Isaiah 22 and Matt 16: Is Scott Hahn the first person in the history of the Church to draw a parallel?

[Per_Crucem]

Indeed it is. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The Lectionary is part of the Church’s lex orandi.

So any time I see two passages together in the lectionary, I can assume it’s the Church’s official intepretation (even though there IS no interpretation in the lectionary, just the passages themselves)?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Oh, sorry, I just reviewed the top and saw that the original post was from PRMerger, not you. I got confused.

No worries, porthos.

 

[Wampa]

Can somebody post the url to the earlier thread that this is clearly building off of? This would be easier to follow for those new to the topic.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Can somebody post the url to the earlier thread that this is clearly building off of? This would be easier to follow for those new to the topic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=948261&page=8

Starts with post #120.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So there are no source for the origin? ECF’s?

I think maybe Origen, but I can’t find it on my resources…

Parallels are just that: parallels. And this is a really good parallel. However, there is no explicit teaching on how the power of the keys is to be exercised and Church history in the first 1,400+ years is very different in what is presently exercised. Meaning that this parallel did not hold much weight (As for the exercise) if it was drawn before the 1,400’s.

 

[spiderweb]

I think the connection is implicit among the Church Fathers. The giving of the Keys is viewed unanimously as being given authority. They didn’t have to reference the Old Testament to understand this, and therefore the Church Fathers don’t. It just simply was understood.

I have an old Catholic Catechism that was written before Scott Hahn was even born that connects the two passages, so no Scott was not the first.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So there are no source for the origin? ECF’s?

I think maybe Origen, but I can’t find it on my resources…

Parallels are just that: parallels. And this is a really good parallel. However, there is no explicit teaching on how the power of the keys is to be exercised and Church history in the first 1,400+ years is very different in what is presently exercised. Meaning that this parallel did not hold much weight (As for the exercise) if it was drawn before the 1,400’s.

His homilies on Isaiah, the earlier chapters including this is missing. Eusebius of Caesarea is one of the older complete works which is influenced by Origen. I haven’t read it. You can see the influence.

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, “[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.”

Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, AD 232, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History, “Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.”

And so forth…

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=635

“Of this Church, Peter, the Apostle, on account of the Primacy of his Apostleship, bore a character which represented the whole Church. For as to what personally regards him, he was by nature but one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace, one, and that the First Apostle. But when there was said to him, ‘I will give unto him the keys,’ He signified the whole Church, which, in this world is, by divers trials, as it were, by rains, rivers, and tempests, agitated, but falls not, because it was built upon a Rock, whence Peter derived his name. For a rock is not derived from Peter, but Peter from a Rock, as Christ is not derived from Christian, but Christian from Christ. For therefore does the Lord say, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Upon this Rock, therefore, which thou has confessed, I will build my Church. For Christ was the Rock; upon which Foundation, even Peter himself was built. ‘For other foundation can no man lay but that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ The Church therefore which is founded on Christ, received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven from Him, that is, the power of binding and loosing sins.” (T.iii.Tract.Cxxiv.in Joan.n, co.599)

And being a Saint made the connection, its a good parallel. Seems to me its one of those topics that more and more is discovered with Isaiah 22.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And being a Saint made the connection, its a good parallel. Seems to me its one of those topics that more and more is discovered with Isaiah 22.

Yes; but Jesus Himself seemed to have a different idea of Isaiah 22 in mind, esp. as it refers to the keys of David and opening and shutting; cf. Rev. 3:7. Does He apply it here to Peter?

Be that as it may, my point was not whether Hahn’s interpretation is correct; only that it is his interpretation and therefore, private.

 

[triumphguy]

So any time I see two passages together in the lectionary, I can assume it’s the Church’s official intepretation (even though there IS no interpretation in the lectionary, just the passages themselves)?

Why do you think those passages are placed together in the first place? Coincidence?

Why is Genesis 11:1-9 (The Tower of Babel) picked for Pentecost?

Why is Exod 12:1-8, 11-14 picked for Holy Thursday?

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,
2 "This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you.
3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household;
4 and if the household is too small for a lamb, then a man and his neighbor next to his house shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb.
5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats;
6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
7 Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.
11 In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s passover.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.
13 The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, the Book of Revelation draws a strong parallel.

Jesus describes himself as the one who holds the Key of David in Rev. 3:7 –

‘These things says the Holy One and the True one, He Who has the Key of David; He Who opens, and no man shuts; shuts, and no man opens.’

We then see the Lamb loose the seven seals of the Book which nobody else can open – (Rev. 5:1-8)

'And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose “solvere”] the seals thereof?” And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it.

'And one of the ancients said to me, “Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”

‘And I saw, and behold! in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him Who sat on the throne. And when He had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb…’

There is a LOT of talk about the Key of David and the keys of binding and loosing in early Book of Revelation commentaries. (And apparently there’s quite a bit in Psalm commentaries, albeit from the point of view of Jesus’ life and teaching “loosing” the seals on understanding OT Biblical prophecy, particularly in the Psalms that have Christological content.)

The thing with the Fathers is that they often seem to expect you to know a lot already, and they think a lot of Biblical parallels are almost too obvious to talk about. Meanwhile, anything that touches too closely on the Mysteries of the sacraments, and anything that might be interpreted as threatening to the Imperial authorities, tend to be mentioned in only the most veiled terms by most of the earliest Fathers. So sometimes you have to look in weird places.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Why do you think the passages are placed together in the first place? coincidence?

Why is Genesis 11:1-9 picked for Pentecost?

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 11:1-9[/BIBLEDRB]

Why is Exod 12:1-8, 11-14 picked for Holy thursday?

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:1-8[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 11-14[/BIBLEDRB]

No, of course it’s not a coincidence. That doesn’t mean it is, however, an interpretation. I am referring to the general principle… not only in this specific instance.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

His homilies on Isaiah, the earlier chapters including this is missing. Eusebius of Caesarea is one of the older complete works which is influenced by Origen. I haven’t read it. You can see the influence.

And so forth…

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=635

And being a Saint made the connection, its a good parallel. Seems to me its one of those topics that more and more is discovered with Isaiah 22.

Didn’t look into Eusebius! Thanks, Gary.

However, the shutting and closing is not exclusive, as later (Matt 18) - this authority is given to the other Apostles as well.

The absence of Matt 18 would support the current interpretation of the power of the keys.

Further, not only Rome but Antioch (And any other See where there is an immediate successor of Peter) would share in the power of the keys in virtue of what follows in that same chapter (vv. 24). Which is what so many of the ECF’s said in regards to the power of the keys and the Bishops of the Church.

But yes, the parallel is definitely present.

 

[Mintaka]

I forgot to mention that the “key of power” (clavis potentiae) is traditionally associated with actually doing stuff like binding and loosing, whereas the “key of knowledge” (clavis scientiae) is traditionally associated with the Magisterium and being able to know what to ask and do with sinners. The “key of knowledge” verse is Luke 11:52. St. Maximus of Turin talked about this.

(And this also goes along with later rabbinical folks turning the Key of David from a symbol of royal power to a symbol of rabbinical power.)

Another place to look for “key of knowledge” stuff is actually patristic commentaries on Isaiah 29:11, because Isaiah says his prophecy is “like a book that is sealed.” So again, it doesn’t seem obvious to us, because our Bible interpretation training and reading patterns are different; but it seems pretty darned obvious to the Fathers that they should start talking about Revelation and the keys and all of that, right in the middle of talking about Isaiah 29. And that leads them to talking about the importance of having a teacher, and generally they’re thinking about bishops and those trained by bishops.

The other thing about patristics is that the quotations and references can get very dense, so even if you go and get the big index volumes of patristic Bible quotations (which actually aren’t fully done and released yet, IIRC), you are practically guaranteed to find more quotations that aren’t listed, as soon as you start doing an in-depth study of any work by one of the Fathers.

So it’s not easy to find a really complete answer to this sort of question, without doing a lot of studying and browsing for yourself. (Not to mention having a lot of luck with libraries, or these days, with search engines.)

 

[Mintaka]

But the other reason that you’re not going to find it is that there is a certain amount of distinction between the keys of binding and loosing given to Peter, and the power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles (Mt. 18:18), and the power of forgiving sins which was given to the disciples after the Resurrection (Jn. 20:23). So generally you’re going to see more discussion of how those verses relate to each other, or how they don’t.

And now I will quit writing up postscripts about this question! Really! I mean it this time!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes; but Jesus Himself seemed to have a different idea of Isaiah 22 in mind, esp. as it refers to the keys of David and opening and shutting; cf. Rev. 3:7. Does He apply it here to Peter?

Be that as it may, my point was not whether Hahn’s interpretation is correct; only that it is his interpretation and therefore, private.

St John ordained Bishop Demetrius of Philadelphia…

XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ;, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20

newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm

Christianity was introduced into Philadelphia in Apostolic times. According to the “Apostolic Constitutions” (VII, xlvi), its first bishop Demetrius must have been appointed by St. John. The apologist St. Miltiades mentions a prophetess Ammia who must have belonged to the primitive Church of Philadelphia (Eusebius, Church History V.17). One of the seven letters of the Apocalypse is addressed to the Bishop of Philadelphia (Revelation 1, 2, 3:7-13). This bishop was highly commended, St Ignatius of Antioch later sent to the Christians of Philadelphia

Apostolic succession by the Apostles in communion with Peter as St Augustine stated I would venture to say. No one received the Keys but Peter. Like Origen stated about Matthew and the Keys; “Its no small thing Peter received the Keys”.

Being not in communion with St Peter-Keys isn’t mutually exclusive with 18:18 imho.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m not sure I follow where you’re going here. You asked this:

How is a lectionary proof that the church fathers, councils et al. interpreted Isaiah 22 to be referring to the papacy? I was looking for other interpretations that comport with Scott Hahn from the early church, not a modern lectionary.

and then posted this:

No. What I asserted was that in the first millennium of Christian history, no one made any hint of connection between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16, other than St. John Cassian. What the modern Latin lectionary has as readings is not germaine to what the church has always believed if no one from the first thousand years of the church substantively believed it.

So you seem to have answered your own question. “Other than St. John Cassian”. In other words, in the first millenium of the Church, St. John Cassian made the association. As we say in my part of the world, “St. Jean Cassien, ce n’est pas un toothpick!” (St. John Cassian ain’t no toothpick!).

He is one of the founders of Western monasticism, from whom St. Benedict borrowed extensively in crafting his famous Rule. I would give significant weight to what he wrote.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Being not in communion with St Peter-Keys isn’t mutually exclusive with 18:18 imho.

What is the purpose of the keys?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m not sure I follow where you’re going here. You asked this:

and then posted this:

So you seem to have answered your own question. “Other than St. John Cassian”. In other words, in the first millenium of the Church, St. John Cassian made the association. As we say in my part of the world, “St. Jean Cassien, ce n’est pas un toothpick!” (St. John Cassian ain’t no toothpick!).

He is one of the founders of Western monasticism, from whom St. Benedict borrowed extensively in crafting his famous Rule. I would give significant weight to what he wrote.

For sure. His view in no way represents a consensus of the Church any more than Jerome’s rejection of the deuterocanonical books, though. That is to say, an individual’s interpretation is important but is not a determining factor in whether the entire church believed it.

 

[Todd977]

Is the connection between Isaiah 22:

I will place the key[j] of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.

and Matthew 16:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.[n] Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

something only Scott Hahn has been able to associate?

Or have there been other theologians, church fathers, popes and councils who have also drawn this connection?

I don’t know who was the first to connect Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 but Christians have been doing it for at least the last 400 years.

Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) quotes Matthew 16:19 in his commentary on Isaiah 22:22. (source)

The 1592 Rheims New Testament appears to give marginal cross-references to Isaiah 22:22 and Isaiah 22, as “Esa. 22, 22” and “Esa. 22,” in its commentary on Matthew 16:19. (source)

The 1859 edition of Haydock’s Bible references Matthew 16:19 in its commentary on Isaiah 22:22. It cross-references Matthew 16:19 to Isaiah 22:22 And in its commentary on Matthew 16:19, it quotes Anglican churchman Dr. Henry Hammond (1605-1660) on Matthew 16:19 as writing, " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signify ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it." (source, source)

Similarly, Presbyterian Matthew Henry (1662-1714) cites Isaiah 22:22 in his 1706 commentary on Matthew 16:13-20. (source)

 

[pablope]

Is the connection between Isaiah 22:

I will place the key[j] of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.

and Matthew 16:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.[n] Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

something only Scott Hahn has been able to associate?

Or have there been other theologians, church fathers, popes and councils who have also drawn this connection?

No. I have a CD from him where he recounts where he first encountered this. It was in researching for a doctoral paper, when he found this in a commentary, as a protestant.

So he used it in his doctoral paper. Then when he found out, the Church had connected this in the readings for the nth Sunday…(I forgot which Mass readings that Isiah 22 and Math 16 are together as a set of readings).