Truth Unites - Engaging Suan Sonna's Typological Argument for the Papacy

Episode Date: December 9, 2022

In this video I engage Suan Sonna's typological argument for the papacy in Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. At 43:57 I meant Matthew 16, not Matthew 18.    Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.  Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.    SUPPORT:  Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites  One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites   FOLLOW:  Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/  Website: https://gavinortlund.com/   MY ACADEMIC WORK: https://gavinortlund.com/mypublications/

Hey everybody. In this video, I'm going to give a more detailed interaction with Swan Sana's typological argument for the papacy from Isaiah 22 in the office of Eliakim of three sections. First, introductory comments for why the discussion is worth continuing, because I know some people say, oh, more rebuttal videos. I get that, but I want to address that. Second, I want to summarize where the differences are as I see them. And then thirdly, I want to lay out my own positive case for what Matthew 16 means. I've got about half an hour before I have to go pick up my kids, so I'll go quickly. And as you can see, we've, temperatures have plummeted to the 50s here in Ohio. So this is the first time I've ever worn a coat in a video. But when I first moved to

Southern California, we moved from Chicago. We would make fun of people for, you know, it'd be like 50 degrees and people would have scarves on and things like this. We would just make fun of people and now it's it's us because it's the only chance you have to wear stuff like that so but at any rate let me dive right in for the sake of time here I am complaining about the time

and I'm wasting time why is this discussion worth continuing I sometimes you read comments where people feel weary with rebuttal videos response videos I do understand that but let me just speak to that a little bit so number one

this conversation is really worth having. There's a lot of complexity to it. It's very important. And a lot of times we just need to have patience for these discussions. Sometimes you get the feeling that people want to have this kind of conclusive ending to close the loop and shut the door and move on to other things. These are complicated issues. It's good to have these conversations. I want to encourage people to have patience for these discussions as they rumble on. Now, some people say, well, why don't you guys just get together and talk. I did offer that to Swan. That was my first offer and we've been emailing back and forth and we felt like me making this video was a good next step. But we can

leave things open for the future as well. But whether that happens or not, I do want to encourage people to not assume that just doing one dialogue is going to resolve everything. That often isn't how it works, but sometimes you get the feeling that people just have the mentality in the comments like, well, if you guys just, why don't you guys just get together and talk? And that'll, you know, it's like, well, we can do that too. But I take a both-and approach with response videos and dialogues and debates. I just think all of it can have value. There's pros and cons to everything. I actually have a higher view of rebuttal videos because you have time to think about it in advance. And I work really hard on my script so I don't dilly-dally. I work really hard. I write out every

word of every YouTube video. And then I, like, it's like my sermons. I write them out, but then I talk about it. I go off of the script, but I write out to not waste your time to get right to the point because it's annoying if someone's repeating themselves over and over or talking about the weather. But anyway, so response videos have some value like that. There's pros and cons either way, but and dialogues have response to have value to. For example, you can sometimes just clarify things in the moment during a dialogue. So there's really great things to that. It depends entirely on how they are done, you know. But I just want to encourage people to have patience for these videos back and forth as we're working through these things because they're complicated. And sometimes the pathway of

truth, it's like an academics. It takes a lot of time to kind of work through things. All right, the second introductory remark I wanted to make is that I understand it. I can see that Swan felt frustrated understandably that I didn't engage his more recent defenses of his typological argument for the papacy in my last two videos where I commented on it. And I can really appreciate where he's coming from. imagine you spend a ton of time lots of research crafting this argument and then people are talking about it publicly and they're not getting into the weeds. I can, I really can understand how frustrating that can be. To try to explain where I was coming from just a little bit, my two videos where I commented on the argument were really not designed for that. They weren't

addressing Swan specifically. One was addressing Jimmy Aiken, the other Cameron Bertuzi. And the video on Cameron talked about a lot of different things. The section on the typological argument for the papacy was less than five minutes. And I was just trying to kind of summarize my conclusions about it and state my general arguments about it. So I don't think it's fair totally to expect that there'd be lots of, you know, getting into the weeds and in-depth responses and so forth. But having said that, I can truly appreciate where Swan is coming from and feeling a little frustrated because he was referenced a lot and his defenses didn't really come into the picture all. lot or very much at all, really. So I want to just acknowledge that. I can see where he's coming from.

I'm sorry for the frustration. But the thing is, like, just because we haven't done that yet, doesn't mean we can't do that now. So I'm trying to get into that a little bit now. Even though, even this video won't be exhaustive, but I'll try to, at least we'll start pushing in the right direction and get into some of these points. So another thing I wanted to really quickly clarify, then we'll go right into the substance, is I had used the word careful. I had said, The non-typological arguments for the papacy are more careful than from Matthew 16 are more careful than the typological arguments. And that is my position. I do hold to that.

But afterwards, it occurred to me that someone could take that as though that was a personal comment about Swan specifically. And I didn't even think of it like that. But then later, when I saw his video had the word careful in it, I thought, I hope he didn't take that as a personal jab. That grieves me because I don't think he's uncareful at all. I think Swan is very careful, both in his argumentative rigor and in the interpersonal nature of things. He's very careful. He's extremely conscientious, professional, careful in how he conducts himself, at least everything I've seen from him. So I really wanted to apologize if it came across like that and clarify that was not.

You can think that in a particular type of argument from typology to doctrine is structurally not sound, and it's uncareful. as a way to argue. And I do, that is my position, as I'm about to explain, without thinking someone who's using that argument is personally uncareful. So I just wanted to clarify that and just trying to help things moving forward. So just a friendly reminder for people in the Protestant space as well. Just a friendly reminder. Make your arguments be rigorous in your arguments, lean into your arguments, but let's be kind in the comments. Okay. All right. Let me now, second section of the video. Let me just summarize where I think we disagree. And I've two points here. The first is how we use typology. The second is the nature of Alayakim's office in the Old

Testament. And these correspond to the main two concerns about this argument that I've articulated elsewhere. For example, in my video on Cameron's conversion, for example. So first, with respect to how we use typology, I want to start with like the big picture. My typology run amok concern. Sometimes if sensitive to people following along the response video is feeling lost, You know, it's like four-hour video over here. Now, Ortland's got a long video over here. You know, let me try to just in one sentence get at the forest rather than the trees. What is the big picture here? What is my main concern with this argument? We have a lot of agreement on the general nature of typology.

Swan's definition from RT France at the 21 minute 47 second marker of his recent video is great, the definition. and I agree with a lot of the specific points of pushback that Swan has made, like when people say typology isn't theology, I agree with Swan in pushing back against that. Or when people say the anti-type is all that matters because the type is just a shadow. I agree with Swan and saying that's not, I wouldn't actually say that myself. And just the general, like wanting to defend typology as a legitimate construct, it's a biblical category. So, you know, typology is a good thing. So a lot of these general framework kind of structural issues we agree on. Here is where I see the core disagreement.

And it has to do with how we use typology to establish doctrine. Okay. That's the general category. And if I were to put my finger on the nub of this debate, it would be this question. Can you transfer properties from the type to the antotype without a textual warrant? Can you transfer properties from the type to the antotype without a textual warrant? I'm saying no. And I think Swan is saying yes.

Okay. So forget you a picture. Okay. What I'm trying to say, make it as simple as possible, you cannot go from one to two. I'll put this up as a picture in case it's hard to see. You cannot go from one to two. Okay? Trying to make it like, I'm trying to collapse like hours and hours of nuance into like one

simple nugget of thought just to make it clear. And the reason for that is because of what typology is. Typology involves a looser and more variable relationship between two entities, such that you cannot assume continuity apart from the textual warrant. Typology is not like prophetic fulfillment in general. I'll come back to that point. It's not like, oh, as it is from Isaiah 53 to Jesus, so it is from the first atom to the last atom.

Okay? Typology of very specific category. I'll come back to that point. I think the best way to make this point and to help people appreciate it is through parallel examples. So let's suppose I say Jesus was married because Adam was married and Jesus is the new Adam. Now, if you want to pause the video or I'll just take a break while I take a sip of water, how would you respond to that argument?

And I understand that you might instinctively feel like, well, We know that's a bad argument. We know that Jesus wasn't married. Well, how do we know? I can say, oh, argument from silence. The Bible never explicitly denies that Jesus was married. So how do you know that Jesus wasn't married? How do you know that's a bad?

How would you articulate why that is a bad argument? And as you start to just think about it for a second. If I really push that, I said, Jesus was married because he's the new Adam and Adam was married. How would you respond? And if you think about that, you kind of get into, hopefully you can maybe start to appreciate why I'm using words like arbitrary in this response. Other examples I've used for this would be if you touch Mary, you die because she's the new Ark of the Covenant and which I accept. And if you touch the Ark of the Covenant, you die. Or the Pope has military powers because he's the new Joshua. Now I know

Swan has addressed that one specifically and by the way, I'll get into Swan's responses to this in a minute. One of the ways you can start to appreciate how flexible this type-antytype relationship is is by just looking at the examples of typology we have in the New Testament. In so many of the cases, the type and the anti-type are so different that they're really only alike in the one specific way that the text draws out. The rock that Moses strikes in 1st Corinthians 10-4 is a type of Christ. The Jonah being swallowed in the fish is a type of Christ. The Jonah being swallowed in the fish is a type of, now, of the burial of Christ. Now, you'd never say, hmm, you know, let's start pulling things over. What else is like the rock that we can just start saying now and positing that of

Jesus? We see that right away, right? Once you start looking at other examples of typology, you start to see how loose this category of biblical interpretation is. Now, quick clarification. This will get us some mileage, hopefully, in the discussion based upon some of the things that Swan said in his last response. This does not mean that a biblical author, assertions in the context of doing typology cannot establish doctrine. I'll put up 1st Corinthians 1549. When Paul says we shall bear the image of the man of heaven, that's Christ, the antotype, the last atom, the life-giving spirit, we can use that verse in combination with others to do doctrinal reflection about the nature of our resurrection body. That's totally fine,

because there's the textual warrant. In other words, there's a difference between what Paul is saying in the context of doing typology versus the interpreters' inferences that don't have that textual warrant. And the relevance of this distinction is that in Matthew 16, properties are being carried over from type to anti-type without any grounding in the text of Matthew 16 of what Christ actually says, like succession, the location in Rome, etc. And that's like arguing that, now I think Swan will want to say, no, they are in the text because it's the typology is embedded in the text. But I could say, ah, then Jesus being married is in the text of 1st Corinthians 15, because the typology is embedded in the text.

So when we say it's got to be in the text, you need a textual warrant. We mean it needs to be actually mentioned in the text, not just implied by the typology. So here's the issue. You cannot carry. I won't hold up the picture. Sorry if it seems like I'm belaboring points, but what I've learned over time is that sometimes people don't listen super carefully or other times you're not as clear as you think you are.

That's true. So when in doubt, I want to try to just really be clear on the main point because that just wards off possible misunderstandings. Now, on this point that you can't carry properties over from type to antotype apart from textual warrant, I think that is where Swan will differ from other Catholic apologists. I've mentioned Jimmy Aiken and his approach to topology as one example, and I think that'd be representative of how most Christians have functioned throughout church history. At the one hour and 19 minute mark, Swan says that he and Jimmy are really making just one argument, but they're just calling it a different thing. I do not agree. They are different arguments in this respect, the transfer of properties from type to empty type apart from textual

warrant. Now, Swan characterized my response as a skepticism run amok. And I would like to state my disagreement with that. I don't think it's skepticism run amok. In fact, I don't think it's skepticism at all. I think I'm just using a principled classical approach to typology. I think I'm just basically using typology in the way that most Christians have throughout church history. And we've talked about some of the principles from Aquinas and Augustine and others. If it's skepticism run amok, I'm tempted to ask, have most Christians had skepticism run amok about typology throughout church history? Now, one of the questions that Swan will raise in response to this, is, is typology distinct from allegory?

And is it under the literal sense of scripture? These are some of the points he has made in his more recent, some of the things he's got into in his recent video. Now, I would say no. I would say no, typology is better to put under the allegorical sense and not the literal, but I don't want to spend a lot of time here because to me, there's these issues of terminology and classification that are important and they have to do with how we relate to the tradition.

but even if we take terms like literal or even just take the term typology off the table altogether, the terms and classifications are not as determinative. We still have this basic question we have to answer. Can you say that there's a successive office from Peter because Alayakim's office was successive? Whether you call a typology or not, is that a legitimate hermeneutical move? Now, Swan attempts to provide grounds for what carries over and what doesn't. And my concern here, I want to clarify something. I'm not saying that Swan, when I talk about typology run amok, I'm not saying Swan is just kind of being completely undisciplined in his own personal

thinking about this or that he's being as flexible as possible. At one point, I said in my video, suppose you give the typology maximum flexibility, you fly as high as you want with it, it still wouldn't entail the papacy. And Swan, it would be an argument against the papacy, I said. Swan took that as though I was describing his methodology. But I didn't say that typology is being used with maximum flexibility by Swan or by anybody. I said, suppose that you did, it still would be an argument.

See, so he didn't need to take that quite the way he took that. I wasn't attacking him. I was showing that even if you do transfer properties over from type to anti-type, you still don't get the consequent, and more on that in a moment. But the point is, I understand Swan is not using maximum flexibility here. He does try to give some principles for why you carry some properties over and not others to address this challenge of arbitrariness. The concern I have is whether the proposals he offers really move the needle very much in terms of the problem of arbitrariness here, such that it would be necessary to kind of delve into those

when you're summarizing why you don't agree with this argument. So like when it comes to the Pope not having military powers, he quotes passages like John 1836, where Christ says, my kingdom is not of this world and other such passages. When it comes to it not being biologically hereditary, he appeals to Matthew 12, 48, 49, and other New Testament passages that talk about how the New Testament has an expanded view of what it means to be a spiritual family. The kingdom of God is expanding to the Gentiles. there's these principles that are brought in about the kingdom of God.

And this is an example of something that I just don't think moves the needle very much, because the problem of arbitrariness is still on the table. There's still these fine-grained judgments being made about what does and does not carry over based upon these very general principles. How are we to know that the office not being biologically hereditary or having a military charge or the many other differences like the clothing, the title of the office, many other things I'll get into in a minute, are the correct inferences from these general principles about the kingdom of God. Military action in the Old Testament also

had a spiritual purpose. The ethnic people of God in the Old Testament were also a spiritual family. So someone could just come along and say, no, these things do carry over because the New Testament principles about the kingdom of God are consistent with them. There are these particular judgment calls that could go either way. And it's still not clear why you're going this way, and not that way. Or if you take the problem of arbitrariness and how Jesus and Alicam are both the anti-type. So Swan quotes D.A. Carson to say that it can be both. And I totally agree that typology can have a double fulfillment or a more complicated kind of fulfillment in multiple entities. That's not the concern. The concern with applying is with arbitrariness in applying the typology

one way to this antotype and another way to this antotype. And thus far in the conversation, despite really careful listening, I'm just not seeing anything that really moves the needle here in terms of the arbitrariness problem. One new alayakim, Jesus, looks completely different from the other, new alayakim, and I'm not seeing any textual basis for these kinds of interpretive decisions. Why do we have succession in Rome over here with one new aliacim and not with the other? Now, Swan anticipates this concern, and he's saying, well, this isn't arbitrary because this is just what we all have to do in working from the Old Testament to the New Testament. and he reiterated this in his more recent response, and he was basically saying, we all have to do this hard work. So if you say this is arbitrary, then Christianity itself is arbitrary.

But I think Swan is treating typology as though it were the same as the general fulfillment of redemptive history, as though the movement from a type to an anti-type is comparable to the movement from the Old Testament to the New Testament more generally. That's not the case. Typology is a very specific kind of textual relationship. So Swan is saying, you know, every scholar has to wrestle with these points of discontinuity and continuity. Well, every scholar has to wrestle with that for redemptive history generally and the movement from earlier portions of redemptive history to later. We don't really wrestle with that with typology. We don't, you know, if we're saying we're wrestle with what carries over, the word carries over itself presumes a kind of continuity between a type and an anti-type that's not representative of how typology works, works. We don't sit around wondering, hmm, what parts of the stone that Moses struck carry over

and what don't? What parts of Jonah being in the fish carry over? What parts of the flood of Noah carry over to baptism? It's like, no, you just go with what's in the text. You don't have a warrant to start pulling other things over. And so again, this is the classical approach where we say typology can be used to elucidate doctrine but not to establish doctrine. Swan challenged that distinction between elucidating and establishing. And he, at a couple points, including here, he mentioned this is kind of like a, he raised a concern that this is kind of foot stomping, just kind of resisting and just asserting.

But I just think there's a valid distinction there, you know, to, I'm open to using different verbs or putting this a little differently, and I grant they have some overlap a little bit. But to elucidate means you already believe something on other grounds, and now you are understanding it more clearly. To establish means this gives you grounds to believe. it. I think that's a meaningful distinction. And so this concern is, I would say, I have to say, I think this is the classical way of using typology throughout church history and for most of the church today and in most apologetics today, and certainly in the scholarship today, vast majority,

is that you just can't start pulling some things from the type to put them to the anti-type without a textual warrant. That's just not what typology is. And to me, that consideration alone is enough to kind of end discussion about this argument. sorry to put it like that, but I really just, I do feel that way. I'm just trying to be honest about my concerns about this argument. Okay, let me address more quickly if I can, my second concern. We'll see how far I can go. I may need to stop this and then pick it up afterwards. The second concern, and this will enable us to get more into the weeds and engage with more of the particulars of Swan's defenses, is that even if we could transfer properties from type to antitepe,

it wouldn't result in the papacy because Eliakim's office looked nothing like the papacy. Now let me address some of Swan's concerns here. First, when I say that the office of Eliacum is not a major office, you can hardly name anything that anyone ever does with it, you could count them on one hand. Swan really took issue with this. He was not a fan of me saying that. And he's taking, but I think he was taking this to me and it's not a major office in its level of authority within the royal court or something like that.

I'm just saying it's not a major office and its overall function within the life of Israel. That's why I continue to say, you know, you can't hardly name much that it does. And this just does seem to me to be true. So let me explain that. Let's walk through what we know about this office from both the Old Testament and from outside the Old Testament. By the way, at a couple of points, Swan raised the concern of a solo scriptura. But that's not really fair, as though I'm arguing only from the text of Scripture. I'm open to things outside the scripture too.

I'm open to any data points. I'm just not seeing anything outside the scripture that really changes this. So I'm not, solo scriptura is not really a fair charge against me. I'm open to any source of data. But working through things here a little bit to try to say, what is this office? What do we know about it? And the reason this is appropriate to do is, again, if properties are being transferred over from the type to the anti-type, so something like infallibility or supremacy or the fact

that it's a teaching office, the fact that it's a priestly office, I'll go through each of those particularly in just a moment. If these things are getting pulled over to the anti-type, but they were never in the type to begin with, that's a problem. And so if there's this assumption of continuity as though these two offices are similar in their function, and yet the papacy, the antitepe is gargantuan in its authority, and the constant appeal is kind of like this is what you need in order to not split up into 30,000 denominations. By the way, a friendly reminder, that statistic is not accurate. It's not 30,000. You can have a really good criticism of Protestantism as being too divisive, which we are, and it's a fair criticism without exaggerating the number.

Okay, that's just an aside. So if you've got this gargantuan antotype here that's like the whole appeal is, this is what you need to have unity in the church. And then you look back to the type, which is held to be comparable to it. And it's like it doesn't even show up on the radar screen and it doesn't seem to do much of anything. That's a problem. And that's kind of what I mean when I'm saying this is a minor office. So let me explain that. Here's what we know about this office from everything I can tell.

First, you've got Ahishar in First Kings 4, 6. I'll put this up. This is just in a list of the officials in King Solomon's monarchy. And you can see in verse 6 there. I'll put it in bold that Hishar was in charge of the palace. Okay. So it doesn't really tell us anything beyond that. We know that Ahishar held this office.

Then you have Jotham in 2nd King's 15.5. Now here's what's interesting. It says, the Lord touched the king so that he was a leper to the day of his death and he lived in a separate house and Jotham, the king's son, was over the household governing the people of the land. Okay, so this is the prince. Jotham is also the king's son while the king is a leper living in a separate house. So obviously I think it's going to be problematic if you start making lots of weighty conclusions about this office in general from this example. And yet, if I understand correctly, I went back and listened like three times to make sure I'm trying so hard to be careful here. But at the one hour, three minute, and 17 second portion of his most recent video, Swan is trying to ground this idea that this is a teaching office

from Jotham. And I think this is really problematic because, number one, governing doesn't necessarily mean teaching. And number two, this is a unique situation. The king is a leper. He's in a separate house. This is a concern I have actually at a couple points way too much being taken from Jotham despite the unique situation. Okay, apart from Ahishar and Jotham, then you've got Isaiah 22 and the Shabna Eliakim transfer. Other than that, this office doesn't really show up much in the Hebrew Bible. And I'm not aware of it, extra biblical data really changing the picture. So you've got Obadiah and 1st Kings 18 and Arza in 1st King 16. I don't know if Arza is if it's the same, if it's the royal household here, but either way, it doesn't say anything about either of them and their function that

you really get any new data points there. So it's really just Isaiah 22. Now, here's the thing. I am uncertain about whether the authority envisioned in Isaiah 22 is unique to Eliakim or would have been other characteristic of others before him who held the office. God says in Isaiah 2222, I will, future tents, place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open and none shall shut. He shall shut and none shall open. If previous people in this office already had that authority, if that authority was characteristic of this office perpetually,

what would be the point of giving it to him here? What new thing is happening then in Isaiah 22? This is another complicating factor is that in his four-hour video, Swan acknowledges that there's some kind of possible development or growth or expansion in this office. And this is when he's talking about in its earlier phases, maybe it looks more like a chief butler, like Alfred is to Batman kind of a thing. Cool, cool metaphor. But this just really increases this feeling of squishiness here. Like, what the heck is this office? And when I say it's a minor office, I'm talking about this overall

picture. It's just really underwhelming. If we're trying to get properties like supremacy and infallibility into the type from this, and I'm looking at the data, I'm saying it doesn't look like that. Now one thing I perhaps I can concede is whether Eliakim had successors. I had been of the view that Eliakim doesn't have successors for a couple of reasons. One, I thought that Swan and I kind of agreed upon that in our debate, but I think he's now seeing new evidence upon that. I just haven't seen the new evidence. To me, it's like whether there's the collapsing of the peg in Isaiah 22 and then under Zerubbable after the exile when royal leadership is established. So in books like Zechariah, I preached through those night visions in Zechariah.

There's so much about the reestablishment of the priesthood and the monarchy. So these offices are being reestablished. I just don't see anything about this office. But, you know, again, I'm not trying to say we can only look at the Bible. So if there's new data, I'm happy to concede this. If there were successors of him, it wouldn't really change the picture here at all, actually. I could just happily concede that. There's definitely people before Eliakim.

So, but the thing is, for the argument to work, you need all these properties to transfer over. So do you have infallibility, succession? Do you have, is this office priestly? Is this office teaching? Do you see that anywhere? And I would like to go through these one by one, and this will allow me to get into some of the more particulars here. However, poorly timed, I got to go get my kids,

so I'm going to pause the video. It'll probably look a little different when I come back. I'll finish it in just a few moments. Okay, I am back. Having five kids is very, life is very full. This is like, it's almost like what you just experienced is like that's like how everything in life is these days, because life is very, very full each day. So apologies if, you know, this is why I don't like to do this. It's probably now the camera's at a slightly different angle or something like that, but hopefully it won't distract us here going forward.

So where I left off is talking about some of these particular characteristics of the office of Eliakim. I want to talk about whether, let's start with whether it is priestly. Now, on this point, Swan basically says, he says this is simply not keeping up with the scholarship. Those were his terms. But I really, this is an example where I want to speak on this specific point, but also on the general point of how we use the scholarship on this issue. I have a concern that for people watching Swan's videos, and it's not Swan's fault, he's drawing together his data, you know, from various commentaries and sources and piecing it together for his conclusion. But people can be watching this and conclude,

wow, the scholarship is really supportive of this idea. But by my lights, it just isn't. There are particulars where this scholar might say this and this scholar might say this, but they're not saying this argument. They're not supporting the whole idea. I don't really see this argument in the scholarship that much. I think Swan gave two examples of where he sees it. But even on the particulars sometimes, like so on the idea that is this office a priestly office, it seems to come down to this issue of his clothing, that he wears a robe in a sash. So I just worked through this, taking a fresh pass at it, wondering am I missing something, but I pulled maybe eight or so commentaries on Isaiah off my shelf. Motier simply says the robe in the sash are an insignia

of an office. Kyle and Dalich say the transfer of office is affected by means of investiture. Jeff Grogan in the Expositor's Biblical Commentary series simply says that in taking over Shabness office, he's given his service. He's given his service. ceremonial robes. John Watts in the Word biblical commentary series simply says that Eliakim receives Shebna's signals of rank. Several of these older commentaries, granted, they're older. So I know Swan will say this, you know, the scholar, state of scholarship now. But they're all just saying the same thing is that the robe and the sash are the insignia of the office. Their badges of the magistrate's office is one of the terms of language, points of language.

So I'm not saying not once in any of my commentaries, does anything about a priestly office come up. Okay, granted, those just maybe I maybe have the wrong eight commentaries behind me on the shelf, or maybe the scholarship's dramatically changed. But when I look at the scholars that Swan is citing, it's similarly pretty underwhelming. There are a few that are saying that this office is priestly, some of the Jewish commentaries he cites, if I understand correctly, the PhD dissertation that he cites, says that, though it just seemed to be asserting it. I didn't really see the argument. Michael Barber, who he cites, calls him a priestly figure. but a lot of what he's marshalling is just more general, like Carson and Beal simply say that the office, they don't say he's a literal priest. They say it has priestly connotations.

Okay, I mean, I've read a lot of Greg Beal over the years. He talks a lot about how like the Garden of Eden has priestly connotations, for example. That doesn't mean he was a priest. And that's true for Medinger as well, one of the other ones that, I'm just going through the ones that Swan cited in support of his idea. Similarly, he also just says, he makes a comparison to the priestly garments, but he doesn't say, therefore, alaicam was a priest. There's a big difference between having some kind of connection to the temple, which is a new category of thought. I hadn't really commented on that, versus being a priest. It being a priestly office, which would be the relevant point of

comparison to the papacy. Some of the scholarship that Swan is citing opposes this point. Let me put up the quote from Oswald he used. He says the terms used here for robe and sash appear elsewhere only for garb worn by priests. This does not mean necessarily that the court officers had usurped the prerogatives of the priests, but rather that they were the standard terms for ceremonial clothing. So that seems to be making the opposite point. He calls this office a court officer and the conclusion is not, oh, it was priestly, but rather that this was the standard ceremonial clothing for both the court officers and the priests. That's consistent with what I saw in my commentaries. So for Swan to say that I'm not keeping up with the scholarship here,

I'm very underwhelmed by what I'm seeing in the scholarship on this point. And this would be a general concern that it sometimes feels as though the overall state of scholarship is being slightly misplayed because not in a dishonest way, but just in the overall net impression, because you've got this quote here, this quote there, this quote here, but the scholars saying these things aren't actually on board with this argument as such. You see that in Timothy Rucker's comments that John Cranman quoted in his response video. He has a good response video out as well. You can check out.

So, you know, what I pointed out in our debate is that the priestly clothing is not the same here. I mean, that's the first thing to just do is just I'll put up Isaiah 22 and Exodus 18 or 28. You know, this wouldn't have even come up if I didn't look up these passages and just start thinking this through. So I'm worried people are just going to start making these associations. I go, wow, this is priestly garments. I don't know that it is. In Isaiah 22, it's a robe and a sash. In Exodus 28, it's a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work,

a turban, and a sash, and they have very specific colors, if you keep reading. So they're just different. They have some overlap. So some of the scholars are saying maybe this has priestly associations. Others go a little further, but a minority of them, by my reckoning. Lots don't make any connection. Why are they different? In addressing this point, Swan says that maybe Exodus 28 is talking about the high priest,

whereas this is just talking about other priests. But so far as I can tell, that is just pure speculation. That would be an example of where it's not really moving the needle enough to warrant an in-depth response if I'm just summarizing this argument in another context. And as far as I can see, the only basis for calling this office priestly is the issue of clothing. So I would just feel this argument is very underwhelming. I'm kind of just sitting here saying, okay, is that it? You know?

In the Q&A portion of our debate, one of the things I said is, why don't we ever see anyone who held this office ever do anything priestly? And I don't think there was really a response to that. As I look throughout the Old Testament or anything outside the Old Testament, I'm aware, I'm all, you know, be open to new information, but I just don't see that. I think that's kind of a reasonable expectation that a priestly office will do priestly things, or it might be called something that indicates that,

or something more than just an oblique, possible overlap of clothing. So these are examples of points that really I don't think move the needle that much. I feel pretty similarly about it being a teaching office and certainly about it being infallible or supreme. I just don't see this office ever teaching. I don't see any teachings. And certainly I don't think Jotham is enough to establish that because as we said, governing isn't teaching and Jotham is unique.

he's also the prince while his father the king is lepris. So I just don't think, I'm not aware of anything that supports the idea that it's a teaching office. I think we're just waiting on any sort of information that would indicate that. When it comes to infallibility, there's also a big leap here that happens. From authority to infallibility, this is an important distinction that I'm going into in great detail in other contexts, briefly to summarize, the umpire at a baseball game has authority, but he's not infallible. There's all kinds of fallible authorities. So you can't just go from authority to infallible.

Swan was using the word definitive, and it seemed to me he's kind of trying to make a pivot here, that because this office has the authority that's indicated in Isaiah 22, therefore, you know, he can speak definitively, for example, therefore this is somehow akin to infallibility, but those are different categories. To speak authoritatively is a practical category that means it's binding on those under its influence. infallibility is it means you're you're incapable of not speaking the truth you're you're inherently incapable of error those are just different categories you can't just bleep from one to the other so again i'm feeling very underwhelmed by infallibility and i'm wondering kind of where do we get this

from when it comes to supremacy again i think swan wants to appeal to the scholarship but again it feels like there's a little bit of a mishmashing of the scholarship because there's a lot of scholars who wouldn't say that Eliakim's office is second in command. I'm personally uncertain exactly how to understand this office. I think we're dealing with very little data, and it's hard to know exactly. I'm not sure. Is it authoritative just over the royal house or also over the temple, or does it have anything comparable to universal and immediate jurisdiction over the nation of Israel?

Again, I would just like to see this, especially because if there's this idea that it's changing over time. Again, I'm very underwhelmed. They're not seeing the data points here that would get, anyone to that conclusion. So in terms of going into all these points, the reason I don't really feel like I, in a summary of the argument in another context, need to work through these things, is because I'm not seeing much to even work through that really moves the needle very much. A way you could summarize is to just say, if this office is a teaching office that can speak

infallibly and is priestly and is supreme and so forth, I don't think it's too much to just ask, you know, in the Old Testament, where are its teachings? Where are its priestly action? where are its expressions of infallibility? Again, given the significance of the papacy, you'd expect something like this to maybe show up on the radar screen as you're going through the Old Testament or extra-biblical literature that is relevant to the point at hand. So I think I just have to respectfully stick to my guns here and say, I do think this office looks nothing like the papacy.

It really is just a fundamentally different office. And I am kind of surprised that there's an attempt to kind of pivot. from one to the other, especially to arrive upon the papacy from the characteristics of this office. I just don't really see it at all. So that's the way to say that even if you could argue to get the properties from the type to the anti-type, this would, again, result in something over here that wouldn't be Vatican One papacy. Now, if there's more data out there, this one wants to introduce, I'll consider it.

know there I haven't covered everything. He spent a lot of time on Joseph. I'm not going into Joseph here again. I don't think that that's super duper powerful or relevant. I mean, one of, the one thing I'll say about Joseph is just that it, we just have to be careful going from one culture and time to another. And Joseph's office, I think was somewhat unique to Joseph because of his wisdom and his interpretation of dreams. He seems to get something that's unique to him, not just like the generic chief steward office that the guy before joseph had so we could talk about that but i realize i i know swan had a lot of points about the comparison with joseph i haven't really gone into here but again the reason i'm not going into it much is i'm not seeing it move the needle a whole lot with respect to the overarching

argument so uh those are some uh points to interact with in terms of his argument all right last section of this video let me just lay out kind of moving off of swan's typological argument and for those who say, and I want to lay out some principles of my own view of Matthew 16, because I think some people have said, Gavin, you're just trying to poke holes in somebody else's view rather than establish your own view. Now, I don't think that's fair. I mean, in certain videos I have actually gone into some of my own positions on Matthew 16. But at the same time, it might be helpful to put some things out there so that the alternatives can be seen in broad daylight. Because I do think people feel this way about Protestantism more generally. They're not always sure, like, okay, what is

your positive contribution you want to put on the table. So let me just say a few things. From a Protestant perspective, what is basically going on in Matthew 16 to give an exceedingly short answer, again, see the forest before we get into the trees, is this is about apostolic ministry. And the emphasis of my view of Matthew 16 would be to read it with the rest of the New Testament, not to downplay it, but just don't let Matthew 16 monopolize everything else. Neither let everything else negate Matthew 16, but let's let all the texts of the New Testament be given equal due. So in that spirit, three specific comments on Matthew 16. One is that when it comes to the language of binding and loosing and keys,

I think a good case can be made that this was simply the common language of the day for authoritative decision making. This is what D.A. Carson basically says. He says the keys are a metaphor for the one who has authority to permit. or exclude entrance. And he basically just says, there may be an allusion here to the chief stewards of monarchs, and that's it. So it's kind of simple. It's just this was the language drawing from Isaiah 2, 22 potentially, that was, and I think the reason that is compelling is because it enables us to interpret the imagery of keys and binding and loosing or opening and shutting consistently in their various usages in Josephus and the New Testament. So with the key of Luke 1152, we don't say there's a special typological relationship going on with the language of binding and loosing.

We don't say that all the apostles are new alliacims when it comes up in Matthew 18. Not all usage of this language means you've got like a type antotype, you know. In Josephus, we don't say when binding and loosing comes up that it's typology or something. And the language fits best, by the way, with Revelation 3-7, which is the one text in the Testament that is absolutely clearly drawing from Isaiah 22 because you've got the singular key and the same terms, opening and shutting. Matthew 18 switches it to different terms, binding and loosing, and a plurality of keys. So that's why if we want to use the term typology, I know some people like Greg Beale will want to use language of typology. That gets really tricky because you have

different kinds of typology. You've got first order and second order typology and so forth. But if we want to use the language of typology, I think John Cranman and others are very much right to say Jesus is the far better fit for the antytype to Eliacum. And Revelation 3.7 is. So that's the first point. Is binding and loosing simply means authoritative decision making? Okay. The second point is Peter being the rock. Peter being the rock, this is his apostolic confession of Christ.

I've gone into this a bit more in other videos just briefly to say the idea here, is Peter as an apostle speaking on behalf of the other apostles, the idea of Peter as the first holder of an ecclesiastical office that transitions to Roman bishops. And that's the sense in which he's the rock. That is just not in the text. And I think this is the best way to take it for a couple of reasons. I'll put up Augustine's view that he favors toward the end of his life. Peter called after this rock, represented the person of the church, which is built upon this rock,

that's Christ, and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. for thou art Peter and not thou art the rock was said to him, but the rock was Christ, in confessing whom, as also the whole church confesses, Simon was called Peter. The last time I addressed this, I also pointed to Chrysostom. I'll put up his quote as well. But this is not, the only danger I have in quoting just one or two is people will think, oh, it's just Augustine and a Chrysostom. It's a very common idea.

There's all kinds of view. There's diversity in the patristic exegesis of the rock metaphor. Lots of people will say, be a rock like Peter. that's that's origins kind of approach so what this starts to open up categories for us to say is okay Peter being the rock that doesn't mean like oh yeah Peter is the rock because he's the first pope and then it's Clement who's the next rock it's like no that that's not in the text at all what you have in Matthew 16 there's two reasons why I think taking it like this is best Peter is the rock in his apostolic confession of Christ because Christ is the ultimate rock the

church is built upon what that does is it enables us to take the rock imagery consistently throughout the New Testament. So we can read Matthew 16 consistently with Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 10, 1st Peter 2, all of which use this imagery, and possibly Galatians 2 9, all of which use this imagery drawing from Psalm 118, where the rock is Christ, okay, in the interpretation of the New Testament. So that, in other words, this enables us to read Matthew 16 consistently with the rest of the New Testament. it also enables us to read this passage in its immediate context.

This is not when Peter is called as an apostle. This is in his confession of Christ in responding to a question that was put to all of the apostles. And again, this is going to enable us to have Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 working together, not in tension with each other, because Peter is being singled out in Matthew 16, but the responsibilities that are given to him of binding and loosing are repeated in Matthew 18. The third point of emphasis is just to say, what is given to Peter in this passage is shared among the other apostles. It doesn't look like Peter is being given authority over the other apostles in a way that, like the way the Pope has authority over the other bishops.

I often reference the language of Vatican I, a hierarchy, a hierarchical duty of subordination and true obedience. The Pope has authority over the other bishops. immediate and universal jurisdiction. That is not what we see with Peter. I just mentioned Matthew 18, how all the other... And I know Catholics have their own way of interpreting that, but I'm just trying to say, what's my proposal and what's the best way to take it?

Throughout the New Testament, you just don't see Peter functioning with that kind of Vatican One supremacy. And so you just read Matthew 16 in relation to Matthew 18 and in relation to the whole New Testament. We're not downplaying Matthew 16. We're just, you know, step back, look at the whole panoply. Look at everything. Acts 15 I often bring up. I think it's a very decisive passage. In the doctrinal crisis going on,

it is a group decision. And if that's not clear from just reading through Acts 15, look at how Luke himself summarizes it in the next chapter. In verse 4 of Acts chapter 16, it's the decisions that have been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. There isn't this idea that like Peter gave a dogma or Peter is functioning over the other apostles or has supremacy or something like that. It's more conciliar. And I pointed out of my videos that this is more of the patristic view. Cyprian, Isidore of Seville, I've quoted others. I'll just put up the Cyprian quote, where there's a lot of church fathers you can find who are saying all the apostles had the keys. And the other apostles shared Peter's power as well as his honor. So Peter is not in a position above them. So honestly,

I think that's, I don't want to say universal, but that's just what I see generally in the the church fathers. So these are a couple of points to say, kind of trying to explain, like, if you're a Protestant, how do you read Matthew 16? And the great thing that you're trying to do is read this in the context of the entire New Testament deposit that we have. And it's really not a problematic passage for a Protestant. So there's more to say about all that, but that's just trying to throw out some categories for helping people, if they're wondering, okay, but how are you looking at Matthew 16? It is drawing from Isaiah 22 in the language. It is talking about authoritative decision-making.

There's a lot of points we can agree with in the Roman Catholic exegesis. But the Roman Catholic exegesis also goes over here and over here and over here at certain points where you're saying, oh, that's not in the text. And the thing that is really not in the text is succession. I mean, even if you want to try to say, no, Peter was supreme somehow or something, how do you get to a transmission from Peter to the Roman bishops in this unique kind of and then the authority invested in that office. I don't understand what is the basis for that in the New Testament. And I feel conscience-bound to follow the New Testament.

So anyway, there's more to say, but hopefully that can be productive in the meantime. All right, I hope this helps people in this discussion. I hope advances the discussion. Obviously, there's a lot more to talk about. Remember to be kind in your comments, but don't hold back in your arguments. and I pray that the Lord is honored in this discussion in the way that we talk about things as we move forward. Thanks for watching, everybody. God bless.