Isaiah 22:20-22 And Papal Supremacy

Introduction:

Roman Catholics often defend Papal authority by comparing Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:19. Both passages reference "keys" and involve figures with significant authority, such as Eliakim in the Old Testament and Peter in the New Testament. The similarities in language, such as "opening and shutting" or "binding and loosing," are used to argue that Eliakim prefigures Peter, whom Jesus appointed as the supreme leader of His church.

This article critically evaluates this typological argument, presenting several reasons why the comparison fails.

Key Points Against the Catholic Interpretation:

1.) The Bible mentions various keys across its books (Judges 3:25; Luke 11:52; Revelation 1:18), none of which are exclusively tied to Peter. Isaiah 22 does not demand a connection to Matthew 16, as the symbolism of keys is used in different contexts to signify distinct forms of authority or responsibility.

2.) Isaiah 22 deals with the dismissal of Shebna due to his pride and the appointment of Eliakim as a steward under King Hezekiah. This was a political role second only to the king. However, Peter’s appointment by Jesus did not involve replacing another figure or serving under a monarch. This contextual disparity makes the typology untenable.

3.) Isaiah 22:25 predicts the eventual fall of Eliakim, stating that he will be "cut down." If this passage were a prophecy about Peter's role as the first pope, it would imply the fall of the papacy, contradicting Roman Catholic teachings about its perpetual and infallible nature.

4.) The name "Eliakim," meaning "God will raise up," aligns more closely with Jesus Christ than Peter. Jesus is the one who inherits David’s throne and possesses the key of David (Revelation 3:7). The singular key in Isaiah pertains to Israel's lineage, while the plural "keys" in Matthew refer to the broader mission of the church.

5.) Eliakim’s position as steward was political and administrative, focused on managing the royal household of David within the historical context of Israel. Peter’s role, on the other hand, was spiritual and evangelical, leading the early church and spreading the Gospel. The nature of their authority was fundamentally different, weakening the argument that Isaiah 22 directly foreshadows Peter’s position.

6.) In Isaiah 22:23-25, Eliakim is metaphorically described as a "peg driven into a firm place," symbolizing stability and reliability. However, the passage concludes with the peg being removed and falling, leading to the collapse of everything attached to it. This imagery signifies that Eliakim's authority, while significant, was neither permanent nor infallible. If the Catholic interpretation equates Eliakim with Peter and Isaiah 22 with the establishment of the papacy, the "falling peg" undermines the concept of Papal infallibility and the perpetual nature of papal authority. Such a typological connection would inherently contradict Catholic teaching, making the interpretation inconsistent with its own doctrinal claims.

7.) While the concept of keys represents authority in both Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, biblical symbolism is not static. It evolves to fit the context of the narrative. In Isaiah, the key symbolizes Eliakim's administrative authority over the kingdom of Judah, tied to the earthly lineage of David. However, in Matthew, the keys symbolize Peter's spiritual authority to guide the Church, representing a broader mission transcending earthly governance. This evolution in the symbolic meaning of keys highlights the need to interpret them within their specific context, rather than drawing direct typological connections. Such variability in symbolism suggests that the authority given to Eliakim and Peter serves different purposes, undermining the argument for a predictive relationship between the two figures.