My response to this claim will follow two lines of argument. First, the very idea of a papacy runs clearly counter to the teaching of the Bible, and, therefore, responding to supposed biblical evidence for a thing which literally cannot be biblical is not needed. The second is to, for the sake of argument, allow for the possibility that the papacy is a valid office, and respond to the specific claim that Isaiah 22:22 could be a prophecy or prefigure of such an office.
Let me talk first about the papacy itself. Historically, the Roman papacy evolved between roughly the fourth and eighth centuries from earlier practices of church offices. The early church had elders (presbuteros), also called overseers (episkopos) and shepherds (poemas). All three labels are used of the same person in 1 Peter 5:1-4. The elder/bishop was required to have been married and to have had a family (1 Timothy 3:2-7, Titus 1:5-9) The early church did not have a separate priestly office. Peter tells us that every Christian is a priest. We are a “royal priesthood.” (1 Peter 2:9). This general priesthood of all believers was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 19:6). The role of the priest is to be a bridge (pontifex), an intercessor, a mediator between humans and God. We have only one mediator between us and the Father, and that mediator is Jesus Christ, our high priest! “There is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 2:5). Paul makes this statement about our lack of need of a human priest just before he lists the qualities required of an elder. The biblical elder is not a priest.
Unfortunately, by the second century, the early church divided the eldership/pastoral office into the bishop/overseer and the elder. Over the next several centuries, the bishop evolved into archbishops who ruled over bishops, metropolitans who ruled over archbishops, and, finally, into the pontifex maximus (meaning the great high priest), or pope, who ruled authoritatively over all of Christendom. To take such an office is to presumptuously take the role given to Jesus Christ. He is our pontifex maximus. He is our high priest. In the meantime, the role of elder evolved in parallel into the office of priest. By the third century, only priests and bishops were allowed to perform the Lord’s Supper/eucharist, to do baptisms and other church functions. Eventually, priests took the role as sole mediators between believers and God. The pope became the ultimate mediator, when, biblically, only Jesus is our mediator. We do not need earthly priests, nor do we need earthly high priests such as popes. The papacy, as currently exists, is an abominable abuse of the biblical role of the priesthood of all believers and the high priesthood of Jesus. No amount of fishing for scriptures which supposedly support an office which is clearly disallowed by the Bible can undo the biblical facts about the priesthood of all believers and the high priesthood on the order of Melchizedek of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7). If the papacy is an unbiblical and even an anti-biblical office, which it is, then searching for proof-texts to support such an office will be a fruitless effort.
But now, part two of my response. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the office of the papacy, as it currently exists in the Roman Catholic Church, as an authoritative, infallible, high priestly role over all true believers in Christ. The next question, again, for the sake of argument, is whether Isaiah 22:22 could be seen as a foreshadowing of this office. If one is searching the Bible for proof-texts of the papacy, one would naturally come to Isaiah 22:20-24. There is some potential parallel between this passage and the current Roman papacy. “In that day I will summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David: what he opens, no one can shut, and what he shuts, no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his Father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots.”
No doubt, there are potential parallels between this foreshadow and the Roman papacy. The pope wears robes and sashes. He claims authority over the church. The current pope claims to hold the “key” to the kingdom of God, and to have the power to open and shut the kingdom of God. There are a smaller number of parallels between this passage and the chief Roman Catholic proof-text for the papacy, which is Matthew 16:17-19, where Peter is told that he will be given the keys to the kingdom, and that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. If we allow for the biblical possibility of a Christian high-priestly role for a human “pope,” then this passage could be seen as a foreshadow of such a role. Bottom line, this is an interesting passage as it relates to the papacy and to Matthew 16:17-19.
But, let us drop back a bit. Let us look at Isaiah 22:20-24, let us look at the apostle Peter, and let us consider alternative possible interpretations of Isaiah 22:20-24. I will have to acknowledge that it is not crazy to, at least propose, that this passage is a foreshadow of the biblical role that Peter, and perhaps the other apostles as well, took. But I would propose an alternative interpretation. I propose that, despite parallels with Matthew 16, this is first and foremost, not a prophecy about Peter, but a messianic prophecy. Peter never had all authority, but Jesus certainly did (Matthew 28:18). Peter may have been given the keys to the kingdom (which he used in his opening sermon in Acts 2), but Jesus is the only one who is over the house of David. Peter was not born in Bethlehem, and he is not the root of Jesse!!! He may have held a set of keys, but he did not “shoulder the key to the house of David.” Peter never took anything even remotely like a “seat of honor.” Only Jesus has ever taken such a seat, as Peter himself noted in Acts 2:34-35. Peter never would have even considered taking “All glory of his [God’s] family on him.” (Isaiah 22:24). In fact, Peter would have considered putting such a label on any mere human as blasphemy. Even the present-day popes would not take all of the elements of this prophecy on themselves, although they would take more than Peter would have.
So, I will acknowledge that there are some interesting parallels between Matthew 16:17-19 and Isaiah 22:20-24. I would agree with your claim that this does not amount to “blatantly sloppy typology.” These parallels, honestly, are curious ones. Perhaps there is some sort of double-prophecy here about Jesus, but also about Peter. Maybe. I would not rule that out. But, in the big picture, this prophecy is about Jesus, not Peter (or, more cautiously, it is principally about Jesus, not Peter)!!! This is most definitely not a foreshadow of the current Roman papacy. If it is not principally a prophecy about Peter (it is not), then it certainly is no foreshadow of the papacy.
The use of Isaiah 22:20-24 as supposed biblical support of the papacy is a clever, but ultimately fruitless effort to provide evidence that the papacy is from God. In the first part of this article, I showed clearly that the entire idea of a high-priestly, all authoritative papacy is fundamentally unbiblical and even anti-biblical. In the second part of the article, I demonstrated that Isaiah 22:20-24, despite some curious parallels with Matthew 16:17-19, is principally a messianic foreshadow, not a papal or a Peter foreshadow.
This was a fun question!
John Oakes
