The Origin of the Eliakim-Peter Typology, Part 2: Rambling Reformers

An apologetic army seeks reinforcements from defenders and interpreters of the past

In the first post of this series, we saw how the Eliakim-Peter typology claim has become a popular defense for the papacy in recent years and how it appears to have made it’s first appearance in the U.S. in the early 1990’s, courtesy of a popular “Protestant” convert to Roman Catholicism. I mentioned how the claim was dredged from the recesses of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, after laying dormant for around four centuries. The claim grew slowly after it’s reintroduction but now the curious case of theological amnesia is fully cured and a new generation of philosophers is poised to twist and distort Scripture, using their newfangled typology as bait, fishing for men who are wading in the Tiber, hungry with angst. To accomplish their mission, the new army of sacramental soldiers will need to improve upon the work of the defenders and interpreters of old, who we will meet in this post. The new army is scrounging for morsels in church history and is only just beginning to rediscover their forgotten fathers from the Early Modern period. The historical reinforcements they seek are ones I spent months searching for and I’ll these Rambling Reformers here.

Setting the stage and re-orienting our modern perspective

Before identifying the defenders and interpreters of old, I want to quickly revisit a statement I made: “modern American Protestantism suffers many ills and it’s rare to find Protestants that are historically informed and grounded in their faith.” We need to acknowledge our shortcomings. Unfortunately, the comforts we’ve enjoyed for many years seem to have produced a few generations of what I call “Country Club Christians.” The seeker-sensitive movement of recent generations may fill pews and picnic tables but it’s largely void of the true and complete Gospel, which necessarily includes not just the grace we love to embrace but also sin, repentance, mercy, justice, and our desperate need for a savior. My finger is pointed in the mirror…

There are certainly strong, healthy veins of faith in the U.S. and I’m very blessed, only by the mercy and grace of God, to be part of a thriving faith family, but secularizing cultural, sheepish wolves, and deceptive philosophers loom all around us. Perhaps decades of nominalism, easy-believism, and our own forgotten past have led to the Gospel being treated as an inspirational cultural commodity, rather than a uniquely redemptive, miraculous work of God. Before visiting those long gone Counter-Reformers, I’d like to share a few links to help anyone with the time and interest to re-orient their perspective a bit. There are some great men of faith that fled the chaos of Europe in the centuries after feudalism and after the papal states began losing their religio-political grip (no, it wasn’t Martin Luther’s fault). America has a rich heritage of faith. Revisiting our roots and the men that planted fruitful seed for inspiration may be a useful step towards curing our own amnesia. Here are a few stories that maybe less familiar than the names of the men they involve:

• The influence of the Moravians on John Wesley, leading to his conversion
• Jonathan Edwards’ A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God
• George Whitefield, through the eyes of Benjamin Franklin

Counter-Reformers defend the papacy amid chaos

The picture at the top of this post depicts the St. Bartholomew’s day massacre of 1572 it wasn’t directly related to any of the 16th-17th century Roman Catholic Counter-Reformers who appear to have given birth to the Eliakim-Peter claim but it does capture the religious and political climate of the time. It also occurs mid-way through the century-long period when the claim seems to have circulated. Protestants (perhaps mostly powerful elites and nobility that merely bore the label for political gain) certainly contributed to persecution and chaos in Europe but we must not forget events that led up to the Reformation, nor should we forget how long persecution and tyranny persisted after calls for reform were largely ignored. It’s astonishing how long it took to convene and complete the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and how little it accomplished beyond dogmatizing scholastic philosophies and traditions of men. The men below, who introduced the Eliakim-Peter link were right in the thick of things. Click to expand and read an extract from their writings^[2]Minor edits were made to some of the texts to allow Scripture passages to dynamically display, to incorporate punctuation for clarity (e.g. for quotes), and standardize the spelling of names for … Continue reading, then we’ll examine how meandering and inconsistent their interpretations of Scripture were, and how far they are from today’s highly evolved philosophical typology that even goes so far as to claim a “prophetic application” of Isaiah 22:20-23 in Matthew 16:18-19:

General observations

Cardinal Thomas Cajetan

Cajetan Responds is a copyrighted translation so the extract here is fairly short. It’s from a page that was available on Google Books preview for a while. It’s plenty sufficient for this analysis. The first thing to note is the beginning and end of the excerpt as it provides insight into Cajetan’s mind and objectives, relative to his time in history. When he speaks of “commanding all kings,” even in “matters of a temporal character” and then eventually arrives at “keys of the realm are presented to a king as a sign of his supreme authority,” the pope is the contemporary king whom he has in mind. Cajetan is defending the notion of the pope as a supreme, absolute monarch, to whom all the monarchs of other kingdoms are subject in both religious and civil submission. This is not equivalent to the repackaged idea of the pope as the supreme head of Christian “faith and morals” that emerges as a subtle shift at Vatican II, nearly a century after the papal states had fallen. The infamous, authority claims of Vatican I were a last-ditch effort to maintain medieval ambitions, which could no longer be realized by the time Vatican II was convened. Religious and civil authority over the kingdoms of the world (geopolitical entities we call “nations” or “countries” didn’t yet exist), is what Cajetan had in mind. The Roman Catholic church of the day was intent to forcefully convert territories with the ultimate goal of “Christianizing” the world and incorporating every heathen culture into the papal states.

As an aside, we are centuries removed from the mentality of the late middle ages. Anyone considering swimming the Tiber should realize that representative, democratic republics and other similar forms of government, were unknown in the 16th century. Separation of civil and religious authority (which I believe approximates the Acts 2 and Acts 4 church and is consistent with Acts 5 and Romans 13), weren’t even a concept at the time of the Reformation, not until the Anabaptists came along.

If you truly think the Theonomist magisterial Reformers and Imperialist Roman Counter-Reformers had the right ideas about civil governance, ideas that were certainly behind Cajetan’s “linking” of Eliakim and Peter, just consider your prospective journey “home to Rome” in light of history. We may have a difficult time imagining such consolidation of power and influence under an earthly religious monarch, but history does tend to repeat itself. Submission to papal authority could eventually involve more than it does today. RC dogma is ever open to expansion and fallen men have a tendency to repeat the mistakes of history, not learn from them, especially when they are obscured by the passage of time. Just an observation but the Vatican has gotten very cozy in recent years with both secular and the broader religious community. See, for example their involvement in sectors like science, medicine, finance and economics, other major religions, other minor religions, and technology. Even though the pope has no direct authority over the civil rulers of the modern world, I’ll venture a guess that Cardinal Cajetan would at least be be pleased with the influence Rome is enjoying in “matters of temporal character.”

In contrast to medieval governing mindsets, consider just how “set apart” the early church in Acts was from imperial rule. As far as we know, Paul only invoked his Roman citizenship when his life depended on it (Acts 16:37-38, Acts 22:25-28) and presumably to get the Gospel message to the Emperor (Acts 25). As a tax collector, Matthew walked away from his “government” job (Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27–28), and Paul tells us (those of use blessed enough to understand him) our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20), not Rome.

Regarding the details of his Eliakim-Peter link, Cajetan does draw a parallel but it’s not typological, it concerns authority, in differing degrees. He dismisses the idea that “open and shut” is unrelated to “bind and loose,” viewing the later as a lesser form of the former. Then he states that Peter’s keys when used to open the kingdom of heaven, “carry out their proper actions in a higher and not a lower manner.” There is no Scriptural exegesis, no discussion of the ancient Jewish context of “binding and loosing,” and nothing offered as an explanation for these ideas. Something that should be to the uncomfortable for modern RC typology advocates is that Cajetan does employ typology, just not for Eliakim and Peter. He says: “the words of Isaiah 22 speak of Eliakim with reference to Christ,” then explains that the apostle John uses those words: “so as to show [Christ] was prefigured in Eliakim.” According to the modern theological authorities at Catholic Answers, there’s a problem with that argument.

Ignatius of Loyola

The context of the Ignatian letter is an attempt to leverage a relationship with the King of Portugal to convince the King of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) to accept a delegation of 12 Jesuit priests (modeled off the 12 apostles), thus bringing “the true pastors of souls united to the Supreme Pastor and Vicar” to his kingdom and protecting the Ethiopians from “infidels and enemies of [the] holy faith” (probably Muslim) that surround it. In other words, to Christianize Ethiopia from the top down. Once again, we see an imperialistic mindset, not at all consistent with the methods of evangelization that we see in Scripture or those most of us are familiar with today (whether RC or Protestant).

The Jesuit mission in Ethiopia lingered for about 75 years and has a little known history, but there’s hardly a better example of failed imperialistic evangelism. Sadly, Jesuits endured a good bit of persecution there but one has to wonder how much of it was provoked. To even begin to understand the situation, one has to understand that Christianity almost certainly arrived in Ethiopia before Rome. The area was never “Latinized” and an Orthodox Christian monarchy ruled there from about the time of Pentecost, all the way to 1974. Nobody in Ethiopian history (before the Jesuits arrived) ever had delusions of submitting to a pope in Rome. When one group of “true pastors of souls” tried to impose their pure version of politicized, imperial Christianity on another culture with similarly exclusivist ideas, it didn’t go well. As Derek Cooper in his book Introduction to World Christian History describes in telling the story of Jesuit, Jeronimo Lobo:

“[In 1625], Lobo was keen to establish a Roman Catholic presence in Ethiopia. As he gazed upon the state of the Ethiopian Church, Lobo marveled at how the Ethiopian (Orthodox) Christians, though tracing their heritage all the way back to the first century, were ‘possessed with a strange notion that they [were] the only true Christians in the world”^[8]Cooper, Derek. Introduction to World Christian History. (United States, InterVarsity Press, 2016).^[9]Lobo, Jeronimo, A Voyage to Abyssinia, ed. Joel Gold (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985)

It’s not surprising that the fiercely independent Ethiopians resisted papal takeover, they are also the only sub-Saharan country and one of only two countries in all of Africa (Liberia, the other) that resisted European colonization.^[10]Boddy-Evans, Alistair. “Which African Countries Were Never Actually Colonized?” ThoughtCo, (ThoughtCo, 6 Sept. 2020).

The content of the Ignatian letter relative to the Eliakim-Peter link is rather limited. Ignatius doesn’t mention Matthew 16 or Revelation 3, though it seems obvious he has a connection to the former in view. It’s less obvious he is aware of the direct allusion in Revelation 3 to Isaiah 22, but his objective is not Scriptural exegesis or commentary, it’s merely to justify “real and effective” jurisdictional authority of the church. To that end, he was probably better served quoting Isaiah 22:22 because of the more obvious imperial/dynastic context, which Matthew 16 lacks. Besides, the Ethiopian Orthodox likely had a different interpretation of Matthew 16 — one they had probably held for over 1500 years, at the time.

If Ignatius had mentioned Revelation 3:7, he may have needed to explain Christ holding the “key of David” (as opposed to Peter). This could indicate a lack of awareness of that passage or that he had simply not endeavored to think that through. In speaking of Isaiah 22:22, Ignatius does say: “Here we find Saint Peter and his successors prefigured,” an indication he may have understood a typological relationship between the passages but given his apparent objective in writing the letter and the fact that Scriptural exegesis or commentary is NOT in view, that can only be speculated. I’m not sure how Ignatius would have worked out the claimed “successors” of Peter, one can only speculate about that too, or chalk it up to a baseless claim.

Robert Bellarmine (cited by William Whitaker)

I am unable to find any freely available English translations of Bellarmine. I’ve included him in this list as a potential witness to an Eliakim-Peter connection (or notable lack thereof). He was probably the most prominent RC theologian of his time (now a “Doctor” of the church), so if he had ever commented on the passages of Scripture in question, it would be notable if he did NOT make a connection. The excerpt provided here is from a work I located by William Whitaker, an English Calvinist, that wrote against Bellarmine (cites him over 400 times) and Thomas Stapleton, another Jesuit. The paragraphs cited are separate passages from the book where Whitaker discusses Bellarmine’s views on Eliakim, the keys of Matthew 16, and one where the “key of David” is mentioned. None of them suggest Bellarmine understood a connection to exist between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:

Francis de Sales

The text from Francis de Sales explaining Peter’s preeminence is a meandering, confusing, mish-mash of Scripture, imagination, and paraphrased references to some of the church fathers (not quoted here). It would be interesting to examine his use of the fathers to see how closely he actually tracks with things they said. The excerpt included here is limited to the portion where he discusses Peter and Eliakim, and the relevant passages of Scripture. If anyone ever wanted to derive a wildly fanciful Eliakim-Peter story from de Sales, it wouldn’t be hard. He draws every parallel he can imagine and emphatically states: “it is the commandment which in Isaiah 22:22 is given to Eliakim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter.” Wow! Where does one begin? Just a few bullets this time:

• I’m not a medieval military historian but the statement: “When princes make their entrance into cities, the keys are presented to them as an acknowledgment of their sovereign authority,” might suggest more imperialist mentality. It sounds like the conquering of a territory and transfer of authority over that territory are in view.
• Revelation 3:7 is mentioned but he doesn’t discuss a direct allusion to Isaiah 22:22. He only says: “what can we understand but the supreme authority of the Church” — in Christ? It can be safely be concluded that he does see Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 to be related because he later (see below) identifies Eliakim as a “representation” of Christ.
• I’m not sure why Luke 1:32 is referenced. Perhaps de Sales intends for the reader to imagine Peter receiving an equivalent of the throne of David. Scripture never suggests anything of the sort.
• He anachronistically draws parallels with terms like “father” (“papa” or “pope” only began to be used as a title for bishops in mid-3rd century Alexandria, and not for a bishop of Rome until much later). I think the use of the term “father” in Isaiah 22 is one that mentally hooks people when they hear the typology drawn out. Most people don’t realize how long it takes to come into common use for bishops. It initially spread with monasticism but it’s only really familiar today because it’s used for priests, something that didn’t begin in the West until the 19th century, courtesy of Cardinal Edward Manning in England.
• He blends ideas and Scriptural phrases to create his own ideas (e.g. “keys of the kingdom of David” is a fusion of “keys of the kingdom of heaven” and “key of [the house of] David”)
• He refers to Eliakim as the “head of the Mosaic Temple” but Eliakim was set over royal palace (“master of the household”) not the Temple. Further, it was Solomon’s temple, not Moses.
• To round out his rambling, de Sales says: “Eliakim represented Our Lord as figure, S. Peter represents him as lieutenant; Eliakim represented him in the Mosaic Church, and S. Peter in the Christian Church.” — the problem here for the modern typology crowd is that he does NOT view Eliakim as a “type” of Peter, but rather says Eliakim and Peter each represent Christ in similar ways (parallelism). His use of “figure” can’t imply typology because in the parallel, he replaces it with “lieutenant.”

That’s it for Francis de Sales. It’s a rambling mess. I’m not sure much else can be said. One can certainly draw a number of parallels across the the three passages of Scripture in question but not a typology, unless they borrow ideas from others and combine them, which happens often. It’s rather alarming to see how unfamiliar he seems to be with Scriptural terms and concepts.

Cornelius A Lapide

Cornelius A Lapide is one of only two in this list of defenders and interpreters of old to have written an actual Biblical commentary, the other is Jacobus Tirinus. All of the other texts (indeed the earliest ones) are polemic (or political, perhaps) works or in the case of Ignatius of Loyola, just correspondence.

If one would expect to find a gloriously drawn out typology in this cadre, it would be in Lapide’s work. Unfortunately, even commentaries in the 16th-17th centuries were less exegetical than polemic. Nevertheless, Lapide’s rhetoric is bearable and he’s more direct and less prone to employ a fanciful imagination. He quotes extensively from the early church fathers in his commentary but does not represent many of them accurately. Occasionally, he quotes or paraphrases a contemporary’s quote (e.g. Bellarmine) of a church father and textual telephone games seem to be at play. One example of a misrepresented view is a reference to Cyprian’s treatise on unity, which I included in the excerpt. In our time, Cyprian has been vindicated of his alleged view of Roman primacy, by the majority of scholars.

A few observations in the excerpt included here:

• In the statements: “Peter was a representative of the Church as a king of a kingdom” and “For with such an object [as keys] in view the keys of the cities are delivered to kings and princes” we see a continuation of imperialist thought but there were statements in the commentary I didn’t include which suggest Lapide may have had a more moderate view of the pope/church’s role in civil governance, perhaps one where church and state share power.
• There are a couple blanket statements about what Rome now calls “Apostolic Succession” but they are only stated as an assumed consequence, they are never explained or defended (e.g. “consequently promised the same keys to the other Roman Pontiffs, successors of Peter”). I noticed this in a few of the other texts, as well. It’s never explained or defended, only declared as a consequential fact.
• Writing in opposition to John Calvin, Lapide is emphatic that the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” open doors but not by way of the “mouths of preachers.” I wonder what Jesus, Peter, Paul, Stephen, and all those speaking in tongues at Pentecost would have thought about that.
• He explicitly calls Matthew 16:19 an allusion to Isaiah 22:22 (not typology) and also states: “Eliakim was a type of Christ” (he likely has Revelation 3:7 in mind, though he doesn’t mention it — another passage in Revelation is mentioned, demonstrating his view of Eliakim as a type of Christ).

Once again, this presents problems for the the Catholic Answers lay theologians and proponents of an elaborate Eliakim-as-Peter typology. In Cornelius A Lapide, we find yet more baseless, ill-explained, imperialist authority claims and another view of Eliakim that the modern armchair theologians say is wrong.

Jacobus Tirinus

Analysis of the brief Latin commentary from Tirinus is based on English from Google Translate. Clearly this is not ideal. The Latin text is provided here so if a reader knows Latin and can offer a better translation, it would be helpful. Alternatively, if there is an existing English translation of this text, that would also help. Regardless of the quality of the translation, it seems the main ideas are discernable.

Tirinus, in-line with most of his contemporary “defenders and interpreters,” accurately describes Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22 as representing Christ. Interestingly, he cites two early church fathers as his source for this: Cyril [of Alexandria] and Theodoret [of Cyrus], whom we will visit in part 3. Tirinus Introduces the idea of the “key of David” as mentioned by John in Revelation 3:7 as being a key that was promised to be delegated to Peter in Matthew 16:19 (assuming the translation is accurate). He’s apparently unaware of the chronology problem this presents. Peter was dead by the time the book of Revelation was written, which was written 35-60 years after the book of Matthew was written and considerably longer after the events of Matthew 16 actually took place. This is is not the only detail he is confused about. He seems to think the Davidic palace was the same building as the Temple and that the “house of David” in Revelation 3:7 refers to a physical building, rather than the genealogical line of Christ made clear by the only verse in the entire New Testament to use the phrase, Luke 1:27. This all amounts to the fact that Jacobus Tirinus is Scripturally ignorant. Besides, his concept of key-delegation is not what is described today in the gloriously flowing typology.

Summary of the Rambling Reformers

If Dr. Scott Hahn has spent the last 32 years intentionally avoiding revealing the “defenders and interpreters” of old that he drew from to cobble together his sensational Eliakim-Peter storyline in 1990, it’s understandable. None of their interpretations align with his. At best, one can only borrow from multiple sources and piece together a similar narrative, but Dr. Hahn also added his own creative touch, evolving the “interpretation.” He anachronistically introduced the term “Prime Minister” for Peter, which is far removed from ancient Israel (even the Roman Empire) and the Davidic offices outlined in 1 Kings 4:1-19. He misrepresented a Protestant scholar by attributing the authorship of a commentary to him, when it was actually written by an Anglo-Catholic pedophile that ran an ecumenical institute at a Roman Catholic Seminary. He even went as far as to suggest that the “Protestant scholar” (who had edited the commentary series and had passed away years before Hahn’s revelation) had “admitt[ed] as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-Catholic interpreters”. That was only Hahn’s assessment, no such words or any like them appear anywhere in the commentary. Presumably, Dr. Hahn didn’t know about the moral misgivings of the pedophile priest but he should have, at a minimum, identified the commentary as one that represented perspectives from across the ecumenical spectrum. Dr. Hahn had recently taken a job as a Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University. Did this tale meet the standards of scholarly contributions to research?

After examining what the defenders and interpreters of old wrote — the very ones that Dr. Hahn likely alluded to in 1990, a different picture has emerged. Central to the story that Dr. Hahn originally presented, is the claim that Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22 was viewed as a prefiguration/representation (now a “type”) of Peter in Matthew 16:19, by 16th-17th century theologians. In recent years, this has become an incredibly popular defense of the papacy, deceptively luring all sorts of vulnerable people into the Tiber river, but it’s not even what these Counter-Reformers themselves believed! As Hahn said, it may have been the “the point above all points” for him, but his claim that: “It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia…set in” is far from accurate. Ignatius of Loyola is the only one of six that we have reviewed, who possibly held a view similar to Hahn. most of them actually correctly viewed Ekiakim as a representation of Christ. Here is a quick summary of the views we’ve looked at:

• Cardinal Thomas Cajetan – Views Eliakim as typologically prefiguring Christ (not Peter). The connection he draws between Eliakim and Peter is with parallel authority.
• Ignatius of Loyola – May view Peter “prefigured” in Eliakim but it’s unclear.
• Robert Bellarmine – Doesn’t appear to understand any relationship between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 but this is based on a third-party text and is inconclusive.
• Francis de Sales – Says that Eliakim represents Christ (not Peter). Also says Peter represents Christ, in a similar way.
• Cornelius A Lapide – Explicitly calls Matthew 16:19 an allusion to Isaiah 22:22 and but states: “Eliakim was a type of Christ” (not Peter) – the very typological relationship many Protestants view. Thus, it appears he views a typological relationship between Revelation 3:7 and Isaiah 22:22 and a mere allusion between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22.
• Jacobus Tirinus – Says Eliakim represents Christ (not Peter) and cites two prior sources (Cyril and Theodoret). Introduces the idea of the key of David being delegated to Peter in Revelation 3:7, as promised in Matthew 16 (assuming the translation is accurate). He’s apparently unaware of the problem this presents with the order in which the books of Matthew and Revelation were written. This means his concept of delegation is not what is described today. He also confuses the Temple with the Davidic palace and the “house of David” which, according to Luke 1:27 describes the lineage of Christ, with the physical building that probably no longer stood when Christ walked the earth.

Clearly, these RC Counter-Reformers didn’t even agree with one another, let alone were they “very aware of” the “point above all points.” If any two of them were in agreement about Isaiah 22:22, it was Cardinal Cajetan and Cornelius A Lapide. Catholic Answers lay theologians and apologists now tell us there is a problem with their view.

The only point all of these men seem to agree on is defending unfettered papal authority and it’s underlying theocracy. In the 16th and 17th centuries, this was generally based on a belief that the church should be the state, the pope should rule over the world, and new territories should be forcefully converted and incorporated into the papal states of Christendom.

In the next post, we will venture back over a thousand years further into church history to examine what the two witnesses cited by Jacobus Tirinus said about Eliakim and Isaiah 22:22. We will also examine other patristic interpretations of this passage, as well as Revelation 3:7. In doing so, we will see that there is consistent witness to Eliakim representing Christ, as well as evidence that the use of Isaiah 22:22 by “defenders and interpreters” of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation to justify papal claims of authority was a novelty of the 16th century. We’ll compete this series with a final post that itemizes the hermeneutic and historical dilemmas presented by the modern typology claim and wrap everything up with a quick review of what we’ve learned about the origins of the Eliakim-Peter typology.