Typology: Responding to Gavin Ortlund (Matthew 16, Isaiah 22, Papacy, Cameron Bertuzzi, Suan Sonna)

In this video, I respond to some recent comments by Gavin Ortlund on typology and an argument for the papacy based on Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22.

Further Resources:

[catkat]

Gavin: Who’s deciding?
Jimmy: Jesus.

😂What a boss.

[Thomas-dwnb]

I spent about the first 30 seconds of this video in awe that Jimmy actually made a response video.

[danieltuckercatholic]

Jimmy, I've been following and supporting your work at Catholic Answers for years now, and I must say that this is one of my favorite Jimmy Akin videos of all time! Please continue to make more response videos like this as your circumstances allow. Your characteristic blend of theological precision, abiding charity toward your interlocutors, and just a little bit of well-positioned sassiness continue to make this video and others like it supremely compelling.

[Zaradeptus]

I pray for your wife. You were inspiring on EWTN all those years ago.

[Valued_Member_of_the_Community]

God bless you for continuing to fight the good fight so tirelessly Jimmy. Your apologetics are an anchor to the faith for myself and many others. Thank you.

[cw-on-yt]

@Jimmy Akin:
Finally! I've been saying something like this over and over in comments sections dealing with Isaiah 22. I'm much gratified to hear you saying something so similar: It's an exegetical argument, not a typological one. THAT SAID, I think perhaps there's one more aspect of this that you should consider, Jimmy. (Or maybe you already did, and didn't explicitly state it here.)

IF we're doing exegesis of the text to learn _what Jesus is thinking of_ when He says "Thou art Rock, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it, and whatsoever you [singular] bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you [singular] loose on earth is loosed in Heaven..., "

THEN we need not assume that, while speaking to Simon, Jesus is thinking of is a _typological_ connection, because there's a simpler and more-straightforward thing He's more-likely to be doing.

Sure, He may be _aware_ of it (indeed, being God, He is _definitely_ aware of it!), but even if He were _utterly in the dark_ about the idea of "typology, " He's probably doing something more direct: Selecting a chief steward _because He knows He's the Davidic King._

He's just _exercising authority_ as the Davidic King, to reinstitute an old office that His many-times-great grandfather David had used, and many of David's successors had also used. And because in Jesus, the Kingdom of David (ruling Israel) is to be transmogrified into the Kingdom of Heaven (ruling "every nation, tongue, and tribe"), it follows that Jesus will reconstitute that office with enlarged scope, for an enlarged mission.

I have always found the claim that "we should recognize a connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 because it follows a _typological_ pattern" as an _unnecessarily weak claim._ The stronger claim is: "Of course the Davidic King gets to select his Al Bayith; if and when he wants one. Why shouldn't he? All his predecessors in office could, and most of them did! Indeed, it's difficult to find a king anywhere in the Ancient Near East who _didn't_ have some similar chief official."

Saying that Jesus created a special role for Peter _because of the typology_ is a bit like stating, "George Washington selected John Jay as his Secretary of State. Later, President George W. Bush selected Colin Powell as his Secretary of State. This shows us that Bush was symbolically acting in his role as successor of George Washington, and thought of himself as doing a symbolical, imitative act, in selecting a Secretary of State."

Bush, on hearing such a statement, would say something like, "I wasn't trying to be symbolic. I'm just Being The President! I can select people for my cabinet because _that's part of the authority_ of Being The President."

Likewise, it's part of being an Ancient Near East king to select administrators as governors for your provinces, and to have one chief administrator who often lives in the capitol city and helps resolve internal disputes throughout the whole kingdom, if any of the other administrators/governors start squabbling. It was the normal pattern for the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Persians. The Pharaohs in Egypt had such an official. (Indeed, for a while, Joseph served in that role.) When Nabonidus, king of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, decided to go into semi-retirement, he put his punk kid Belshazzar in as "acting king." And when Belshazzar wanted to motivate the prophet Daniel with a rich reward, he offered him the office of "third highest in the kingdom." Since Belshazzar was second-highest and king Nabonidus was the top, Belshazzar was functionally offering Daniel the office of Grand Vizier ...or, in Judaic terms, of Al Bayith.

Now, Matthew is very much at-pains to depict Jesus as The Son of David. He keeps harping on it in various ways, even going so far as to shout "David! David! David!" in Jesus' genealogy (the meaning of the triple "14 generations" in Matthew 1). So it makes sense that Matthew in chapter 16 is just showing us Jesus doing exactly what any normal Davidic King would do: Picking some administrators for His kingdom and selecting one of them to be a chief-administrator (to resolve any squabbles they might have). The simple interpretation is to just call it an exercise of Davidic royal authority and leave it at that.

Sure, if Simon bar Jona happened to be...
(a.) aware of the contents of Isaiah;
(b.) sensitive to typology in rabbinical interpretative tradition; and,
(c.) inexplicably unaware of how kings in Ancient Near Eastern kingdoms usually had various officials to help run their kingdoms,
...then we might expect Jesus to _use_ typology to explain what He was doing to Simon Peter. But why _should_ Simon Peter be so politically unaware?

Isn't it more reasonable to expect that Peter had _some_ expectations of what the Davidic King's institutions would look like, and Jesus said, "You're correct: Not only will My mother be the Gebireh, but there are going to be provincial governors -- sort of, although at the outset they'll be more like ambassadors and judges -- and I'm also going to reinstitute the office Al Bayith again. Guess who I'm lookin' at for that position?"


So, YES, it's an exegetical argument, not "typology run amuck."

And, YES, even if it were typological, it _wouldn't_ be "run amuck" since the person doing the typology is _Jesus, _ and the Divine Logos doesn't indulge in false typologies.

BUT, we needn't advert to typology at all, since Jesus is The King, after all, not symbolically but factually. He can reinstitute historical kingdom offices when and if He wishes, and in His Divinity, grant supernatural scope to them.

And it looks like He did just that.

[maxellton]

Wonderful response. I'm currently reading your book '" The Fathers Know Best..". I am always in awe of your explanation.

[Aethelhart]

Really good stuff! Keep up the good work!
My protestant family taught me about typology growing up and I am grateful for that because typological fulfillment was a big part of why I became Catholic, but I always knew there was something off about how my protestant family was misusing it in order to prove protestant doctrines and ideas, especially weird ones like the darbyism. I had some skeletal principles for good and bad typology I had made for myself, but knew there had to be better out there. This really fleshed it out and gave some solid principles for good and bad typology, I liked it a lot. Thank you!

[WilsonAcres]

So excellent!!! Thank you for clarifying that. I was literally scratching my head at Gavin's video like "Wow okay he really thinks all that"

[peter_hobbs]

Brilliant again Jimmy. Thanks for your tireless defence of the faith!

[hsha]

Great video Jimmy! I just skimmed through Gavin’s response to your response and still think that you did the right thing by clarifying any potential misunderstandings about your views on the matter. I learned a lot from this and am so grateful for you!

May god bless and keep you. May you continue to be satisfied with the work you do for Him as an apologist. May his face shine upon you.

Ave Maria.

[andyfisher]

I would love to see more videos like this from Jimmy.

[charliego]

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽Awesome response Jimmy and a much needed one. You were very clear in clarifying the misinterpretation of Gavin’s objections.

[TheAlexanderraguirre]

Best part of waking up is hearing Jimmy say Dude! Love your vids!

[maximopablo]

Mr. Jimmy Akin I just subscribed to your channel. Love the info taking notes 📝. God bless you 🙏

[JW_______]

Jimmy, you did not fairly address Gavin's argument. He wasn't saying that the Catholic argument is typological that Christ alludes to the Isaiah 22 office of Eliakim in His Matthew 16 reference to "the keys of the kingdom." He was saying that any further metaphors taken from Eliakim than that he held an office of stewardship are typological (e.g. sucession of the office, Vatican I style monarchal papacy, etc). Such metaphors are akin to saying that because Jesus is the new Adam, everything that's true of Adam must also be true of Jesus except what's explicitly excluded (i.e. sin).

[jimmydavid]

I get excited once I see a video from you, but more importantly responding to keep the reason to myself. ... Thanks for what you do Jimmy...

[dsonyay]

For me, Papal Authority is everything.. It is so clear the Catholic Church is the First and Only Church founded by Jesus.

The Old Testament passage you quoted, coupled with Peter’s being given the Keys by Jesus is clear as glass.

Any explanation to counter this sounds so awkward and embarrassing - especially when coming from so called esteemed scholars.

I was raised in a Catholic home, but left the Church for MANY years.. and at some point decided to seek out the original Church- so I could finally get it right.

It was upon studying these two scriptural examples, plus Acts, coupled with the earliest Church Father’s writing that I went back— correction— RAN back to the Church.

I was lucky- all it took for me was a good confession — and I was back in. Thank God.

I have so much respect for people who realize they have have to be Catholic, and go through such a long process in RCIA.. Not to mention pastors in Protestant churches that have to give up whole careers and livelihoods to become Catholic. It’s an incredibly difficult decision to be sure.. And then there’s all of these people that lose so many friendships, and have their backs turned to them by even their own family.

[tobiwillis]

In my opinion, Gavin should simply spend more time talking to Jimmy. Thanks for the video! Love this stuff!!!

[toddgruber]

I hope you guys keep doing these commentaries because hearing both sides is super helpful. Awesome. I hope no one gets discouraged. Keep it up!