolizing Rome, which is further identified as the fourth beast of Daniel's vision (12:11). The messiah will denounce Rome for ungodliness, then ‘he will bring them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them’ (12:33).” Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010, 210. • Given the New Testament’s emphasis towards including Gentiles, it would make sense for the capital of the New Davidic kingdom to be in Rome rather than Jerusalem. • Moreover, it is a historical fact that Peter was in Rome and martyred there. Premise Seven: Eliakim’s Office • Christ established a successional Roman Petrine ministry that is supreme and infallible. • More data needs to be added into the evidential calculus in order to get the specifics, but the Eliakim type sets up/anticipates much of what’s in the papacy hypothesis. Premise Seven: Petrine typology! • Second Order Typology • OT “For example, the story of Joshua is deliberately worded to evoke memories of the story of Moses and to suggest to the reader that Joshua himself was a new Moses who acquired for his people what his venerable forebear could not, namely, possession of the Promised Land. This is nowhere stated explicitly in the book of Joshua, yet the typology at work is unmistakable to anyone familiar with the Exodus story of the Pentateuch. Consider, for instance, how Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan so that Israel could cross over on dry ground (Josh 3:14–17; 4:23), just as Moses had done at the Red Sea (Exod 14:16, 21–22). Consider too how Joshua sent spies into Canaan (Josh 2:1; 7:2) just as Moses had done while Israel was roaming in the wilderness (Num 13:2, 17).” Hahn, Scott. Catholic Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 2009, 929. • NT “For example, Adam corresponds to Christ (Rom 5:12-21) and Elijah corresponds to John the Baptist (Mark 9:13)… In Mark, John the Baptist’s passion (Mark 6:14- 29) corresponds to that of Jesus (9:11-13)” (Robinson 18). Premise Seven: Petrine typology! • Second Order Typology • God’s typological predestination of salvation history suggests that anyone in a type-antitype relationship bears a significant role. • If Peter possesses a singular Old Testament type, then this is significant. It is a distinction that none of the other apostles can claim for themselves. Premise Seven: Most plausible interpretation • Peter naturally substitutes Eliakim and receives an office like his, but it is filtered through the New Covenant inaugurated in the person of Christ. • “Then, in his role as king, Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the authority and responsibility to bind and loose on earth what has already been bound and loosed in heaven, that is, Jesus makes Peter the major domo of his kingdom with all the privileges and responsibilities accruing to that function” (Willis 318). Premise Seven: Most plausible interpretation • What transfers and what doesn’t • What does NOT transfer over: • Unlike Eliakim, Peter does not receive temporal war powers. (e.g., John 18:36; Acts 1:6-8; Eph. 6:12). • Unlike Eliakim, Peter does not receive a biologically hereditary office. (e.g., Matt. 12:48-49; Gal. 4:4-7; Phil. 3:3). • What DOES transfer over: the essence of the type • Intelligibility We should be able to identify why in the first place the Biblical author identifies a typology much less an allusion. The why reveals to us something about the essence of the type and thereby something about the antitype. The why is clearly discernable in the contexts of Isaiah and Matthew. • Like Eliakim, Peter receives a vestiture of great, unique, and unparalleled authority. • See OBJ. 2. Objection #1: a priori typology cannot establish doctrine. • This is often asserted, but it needs to be defended. • The objection rests on a misunderstanding of typology. Typology captures the literal sense of scripture. • “Typological connections are not based in the literary creativity of the human authors. God’s providential hand has truly been working within history, and so a type/antitype relationship has a transcendent origin and a historical manifestation.” Chase, Mitchell L. 40 Questions about Typology and Allegory. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020, 68. • “Far from being in conflict with the literal sense of biblical stories, figuration or typology was a natural extension of literal interpretation. It was literalism at the level of the whole biblical story and thus of the depiction of the whole of historical reality.” Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974, 2. See Vanhoozer 2009 119. • The objection also is counterintuitive in practical application. Suppose Jesus said, “I will give you the pen of the white house. Whatever you veto shall be vetoed; whatever you sign shall be signed.” Who wouldn’t think that Jesus was establishing an office with certain powers? • As Ounsworth noted (40), typology reveals the nature of things. If we are debating the nature of Peter’s authority but we have already ruled out a scriptural means by which the nature of something is shown, then we have already closed ourselves off to the evidence. Objection #2: a posteriori there isn’t verification beyond Matthew for this typology or its significance. • Establishing text → Consequent text(s) “Keys symbolize authority to open. To thee relates this promise to Peter alone. It refers to the choice of Peter, as first among equals, for officially opening the kingdom (since Pentecost, including the whole sphere of Christian profession; cf. 13:3–52) to Jews (Acts 2:14 ff.) and Gentiles (Acts 10:1–11:18; 15:7, 14).” Kent, Homer A. “Matthew.” Essay. In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett Falconer Harrison, 929–85 at 959. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962. “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…’” Acts 15:7 Objection #2: a posteriori there isn’t verification beyond Matthew for this typology or its significance. • First Half of Acts – Peter’s significant authority • “The first half of Acts discloses that after the Ascension, though his relationship to James, the Lord's brother, remains unclear, Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1: 15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2: 14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1- 10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5: 1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10: 9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities. Arrested by Herod Agrippa I, he was miraculously released from prison (12:1-17). At the council of Jerusalem he successfully championed a liberal policy towards Gentiles ( 15:7- 11). It was from Peter that Paul sought information about Jesus after his conversion (Gal. 1:18); and although he felt obliged to rebuke Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2: 1 1- 1 4), the context suggests the respect in which Paul held him. Although Paul describes his ministry as directed to Jews (Gal. 2: 7 f.), Peter was also prominent as a missionary in largely Gentile areas like Corinth (1 Cor. 1: 12) and Asia Minor ( 1 Pet. 1: 1). Early tradition, perhaps relying on the visit mentioned in Gal. 2: 1 1-14, connected him with Antioch, claiming him as its first bishop.” Kelly, JND. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Objection #3: the other disciples possess the keys! • “If possession of the keys means the power to bind and loose, then one may urge that Peter is promised no more than the other disciples, for in 18.18 the power to bind and loose is clearly held by others. But if v. 19a is broader in scope, then one can make the case for Peter having a unique function (cf. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, 3.22). In our estimation, it is most natural to think of v. 19a as being explicated by what follows: to have the keys is to have the power to bind and loose. Further, 19a and vv. 19b-c probably have to do with teaching authority (for the connexion between keys and teaching see Lk 11.52; Sipre on Deut 32.25l b. Sabb. 31a-b; for ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ as metaphors for halakhic decisions see below). We do, however, still insist that Peter is not thereby put on the same level as his fellow disciples. It remains true that only he is explicitly said to have the keys. More significantly, v. 19 cannot be isolated from vv. 17 and 18, and in these last Peter is spoken of in terms not applicable to anyone else. Also, it should not be overlooked that whereas 18.18 concerns the local community or assembly, 16.19 is about the church universal (cf. v. 17); hence the authority bestowed in 16.19 is implicitly wider than that given in 18.18. For these reasons then, we are not persuaded that the existence of 18.18, with its more general promise of the authority to bind and loose, diminishes Peter’s prominence. If the power to bind and loose was also given to others that does not entail that those others exercised their power in quite the same way as did Peter, or that they too held the keys of the kingdom” (Davies & Allison 2:635). Objection #3: the other disciples possess the keys! • Isaiah 22 applies to Matt. 16:19 not 18:18 • “Binding and loosing” may be understood as substituting “opening and shutting” only if the keys are present, because it is primarily these two together (among other factors) that establish the allusion back to Isaiah 22:22. • The unique vestiture of power to Eliakim more naturally latches onto one person whenever it is used (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 3:7). • In fact, one could argue that the disciples obtain the keys through Peter in a sense. We need Peter’s explicit possession of the keys in order to infer possession of them in 18:18. The Argument Phase One – textual allusion 1. There is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. Phase Two – typology 2. The best explanation for the textual allusion is either (a) a Jesus-Eliakim typology, (b) the similar function of the keys, or (c) a Peter-Eliakim typology. 3. The best explanation is not (a)-(b). 4. Therefore, the best explanation is (c). 5. If the best explanation is (c), then the textual allusion is probably a Peter-Eliakim typology. 6. So, the textual allusion is probably a Peter-Eliakim typology. Phase Three – papacy 7. But the textual allusion’s being a Peter-Eliakim typology is much more expected on the hypothesis that the papacy is true than on its negation. 8. If the textual allusion is probably a Peter-Eliakim typology and this is much more expected on the papacy hypothesis than on its negation, then the textual allusion strongly favors the papacy hypothesis over its negation.