DOES ISAIAH 22 SUPPORT THE PAPACY?

 

Ok, what exactly is the papacy?  The papacy is the office and jurisdiction of the pope, who is the human head over the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ established the New Testament church by building it upon the apostle Peter and He designated Peter as the head over all the other apostles.  Jesus also gave Peter the power of “binding and loosing,” he can forgive people of all their sins and he can even operate infallibly (without error) under certain conditions.  Furthermore, his line of successors after him will also be considered popes with the same power through “Apostolic Succession.”

Of course, we Protestants don’t agree with this, but right now I’d like to recap what Jesus said and to address how Catholics use the Isaiah passage.

In Matthew 16:13-15, Jesus asks His disciples what the public thought about Him, and then He asked them what they (the disciples) thought about Him:

16 – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’

17 – And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.

18 – And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 – And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

This is the main and foundational passage of Scripture that the Catholic Church uses to prove its papacy.  They will emphasize that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys” to the kingdom of Heaven and thus, the authority to “bind” and “loose.”

Enter Shebna and Eliakim

Another passage they use to try and support the idea of a papacy is in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-25.  In this passage, God, through the prophet Isaiah, rebukes the present treasurer/prime minister (Shebna) of Judah for his pride and for abusing his position and tells him that he will be removed from his lofty position and replaced by a righteous man named Eliakim.  Then, in v. 22-23, Shebna is told:

22 – “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his [Eliakim’s] shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 – And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.”

Catholics believe that there is a connection between Peter in Matthew 16 and Eliakim in Isaiah 22.  They are convinced that the typology of Eliakim points precisely to the person of Peter, and that both these passages point to the Catholic papacy.

Comparison

Ok, I will admit that there are some similarities between the two passages in that they both reference a key or keys, which point to some kind of authority/power.  And I will admit that Isaiah 22:22 is the first passage in all of Scripture that mentions anything about spiritual/metaphorical “keys.”  And the Jews of Jesus’ day more than likely recognized (from Isaiah) the terminology that Jesus used concerning keys.  It is interesting, though, that Isaiah references the “key” (singular) of David, whereas Jesus references the “keys” (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven.

But is this really typology about the papacy?  If it is, and if Eliakim replaced Shebna, then what person did Peter the apostle replace?  If both passages are referring to the papacy, then why is Isaiah’s key about David’s throne and Jesus’ keys about the church?  If Isaiah 22 is really about the papacy (a purely spiritual, non-political authority), then where is this reflected in the office of Shebna and Eliakim? 

If Isaiah was pointing to a modern papacy, where is infallible spiritual authority alluded to in this scenario?  Where is the reference to a human authority having “full, supreme, and universal power” over a religious body? Moreover, neither Isaiah 22 nor Matthew 16 suggests anything about a chain of perpetual and infallible successors (as the modern papacy supposedly has). 

Well, someone may say that typology does not have to match in every detail.  That is true, but the similarities are so few that one has to question if there is enough here to indicate anything about Peter.  It is the amount of details that are missing that are very telling.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Isaiah 22:25 mentions Eliakim’s “peg” breaking off.  So, if this is about the Catholic papacy, when did Peter’s “peg” (authority) break off?  Let’s look a little farther into the passage in Isaiah.

A Better Fulfillment

Isaiah 22:25:

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 has spoken it.

Notice the term “cut off.”  Now compare this to Daniel 9:26:
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself…”

These are both prophecies of the Messiah to come.  They are both using the same Hebrew word for “cut off” (“karath”).  Both Isaiah and Daniel are referring to the Messiah’s death, so Isaiah is NOT speaking about Peter at all!

The name “Shebna” means “vigor” or “youthful strength” or “to grow.”  The name Eliakim means “God will establish” or “my God will arise.”

The character Shebna represents man trusting in his ability/strength/wisdom (Isaiah 22:8-11), but Eliakim represents the Messiah who does not depend on man’s strength or wisdom! 

The key referred to in Isaiah 22:22 is singular, and it is “the key of the house of David,” which can only point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:9; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 1:31-33), not to Peter or any type of papacy.  This is confirmed in Revelation 3:7:

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Here, we see the Savior, the One who shuts and opens at will.  Revelation 3:7 seems to be a much better passage to fulfill the typology of Isaiah 22 than the Catholic Church’s attempt to use Peter.  It does not point to Peter, but to Christ.

The Gospel Brings it into Focus

But what is this “opening” and “shutting” that Jesus is speaking of in Revelation 3:7 just above?  I believe it has to do with the gospel and the “doors” of opportunity that are opened or closed by Jesus. 

Note that in 1 Corinthians 16:9, Paul speaks of an “open door” for ministry, and again in 2 Corinthians 2:12.  In other cases, Paul encountered the opposite when he tried to enter Asia, but was hindered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6), i.e., it was a closed door.  And again, he tried to go into Bithynia and the same thing happened (Acts 16:7).  “Doors of ministry” are controlled (open and shut) by Jesus alone. 

Remember, Jesus, who holds the key of David (Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3:7) is not only the One who supernaturally opens and shuts doors of opportunity, but He is also the One who has given us the keys of the kingdom of Heaven in preaching the gospel (Matthew 16).

“Binding and loosing”/“opening and shutting” is NOT about Peter making laws which God is obligated to uphold, or Peter wielding authority over the other apostles!  The keys of Matthew 16 are all about the gospel:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)

Note the phrase “power of God.”  This indicates the exceptional, inherent and divine quality within the gospel message itself.  An integral part of the function of the keys is the person’s repentance (or lack thereof) and his acceptance or rejection of the gospel, which will determine his destiny.   

By the way, note that Peter did not receive the keys of Heaven in Matthew 16, because Jesus was speaking of a future event (“…I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”).  Jesus gave them to all the apostles later, possibly in Matthew 18:18.  We know this because the effects of being given the keys (binding and loosing) were the same in Matthew 18. 

In this way, this authority/power was first given to the apostles themselves, then it was given again in the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47) where it was entrusted to all believers.  Even the Catholic Catechism agrees that the “Great Commission” (evangelizing/sharing the gospel) is for all believers (CCC #900).

Conclusion

Therefore, this “binding and loosing” of which Jesus spoke is about sharing the gospel with people, and if the hearers accept its message (“… he that hears you hears Me…” – Luke 10:16), then the gates of Heaven are open to them; and the one who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have accepted the message of Jesus Christ, you have been forgiven – you are saved.” 

But if they reject the gospel (“… and he that despises you despises Me…” – Luke 10:16), they are refused entrance into Heaven.  And he who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have rejected the message, your sins are retained – you are not right with God.”  The keys are for opening and closing the kingdom of Heaven.  The apostles certainly wielded authority, but it is all true believers who have the power of “binding” and “loosing,” not just the apostles and not just church leaders.  Matthew 16:19 is not what the Catholic Church thinks it is. 

So, to answer the question, no, Isaiah 22 does NOT support the doctrine of the Catholic papacy.  But even if Isaiah 22:22 did somehow refer to Peter, that still would not prove the modern concept of the Catholic papacy, with all its unbiblical teachings, its allegedly infallible Magisterium, and its nebulous traditions – not to mention the papacy’s “foundation” which was built on forgeries.

See these links for more information:

LINKS:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html

MATTHEW 16 – KEYS, BINDING, AND LOOSING

Matthew 16

v. 13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His Disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?”

v. 14) And they said, “Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.”

v. 15) He said unto them, “But whom say you that I am?”

v. 16) And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

v. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in Heaven.”

v. 18) And I say also unto you, “That you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

v. 19) “And I will give unto you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

This is the third and final article in this series on Matthew 16 and we are seeing the Catholic Church’s abuse and hi-jacking of this passage for their own purposes.

Last month, we saw how the Catechism of the Catholic Church falsely claims that Peter was the only rock of the Church (CCC #881), placing Peter above all the other apostles; and we demonstrated that the biblical evidence certainly points against this idea.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

The Catechism Strikes Again

The Catholic Catechism also claims that Peter is the only one to whom the keys were directly given: 

“…Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.” (CCC #553)

So, what is all this about?  What are these “keys” that Jesus is giving to Peter?  Of course, these are not literal keys, but a metaphor.  Keys represent authority, power and access, and since they are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, they must give access to Heaven.  This is the binding (locking) and loosing (unlocking) concept that Jesus was speaking of, i.e., restricting or allowing access to Heaven.

Infallible Successors?

Catholics also claim that this authority that Peter received from Jesus is an infallible authority, and because of this, he (Peter) cannot officially proclaim error when teaching on faith and morals.  Not only that, this infallible authority will also be passed on to his successors.  The reason they claim infallibility is because they believe:  1) Jesus gave Peter the legislative power (ability to make laws) to bind and loose.  2) Peter decides that a particular teaching should become law, and makes it binding on the church.  3) God sees this action and is somehow obligated to endorse or ratify this new law from His throne in Heaven.

  

And the Catholic says that the reason that this action has to be infallible is because God cannot lie or endorse an erroneous or false decree.  And since He must always endorse what Peter binds or looses, He won’t ever let Peter bind or loose the wrong things, guaranteeing freedom from error.  Sounds good, right?

But that’s not the way it works.  Man doesn’t make the rules and then obligate God to agree with him.  Nor is God obligated to keep anyone from making bad decisions.  Everyone is accountable for his own decisions (Galatians 6:7).

You see, the keys come with the implied understanding that you will abide by the rules of the one who gave you the keys in the first place.  This promise from Jesus to Peter is neither a license to bind and loose whatever he wants, nor is it a guarantee to never teach false doctrine (whether “officially” or not).  This is not about telling God what to bind or loose.  Rather, Jesus is saying, “Peter, I will back you as long as you do My will,” He is NOT saying, “I will keep you from ever straying from My will.”  Church leaders are expected to be more responsible and more accountable than others (1 Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:5-9).  The Bible tells church leaders to guard their teachings (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:16; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14).  But why tell them to “keep” or “guard” those teachings if they are guaranteed an infallibility and protection against error?  There is no biblical evidence of anyone in the post-apostolic church who would have infallibility.

Just Peter?

Ok, so Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.  But is he the only one who obtained these keys?  No, not at all.  Speaking to all the apostles in another passage, Jesus said:

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:  and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

We can see from this verse that Jesus is giving this same power to bind and loose to ALL the apostles.  It is the same exact wording as Matthew 16:19 (except the “ye” and “you”).  So they must necessarily all have the same keys, that is, the same authority.  Jesus gave nothing to Peter that he didn’t also give to the other apostles.  To try and say that Peter is “the only one to whom He [Jesus] specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom” is deceptive.  The Catholic Church makes a big deal out of isolating Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and then they try to insert the doctrine of the papacy here.

Whose Papacy?

But the Catholic will say, “But look at all the special things Peter did and experienced!  Shouldn’t he have this ‘primacy’ and this special role as pope?”  Catholics will argue that he was the first one to get the keys, that Jesus told him to “Feed My sheep,” that Jesus changed Peter’s name, etc., etc.  But if these sorts of accomplishments suggest that a man should be pope, then we could suggest the apostle Paul, as well, for this honor.  After all, Paul has a better “resume” than Peter.  Whatever evidence can be brought forth for the primacy of Peter, more (and better) evidence can be brought forth for the primacy of Paul.  See this link for an interesting comparison between Peter and Paul:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/51-biblical-proofs-of-pauline-papacy.html

Of course, no one is actually saying that Paul is a pope, but the point is that Catholics are not consistent when they use this argument.  If someone had to be a pope based on experiences and accomplishments, it seems it should be Paul.

Limits

Ok, so ALL the apostles had the power of binding and loosing.  But what were the limits of this power?  When discussing the papacy, Catholics will almost always speak very highly of Peter’s authority.  But sometimes, an interesting thing happens when Catholics are pressed about the limits of this gift to bind and loose.  Someone in the discussion may well ask, since Peter had this special primacy and authority, couldn’t he decide to proclaim any wild teachings he desired to promote?  Could he make crazy laws for the church that everybody would have to follow?  Maybe change some existing infallible Catholic teachings?  After all, wouldn’t God bind and loose whatever Peter chose to bind and loose?  This is a valid question, since he is given so much attention and power in the Catholic Church.

At this point of the discussion, Catholics will often tone it down and say no, Peter can’t decree such things; that’s not what this means, and they may quote something like “Pastor Aeternus” of the First Vatican Council, which says:

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6)

Ok, so according to Vatican I, this power of binding and loosing was apparently not for creating new doctrines, etc., but only to cause Peter to “religiously guard” and “faithfully expound” the revelation that already existed.  But isn’t this the job of every pastor who is worth his salt?  This is the norm for biblical churches, to try to religiously guard and faithfully expound God’s Word.  Actually, this is every Christian’s duty.  So, how does this separate Peter from the rest?  How does this make Peter’s status any higher than the other apostles?  It doesn’t.  There is nothing in Matthew 16 that calls for the Catholic Church’s exalted view of Peter.

But notice how the discussion goes from:

  

   A)Peter is the Vicar of Christ, referred to as “His Holiness,” who has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church, who has the power to make statements that are infallible (without error) and irreformable (unchangeable; not subject to improvement), and being under his authority is an absolute necessity for salvation.…

To basically

   B) Peter has to follow (and be faithful to) the Word of God, just like everybody else. 

 

“A” (above) can only be concluded by much hype and exaggeration, as well as eisegesis (reading things into the text), while “B” is much closer to the truth, and closer to the meaning of binding and loosing in Matthew 16.

When the Catholic is pressed on this point and this “special gift to Peter alone” is examined, we find that ultimately, they will be forced to downplay Peter’s status.

The Grammar

To get a good idea of the nature and scope of this power of binding and loosing, we need to look at the grammar used in this context.  The structure in the Greek grammar of both Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 is unique and very important.  Many scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson, J.R. Mantey, Charles B. Williams, Robert Young, Jay P. Green, Sr., and Thomas Constable, just to name a few) agree on the type of perfect tense used in these passages and teach that it indicates a state of completion.  The Greek is literally saying, “Whatsoever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…is already bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…shall be what has been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…having been already bound / loosed in Heaven,” etc.  There are well over a dozen different Bible translations that render it this way, or something very similar.  This may be somewhat awkward in English, but according to these scholars, it is faithful to the Greek, which is the inspired language.

      

Ok, so why does this type of perfect tense matter?  The important thing to note is that this structure demonstrates that the binding and loosing in Heaven actually comes FIRST - BEFORE a man on earth has declared what is bound or loosed.

It is interesting to note that this very same Greek construction is also used in John 20:23 where Jesus tells the apostles that whoever’s sins you retain / forgive are retained / forgiven.  This type of structure indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s proclaiming of the person’s spiritual status afterward (based on that person’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel).

This is not a situation where a man can decide to forgive or retain the sinner’s sins, as in the Catholic confessional – it is a situation in which a believer simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word, concerning the sinner’s response to the gospel. Forgiveness depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not on some special formula that the priest, rabbi, or minister uses.

So, practically speaking, this passage is simply saying 1) “Since you have accepted the gospel on earth, you are already forgiven (loosed) in Heaven,” or 2) “Since you reject the gospel of Jesus Christ on earth, you have already been condemned (bound) in Heaven and excluded from eternal life.”

Again, as with all three passages mentioned above (Matthew 16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23), it is NOT a case of a man having power over other people’s souls, or creating laws at will, or absolving sins and then afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of approval.  Binding and loosing (as well as retaining and forgiving) has to do with entrance into Heaven and is simply declaring what God has already done according to His Word.  Scripture is the standard upon which a person can bind or loose something.  The keys that were first given to the apostles are simply the gospel of Jesus Christ, because THAT is “…the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).  And these keys are, by extension, given to every Christian through the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).  When Christians are obedient in proclaiming the truth about a person’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel, God will ratify (or has already ratified) that proclamation in Heaven.

Isaiah 22

Another argument that Catholics often use to justify Peter’s primacy as pope is to parallel Matthew 16:19 with Isaiah 22:20-22.  Here is the passage:

v. 20) And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah.

v. 21) And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen 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.

v. 22) And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Since there is a key involved, and since there is opening and shutting (“loosing” and “binding”) involved, and what seems to be a type of “prime minister” position, Catholics believe that this is symbolic of Jesus giving the keys to Peter, with Peter ruling over the Church by way of a papacy. 

 

But this Isaiah passage is actually about a man named Shebna (v. 15) who, because of his pride, was about to lose his position as second only to the king (Hezekiah), and God was handing his position over to another man named Eliakim.  So, Catholics compare Peter to Eliakim, who was to receive the “key of the house of David” (v. 22).   And they say that Jesus is giving Peter these same keys to be a sort of “prime minister” of the Catholic Church.  This is Catholic typology.

But this is far from good biblical typology.  The Bible mentions several different keys (or sets of keys).  Does each and every one of these also apply to Peter just because keys are mentioned?  What is it in Isaiah 22 that demands a parallel with Peter?  If this typology is accurate, then who represents Shebna in the Matthew 16 scenario?  Who did Peter replace?  The truth is, he replaced no one, since the apostles were the foundation of the church era.  And if this passage points to Peter, then what is the significance of Isaiah 22:25, that is, how was Peter ever “removed” or “cut down”?  We would think that Catholics would be cautious about applying this to Peter or his papacy.

The Jewish Connection

And it doesn’t apply for good reason.  This Eliakim (whose name means “God will raise up”) is a type of Jesus Christ, not Peter.  It is Jesus who will have the glorious throne in v. 23 (the everlasting throne of David - 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:31-33; Acts 2:30).  And it is Jesus who has the “key of David” (Revelation 3:7).

The “key of the house of David” in Isaiah 22, we believe, focuses more on the promises of David’s throne, the setting up and fulfillment of his kingdom.  The “house of David” is about the ancestry or the line of David.  Again, the key (singular) of the house of David (Isaiah 22:22) had to do with Israel (note the reference to Jerusalem and Judah in v. 21), while the keys (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19) have more to do with the church.

There may be similarities between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, but they are not the same thing.

Conclusion

We have often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  The Catholic Church’s claim to Matthew 16:13-19 is no different, in fact, it is one of their most fervent claims, but their focus is on the wrong person.  They have a lot to lose if they are proven wrong here.  That’s why they fight tooth and nail to promote these ideas.

Once again, this passage is NOT about Peter and his “primacy.”  It is about the person, the work, and the message of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.  It is about His gospel of salvation through faith in that glorious work on the cross… and that alone.  He has also called all Christians to share this gospel with a lost and dying world.  As we said earlier, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), and it is exactly what this passage (Matthew 16:13-19) and this series of articles is all about.

We are not against Peter.  He was definitely a leader in the church who has done much for the gospel.  He became a great man of faith, in spite of his initial shortcomings, and he will sit on a throne just as all the other apostles will.  But we must be ever mindful of over-emphasizing anyone, be it an apostle, Mary, a “saint,” or any minister.  And this is exactly what the papacy does:  It wrongly focuses on, and exalts, a mere man rather than Jesus Christ.

According to God’s infallible Word, there IS no papacy, there IS no pope, there IS no one ruler on earth over the whole church.