[MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome to the Catholic Reason, a radio production of St. Michael Catholic Radio, based in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, where we think through various claims made by the Catholic Church concerning issues of faith, morality, and culture, and provide reasons behind those claims. My name is Dr. Carla Broussard. I'm a staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers at catholic.com, and a member of the Chancery Evangelization team here at the Diocese of Tulsa and Eastern Oklahoma. The Catholic Reason errors locally here in Tulsa every Thursday from 4 to 5 PM on St. Michael Catholic Radio, 94.9 and 102.9. But you may be listening on your own local Catholic radio station at a different time, since the Catholic Reason is now aired on other Catholic stations throughout the country. So if you're listening outside the Tulsa area, welcome. And thanks for joining me today for this episode of the Catholic Reason. Just to let you know, you can download the show through whichever podcast platform that you use by subscribing to the Eastern Oklahoma Catholic Podcast. That's, once again, the Eastern Oklahoma Catholic Podcast. You can also access the archived episodes of the Catholic Reason at my website, chorlabroussard.com, under the audio tab and all the other work that I do for Catholic Answers, you can also access at chorlabroussard.com. So in today's episode of the Catholic Reason, we're going to continue our discussion of Peter the Keeper of the Keys, drawing off of what we talked about last week in last week's episode. And so recall from last week's episode, we gave positive reasons why Jesus' giving of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter signifies that he is the chief royal steward of Jesus' kingdom, i.e. the church, thereby making Peter the first poet. Today, we're going to look at some Protestant counter responses to our Catholic exegesis that attempts to undermine the parallel between Matthew 1619 and the given of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven with Isaiah 22, the whole context being verses 15-22. So the bottom line here is that, hey, we say Isaiah 22, 15-22 is the interpretive context for understanding the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 1619. And that interpretive context allows for us to conclude that Jesus is making Peter the chief royal steward of his kingdom, i.e. the church, thereby making him the first pope. But some Protestants will respond counter and say, this parallel that you're assuming exists does not exist. And so there are a variety of different Protestant combat here. One of them is the idea that the imagery of Keys is just stock imagery, right? There's nothing important about the images of Keys and Gates and Doors is just stock imagery. So Catholics are inferring too much from this imagery. And the idea is that since the relevant images of Keys, Gates and Doors are not restricted to Isaiah 22, 15-22, but are found elsewhere in scripture. Well, there's no need to explain Matthew 1619 in light of Isaiah 22, 15-22. The late Protestant apologist Steve Hayes states the argument this way in his article Catholic proof text at TrioBlanc. He puts it like this, Catholic apologist typically allege that verse 19 of Matthew 16 is an allusion to Isaiah 2222. Then imports the entire Isaiah in context into Matthew 1619. However, he goes on, the related metaphors of Keys, Gates and Doors are stock imagery. And he gives a litany of biblical citations from the New Testament where it is true, Keys, Doors and Gates are being used. So Hayes concludes it doesn't require any special explanation. That is to say, the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 1619 doesn't require any special explanation in terms of literary dependence. That is to say, literary dependence on Isaiah 2222 to account for the imagery. So notice how Hayes here attempts to undermine the parallel that we Catholics draw between Matthew 1619 and Isaiah 2222, or to state it differently, his attempt to undermine our belief that Isaiah 2222 is an interpretive context for Matthew 1619. So let's look at some different ways that we can respond here. For Hayes, the image of Keys along with Doors and Gates shouldn't be taken as having a literary dependence on Isaiah 2222 since such imagery is also used elsewhere in scripture, right? Well, Hayes seems to be basing his argument on the idea that to the extent a given image is used in scripture, the less likely it is that there's direct literary dependence. And this is generally true, although sometimes there are exceptions. So for example, the phrase in the beginning occurs numerous times in scripture. Yet all competent scholars agree that in John 1-1, when John writes in the beginning was the word, that involves a deliberate callback or illusion to Genesis 1-1. So just because images are used elsewhere and often throughout scripture, that doesn't necessarily undermine or falsify some literary dependence. So Hayes' literary dependence principle is flawed. Again, what is the principle? Whenever the extent to which an image is used elsewhere, the less likely it is that there is literary dependence. But given the example of quote-unquote in the beginning, that serves as a counter example of that principle. Again, in the beginning is used often, yet whenever John 1-1, whenever John uses it in chapter 1, verse 1 of his gospel, we know that there is literary dependence on in the beginning in Genesis 1-1, even though in the beginning is used often. So Hayes' literary dependence principle is flawed. That's our first answer. Here's our second answer in response to Hayes' objection here. We have reasons to affirm literary dependence, right? So not only is his literary dependence principle flawed, and thereby we defuse his objection or his challenge, but we do have positive reasons to affirm the literary dependence that Matthew 1619 and the keys of the kingdom of heaven have has on Isaiah 22. And here's the first reason. Limited prior use of the image of key entails literary dependence, right? That would be like a summary here of our first reason. There is a corollary principle to Hayes' principle that he articulates, and it's this. The fewer times an image occurs, especially when it's found prior to its current use, the more likely it is that there's literary dependence. And that supports reading Matthew 1619 in light of Isaiah 22, because far from being a stock image to use Hayes' ideas there in terminology, the metaphor of a key is found in only one place in the Old Testament. And that's Isaiah 22, 22. So remember, the principle, the fewer times an image occurs, especially when it's prior to its current use, the more likely there's gonna be literary dependence. The image of a key used only once prior in the Old Testament prior to Matthew 1619. And so given that Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, and the Jews would have been familiar with the image of a key occurring only once in their Old Testament, then we have strong reason to believe that there is indeed literary dependence on Isaiah 22, 22 in Matthew 1619, all right? So that's our first positive reason to affirm literary dependence. Second, the metaphor of the key is used in very similar circumstances. Consider for example, the parallel imagery of the kingdom. And I think we mentioned this last week, in last week's episode where we gave positive reasons to think that Isaiah 22, 22 serves as an interpretive context for Matthew 1619. You have the parallel imagery of the kingdom. Isaiah 22, 22 speaks of the house of David, that refers to the kingdom of David. It's just another way of saying it. Also, the parallel theme of having the authority to admit and exclude connects the two passages. This is signified in Matthew 1619 with the language of binding and loosing, right? And then in Isaiah 22, 22, you have the language of opening and shutting. He shall open, none shall shut. He shall shut, none shall open. So you have the idea of the authority to admit and exclude in both passages. So the metaphor of the key is used in very similar circumstances. The kingdom imagery and the authority to admit and exclude. And that provides for us reason to conclude that the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 1619 should be read and liked of and having literary dependence on the key of the house of David and the chief royal steward office in Isaiah 22, 15 through 22. So given again, given that Isaiah 22, 22 is the only text written before Matthew that has such a degree of similarity to Matthew 1619, it is most likely meant to form part of the conceptual background that Matthew is drawing on. Even Protestant scholars affirm this interpretation. So consider W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann in their volume Matthew, which is part of the anchor Yale Bible, they write Isaiah 22, 15 and four. And I think I quoted this in last week's episode. Undoubtedly lies behind this saying in Matthew 1619, the keys or the symbol of authority. And Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority, so Albright and Mann say, as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. So we have Protestant scholarly confirmation that the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 1619 should be read in light of and against the backdrop of the key of the house of David and the royal steward office in Isaiah 22, 15 through 22. So my friends, I am coming up on our first break here. So I'm gonna hit the pause button. And I hope you stay with me and join me on the other side because when we come back from the break, we're going to give a third answer to Hayes's objection trying to undermine the parallel between Matthew 1619 and Isaiah 22, 22. My friends, you're listening to The Catholic Reason. I'm Carlo Broussard, I'll talk to you on the other side of the break. Well, welcome back my friends to The Catholic Reason, a radio production of St. Michael Catholic Radio based here in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. My name is Dr. Carlo Broussard. I'm a staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers and a member of the Chancery Evangelization Team here at the Diocese of Tulsa in Eastern Oklahoma. So in our first segment, we started looking at one Protestant challenge to our interpretation of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew chapter 16, verse 19. And that particular challenge came from the late Protestant apologist Steve Hayes and his article Catholic proof text at the trial blog. And the idea with this objection is that, hey, listen, the imagery of keys, gates and doors, that's just stock imagery. And given its prevalent use within the New Testament, there's no reason for us to think that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 1619 is intended to be read in light of the key of the House of David and Isaiah 22. Now, in response, we gave two answers so far. We're going to continue giving another answer here in this segment. The first answer was that Hayes' literary dependence principle is flawed. His principle is that the greater amount of use of the image, right? To the extent a given image is used in scripture, the less likely it is that there's going to be direct literary dependence. And I mentioned how that's generally true, although there are counter examples, the phrase in the beginning, right? That's used elsewhere many times throughout scripture. But clearly in John 1-1, there's literary dependence upon Genesis 1-1 in the beginning in the creation story. So we have counter examples to refute Hayes' literary dependence principle. That is, we shouldn't follow it in an absolute sense. And then secondly, we actually have positive reasons to affirm literary dependence that Matthew 1619 has on Isaiah 22-22. We mentioned that limited prior use of the key imagery in the Old Testament, the only time it's used in the Old Testament would give us good reason to think that there is literary dependence in Matthew 1619 on Isaiah 22-22. And secondly, the metaphor of the key is being used in very similar circumstances in both passages. You have the imagery of the kingdom and you have the authority to admit and exclude. Thereby giving us reason to think that the key of House of David serves as an interpretive context for the keys of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus gives to Peter. Now, here's a third way in which we could respond to Hayes' challenge here. None of the New Testament passages that Hayes' sites proves that Isaiah 22-22 is not what Jesus has in mind. I mentioned in our first segment when I was articulating Hayes' objection that he cites a litany of New Testament passages where the image of the keys is being used, right? So if anything, the question raised is how many of these other passages are also drawing on Isaiah 22, right? So clearly at least one of them does. Hayes cites Revelation 3, 7, 3, 8, which reads, and to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, right? The words of the Holy One, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut and who shuts and no one opens, all right? So that's a passage to Hayes' sites. And this doesn't conflict with Matthew 16, 19, because Jesus is the one who holds the keys of his kingdom and virtue of being the king. And he is free to entrust the keys of his kingdom to whoever he wishes. So appealing to Revelation 3, 7, through 8, which talks of Jesus having the key of the house of David, does not conflict with our interpretation of Matthew 16, 19, because it's Jesus who's giving the key of the house of David or the key of the kingdom of David, new and transfigured and transformed, i.e. the church to Peter. The other New Testament passages cited by Hayes are even more problematic. So if anything, Revelation 3, 7 is gonna be the front runner for a refutation of our interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16, 19, and that doesn't work. And so the other passages, they just even become more problematic for Hayes' position. So for example, some, for example, refer to what is clearly a different key than the key of David's kingdom. So Revelation 3, 7, obviously referring to the key of David's kingdom and the specific illusion to Isaiah 22, 22. But the other passages that Hayes' sites that involve keys are just different keys completely. So Luke 11, 52 refers to the key of knowledge, but that's obviously not connected to Isaiah 22, 22, in any way. Revelation 1, 18 refers to the keys of death and Hades. That has no connection to Isaiah 22, 22. So that's not gonna be relevant to our exegesis of Matthew 16, 19. Revelation 9, 1, in chapter 20, verse 1, refer to the key to the bottomless pit. Remember, the question is not whether keys can refer to different concepts, of course they can. You can have a, what you can have a single metaphor that's applying to or referring to different concepts, trying to illustrate different concepts. That's not the issue at hand. Rather, the question is whether the key imagery in Matthew 16, 19 is drawing from Isaiah 22, 22. That's the key question. And the mere fact that the key imagery refers to different things elsewhere in the New Testament doesn't help us answer that question. The key imagery in Matthew 16, 19 could very well be referring to the same underlying concept as that of Isaiah 22, 22, even though other New Testament verses use different key metaphors. We can use a similar line of reasoning in response to other passages that Hades cites. passages that involve doors rather than keys. None of these instances of door imagery that his sights comes close to the door motif connected with the house or the kingdom of David. They all refer to different things. Consider Matthew 25, 10, the door to the wedding feast in heaven. That has no connection to Isaiah 22, 22. Acts 14, 27, a door of faith that got open for the Gentiles. Colossians 4, 3, a door for the word of God to be spread. Revelation 3, 20, a door to enter into table fellowship with Jesus. Like we saw with the key imagery, the question is not whether the door imagery can refer to different things. The question rather is whether the door/gate imagery implied by the keys in Matthew 16, 19 refers to the same underlying concept as that of Isaiah 22, 22. The mere fact that the door imagery is used for different concepts elsewhere in the New Testament does nothing for us as to arriving at an answer of whether the door imagery implied by the keys in Matthew 16, 19, is connected to the door imagery implied by the key of the house of David and Isaiah 22, 22. One passage Hades cites does have some superficial conceptual similarity to the passages of interests. And that's Matthew 23, 13, where Jesus says, "But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Despite there being no mention of a key or a door, the theme of being excluded from the kingdom, along with a concept of inherited authority, provides some grounds for at least a loose connection, where between Matthew 16, or connection with Matthew 16, 19, and Isaiah 22, 22. However, in Matthew 23, the authority the scribes and Pharisees have inherited doesn't come from David, rather it comes from Moses. Thus in chapter 23, verse two, Jesus observes that they sit on Moses' seat. This is a different source of authority, not related to the Davidic authority, that Jesus possesses as the Messianic son of David, and which he shares with Peter. So the door imagery in Matthew 23, 13 is not in any way going to undermine our attempt to draw the parallel between Matthew 16, 19 and Isaiah 22, 22. Okay, so that completes our response to Haze's objection concerning the images of keys, doors, and gates being stock imagery. We still have strong grounds to stand on, to continue to affirm the parallel between Matthew 16, 19 and Isaiah 22, 22, and look to Isaiah 22, 22. And in particular, the key of the kingdom of David as an interpretive context for what's going on in Matthew 16, 19. All right, so now we come to another challenge that's posed to our interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven and Matthew 16, 19. And that is that if it's not an exact parallel, then there's no papal authority, right? This comeback charges the Catholic position with arbitrarily picking and choosing the relevant details from Isaiah 22, 15 through 22 to justify a papal interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven and Matthew 16, 19. Protestant apologist, Jason Inger, at, again, at trial blog in his article does combining Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 lead us to the papacy, he puts the objection this way. Any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel. Since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22. So an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So Inger argues, if Jesus is God, he continues in Peter as the prime minister, then who is the king? He asks, some church official with more authority than Peter, what about Isaiah 22, 25? Should we assume that hopes can break off and fall and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God himself, citing Revelation 3, 7, rather than a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22 without drawing an exact parallel, then how can they claim that people authority is implied by the parallel? And elsewhere in a comment at trial blog, Inger gives a few other examples. But before I get there, I'm coming up on our second break. So I'm gonna have to hit the pause button. On the other side of the break, I'll pick back up with Inger's argument, summarize it again, and then we'll proceed to give some responses to Inger's argument and show why this objection does not undermine the parallel between Matthew 16, 19 and Isaiah 22. I'll talk to you on the other side of the break. You're listening to the Catholic reason. Well, welcome back my friends to the Catholic reason. If you're just joining me, we are looking at challenges to the Catholic interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. So you might entitle this episode, why Catholics aren't wrong about the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Our interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven is that Jesus is making Peter the chief royal steward of his new and transfigured Davidic kingdom, i.e. the church. And the clue for that is the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And in so far as he's the chief royal steward, Peter's the first pope. But some Protestants challenged that interpretation. We looked at one challenge from the late Protestant apologists that try a blog, Steve Hayes, saying that these images of keys, doors and gates is just stock imagery. We shouldn't be importing any sort of importance. There shouldn't be the keys of the kingdom of heaven shouldn't be seen as any sort of should not be seen as having literary dependence on Isaiah 22. So we responded to that objection. And then before our last break, I began to articulate another objection given by Protestant apologists also at try a blog, Jason Ingler, where he's arguing that we as Catholics, right, we're only going to want to draw a general parallel and not a complete parallel, because if there's a complete exact one-to-one match, then that's gonna lead to unfavorable consequences for us as a Catholic. So as he put it in his article does combining Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 lead us to the papacy. He writes at the end there, if Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22 without drawing an exact parallel, then how can they claim that people authority is implied by the parallel? Now elsewhere, in a comment at try a blog, Ingler gives a few other examples. How do you allegedly know that the prime minister role must be fulfilled only by Peter rather than Peter along with the other apostles or some such thing? So he questions. He goes on, how do you know that the prime minister role in the New Testament era isn't better than its Old Testament counterpart by not requiring any successors? For example, Peter's foundational work in building the church is sufficient and requires no succession, much as Jesus' work as high priest requires no succession. So Ingler is challenging the Catholic inference that Peter has people authority from this general parallel that we say Matthew 16 19 has with Isaiah 22. So here's how we can begin to respond to this. First of all, there's an unreasonable principle that Ingler is requiring of us Catholics for these parallels. Ingler argues that for the parallel between Matthew 16 19 and Isaiah 22 22 to imply people authority, there would have to be an exact parallel between the relevant details. That's his underlying assumption in his argument. But this is an unreasonable demand because that's not how prophetic for shadowing or intertextuality works. The New Testament authors themselves don't even honor Ingler's principle here. That is, in order to draw some inference, there must be an exact one-to-one match. Consider, for example, Matthew 2 15's reference to Hosea 11. The first two verses of Hosea 11 read as follows, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, "and out of Egypt, I called my son. "The more I called them, the more they went from me. "They kept sacrificing to the bios "and burning incense to idols." Again, that's Hosea 11 one through two. Matthew in chapter two verse 15 takes the phrase, quote unquote, "Out of Egypt, I called my son "in the first statement of Hosea 11 one through two "as a prefigurement of baby Jesus's return "from the flight of Egypt." Yet Matthew doesn't intend the latter part of the passage of Hosea 11 one through two to refer to Jesus since Jesus didn't go away from God, sacrificed to the bios and burned incense to their images. So notice even Matthew picks and chooses certain parts of a text in the Old Testament as a prophetic foreshadowing of what's to come into new, in the new. And there are numerous similar examples in the New Testament's use of the old. Whenever prophetic foreshadowing is in play, some elements foreshadow and some don't. There are continuities and discontinuities. If the New Testament authors employ this type of hermeneutic, when relating the Old Testament to the new, well then it's legitimate for us as Catholics to do the same. Specifically when it comes to the prophetic foreshadowing of Peter's royal steward in Jesus's New Testament kingdom, the fulfilled Davidic kingdom. Some things, some elements of the chief royal steward are gonna carry over. Some won't, there's gonna be some similarities, some dissimilarities. Now here's a second answer to Ingeur's objection. We have principled reasons to deny some parallels. So we have positive reasons to affirm parallels, but we also have reasons to deny some parallels. So the question might arise, well how do we know what applies and what doesn't in these partial parallels? Well sometimes the answer is found in other things scripture teaches. For example, we know that the two figures of God and King both apply to Jesus, both apply to Jesus because the New Testament reveals that Jesus is both at the same time, God by virtue of his divine nature and heir to the throne of David by virtue of his human nature, according to Luke 1.32. So sure in the Old Testament you have God and King but that applies both to Jesus. So Ingeur's argument of trying to show unfavourable consequences in our exegesis does not hold water. Regarding the detail about the sure peg giving way, remember Ingeur brought that up, which is talked about in Isaiah 22, 25. Jesus says that the church he builds on Peter, the rock, will withstand the onslaught of the forces of evil, for he says the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. That is against the church. If the gates of Hades will not prevail against Jesus's church and the church is built on Peter, well then surely the image of the peg giving way doesn't apply to Peter. And by way of extension to his successors. Unlike the foundation of the house of David that will give way, the foundation of Christ's house or his kingdom will not give way. And so that gives us reason to deny, to reject the parallel between the sure peg giving way and Peter being the rock and the keeper of the keys. We know that the royal steward role belongs to Peter alone because Jesus gives only Peter the keys of the kingdom. Remember Ingeur brought up this idea, well how do we know that the keys of the kingdom in this role is not as only for Peter and not maybe involving the other apostles? Well, the royal steward role is given only to Peter because only he is said to have the keys of the kingdom. And only after promising to give Peter the keys does Jesus reveal that the other apostles can corporately participate in the authority of the keys by quote unquote binding and loosing. That's in Matthew 1818. And in response to Ingeur's last question, we know that Peter would not be the only royal steward because his job was not to build the church because Jesus had that job, I would build my church but rather to govern it, right? Because Ingeur's last question, remember, was, how do you know that the prime minister role in the New Testament era isn't better than its Old Testament counterpoint by not requiring successors, right? And he asked, how do you allegedly know that the prime minister role must be fulfilled? Oh, and here that's the question. How do you know that the prime minister role must be fulfilled only by Peter rather than Peter alone with the other apostles or some such thing, right? Well, again, only Peter has given the keys of the kingdom and we know that Peter would not be the only, oh yeah, with regard to successors. We know Peter would not be the only royal steward because his job was not to build the church but rather to govern. And since the church has promised to exist and to the end of time, there's going to be a need for other royal stewards to succeed Peter to govern the church beyond Peter. So that meets Inghor's challenge as to how we know the royal steward role is not only for Peter, thereby excluding successors, but that it would be open to succession. And that's the reason. This is a governing role of the kingdom of Jesus. Since the kingdom of Jesus is going to be present here on earth until the end of time, thereby it needs a role of governance. And what's that role? The chief royal steward. So if Peter's the chief royal steward, then there's going to be successors as well. Okay, so that completes our response to Inghor's objection concerning the exact, the demand for the exact one-to-one parallel in order to infer papal authority. The bottom line is that you do not need an exact one-to-one match in the parallel in order to infer papal authority. All right, so I think the final objection that we're going to look at in today's episode, and this is indeed the final one we'll look at today. And that is the focus on the key, which is singular in Isaiah 22, 22. And the keys, which is plural, the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16, 19. Some Protestants look to this distinction as evidence that there is no literary dependence in Matthew 16, 19 on Isaiah 22. So James, Protestant apologist James White makes this argument in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy. On page 249, here's what he writes in footnote 18. Upon what basis do we identify the keys, plural, of the kingdom of heaven, which are associated plainly with the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the key singular of the house of David, which is messianic in nature. And should we not instead accept the interpretation given by the Lord Jesus himself when he cites Isaiah 22, 22 of himself in Revelation 3, 7. And then White quotes that passage, right? Jesus has present tense. He has present tense, the key singular of David. White concludes, he does not say that he gives this key to anyone else. So notice White's emphasis on the key singular in Isaiah 22, 22, which Jesus identifies as himself possessing in Revelation 3, 7, for White because that is a singular key that is not an interpretive context for the keys, plural, that is spoken of in Matthew 16, 19. And so thereby White concludes, Jesus is not making Peter the chief royal steward. Now I'm gonna have to stop right there. We're coming up on our break. You're listening to the Catholic reason. I'll talk to you on the other side. Well, welcome back to my friends to the Catholic reason. My name is Dr. Carlo Bruceard. I'm a staff apologist and speaker for Catholic cancers at catholic.com and a member of the Chancery Evangelization team here at the Diocese of Tulsa in Eastern Oklahoma. In today's episode of the Catholic reason, we've been looking at challenges, Protestant challenges, to our Catholic interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven being given to Peter in Matthew 16, 19. The Catholic claim is that Jesus is making Peter the chief royal steward. But our Protestant friends have some reasons why they think that is not the case. We've looked at two of them so far in today's episode and gave some responses to those challenges to try and meet them and show that these challenges do not succeed to undermine our Catholic interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And then before our last break, I started to articulate another Protestant objection or come back offered by Protestant apologist James White where he sees the singular key of the house of David in Isaiah 22, 22, and Jesus possessing that singular key in Revelation 3, 7 as evidence that that key of the house of David is not meant to be an interpretive context for the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter in Matthew chapter 16, verse 19. And so thereby, so White argues, refuting the Catholic argument or blocking the Catholic inference that Peter has people authority in light of him being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. So how might we respond to White's Protestant comeback here? Well, I'm gonna give four answers to the objection. First of all, Jesus can give his key to whomever he wants, right? White's issue about Jesus possessing the key of David poses no threat to a papal argument from the keys of the kingdom. Since Catholics affirm that Jesus is indeed the Davidic king and that the key belongs to him by right. And this being the case, he can bestow it upon whomever he chooses. Now, granted, this response does indeed assume that we can refer, we can parallel and correlate the key of the house of David and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, right? So assuming that we could do that, just because Jesus has the key of his kingdom doesn't mean he cannot give it to somebody else. He can bestow it upon, I mean, even in the Old Testament, the key of the house of David belong to the king, right? The king had the authority, but he can invest that key to whomever he wishes. So too would Jesus. So the mere fact that Jesus possesses the key of his kingdom, Revelation 3.7, doesn't block a Catholic interpretation of papal authority in the keys of the kingdom because Jesus can give that which he rightfully has of himself authority in the kingdom to someone else, namely Peter. Secondly, the real question is whether the key of David in Isaiah 22 and its relevant context concerning the office of the royal steward serves as an interpretive context for the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 1619, right? White says no, in part because one is singular and the other is plural, but regardless if one is singular and the other is plural, the question still remains, well, is Matthew drawing from is Jesus and is recorded by Matthew drawing from Isaiah 2222? The real question is, is the key singular of the house of David an interpretive context for the keys plural of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16? Regardless of their singular or plural because it could be the case, right? That the key singular of the house of David is an interpretive context of the keys plural of the kingdom of heaven. Remember, once we understand that there doesn't have to be an exact one-to-one match, it still could be the case that Isaiah 2222 is a backdrop for Matthew 1619. Now we already gave reasons to think that Isaiah 2222 in its context serves as an interpretive context for Matthew 1619. Beyond those that we've already given, there are a few ways that we can show why White's argument fails. First, it should be noted that White's difficulty with the singular and plural distinction is a minority view among Protestant scholars. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong in his book, Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy gives a litany of such scholars. The late Evangelical Protestant Biblical scholar, F.F. Bruce is one example. I'm not gonna go through the list that Armstrong gives. And if anybody knows about Dave Armstrong, he likes to give a list of things. So in F.F. Bruce's contribution to the book, "Hard Sayings" and the Bible, he writes this. And what about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major do-mo. He carried them on his shoulder in earlier times and they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C., Bruce goes on and Oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim. And then he quotes Isaiah 22, "I will place on his shoulder "the key of the house of David. "Whatever he opens, no one can shut. "In whatever he shuts, no one can open." So, Bruce concludes, "In the new community "that Jesus was about to build, "Peter would be," so to speak, "chief steward," right? So, the point here is that White's concern about the key being singular and the keys being plural is a minority view, right? The majority of even Protestant scholars recognize that the key singular of the house of David in Isaiah 22, 22 is an interpretive context of the keys plural of the kingdom of heaven. So, the singular plural distinction does not pose a problem for the majority of Protestant scholars. Now, here's a third way in which we can meet White's challenge here. As we saw in the Hosea example, previously in a prior segment, there are Hosea 11, one through 11. No, excuse me, one through two. There are other examples in which New Testament authors interpret an event in light of an Old Testament text without an exact one-to-one match of every detail. Remember, Matthew 2, 15, Matthew draws from Hosea 11, one through two, without an exact one-to-one match. He draws some elements, but not others. That one passage, so given that biblical precedent, that one passage says key singular and the other keys plural does not mean Matthew couldn't have been doing likewise in this case. So, just as Matthew picks and chooses what he is inspired to pick and choose from Hosea 11, so too, Matthew is just drawing on some elements of the Old Testament backdrop of Isaiah 22, 15 through 22, namely, the chief royal steward office itself, even though it's a key singular and keys plural that Jesus gives to Peter. Finally, the fourth response or the fourth way in which we can meet White's challenge here is that it leads to an absurd conclusion, even for Revelation 3.7. Remember, White appealed to Revelation 3.7 as a reason to not draw a parallel between Matthew 16, 19 and Isaiah 22, 22. So, think about this. An interpretive principle that would demand an exact one-to-one match of every detail would lead to absurdities, even for a Protestant. Consider how Revelation 3.7 says that Jesus has the key of David. As White argues in his objection that I prefer to earlier, this is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, right? Okay, here's the question. Must we conclude that Jesus is not the Davidic king, but merely the royal steward? Since it was the royal steward who was given the key of the house of David? Of course not, right? So, the idea here is if we were to follow White's principle, that there needs to be an exact one-to-one match. Remember, White says key singular, keys plural, because of that distinction, there's no match there. The key of the house of David is not an interpretive context for the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Well, if we were to follow that principle of a demand for an exact one-to-one match, then we would have to conclude that Jesus, who has the key of the house of David in Revelation 3.7, is not the Davidic king, because the one who has the key of the house of David in Isaiah 22, 22 is the royal steward. But of course, that's absurd. Jesus is not merely the royal steward. He is the Davidic king. And as we said earlier, it's his key of that kingdom, and he can give it to whomever he pleases. So there is no reason for us to concede to White's principle that there must be an exact one-to-one match in order to see literary dependence. Just as you have literary dependence, where between literary dependence on Isaiah 22, 22 in Revelation 3.7 without an exact one-to-one match, so too, you can have literary dependence on Isaiah 22, 22 in Matthew 16, 19 without an exact one-to-one match. In particular, that exact one-to-one match of key being singular and keys being plural. So again, if White is able to interpret Revelation 3.7, in light of Isaiah 22, 22, without an exact match in details, whether in soaking Catholics when it comes to interpreting Matthew 16, 19. So White's argument here that there's this distinction between key singular and keys plural fails. It does not succeed to undermine our Catholic interpretation of the keys of the kingdom of heaven being read in light of Isaiah 22, 22, and thereby revealing Peter to be the chief royal steward in Jesus's kingdom, thus revealing his role as the first pope. Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this week's episode of the Catholic reason. Our claim here is that Peter is the keeper of the keys, and thus the chief royal steward of Jesus's kingdom, that is the church, and that stands strong against counter responses. The image of the key is not stock imagery in the Old Testament, the only instance being Isaiah 22, and the reference to the chief royal steward. It's unreasonable, secondly, to demand an exact one-to-one match for every detail in the two passages. And thirdly, the distinction between the singular key and the plural keys poses no threat to our Catholic exegesis. Isaiah 22, 22 can still be the interpretive context despite the slight difference, again, because there doesn't need to be an exact one-to-one match to make certain inferences. Friends, thank you for listening to the Catholic reason, a production of St. Michael Catholic Radio, based here in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Remember, you can download the show, whichever podcast platform you use by subscribing to the Eastern Oklahoma Catholic podcast. Check out my website, cholobursor.com. It's archived there under the audio tab. Join me again next week for the Catholic reason. Tell a friend, I'll talk to you then. God bless. [MUSIC PLAYING]
