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


Is the connection between Isaiah 22:

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

and Matthew 16:

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

something only Scott Hahn has been able to associate?

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


Oh heck no. Scott Hahn himself admits that while he was extremely pleased with himself when he discovered the parallel, he realized, at Mass, that the Church had beat him to it. The Lectionary for the 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time bunches these two readings together (I forget which year).



Here it is:

No one can assign this to Scott Hahn. :slight_smile:

While Scott Hahn is eminently respected as an apologist…it would strain credulity to believe that he is responsible for the association of the first reading and gospel in the lectionary of the entire Latin rite of the Church.


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


Its touched on here also by Mark Bonocore.


You do realise that the Catholic Church IS the early Church, correct? So, in our Apostolic tradition, we’d have been handed these truths down from the Apostles.


It shows that Scott Hahn is not the first person to come up with this connection.

You asserted that here (bold mine):

Noted that you are offering a rhetorical argument above, as stated by a hypothetical Catholic.

But point you were making was that Scott Hahn is offering his private interpretation of a connection between Isaiah and Matthew.

It turns out that this is not his private opinion, but that of the Church.


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


So can we at least agree that Scott Hahn isn’t offering anything new?

Surely you can agree that the Church’s lectionary didn’t get this from Scott Hahn, yes?


Sorry, but that’s not what you asked. What you asked is this:

“…something only Scott Hahn has been able to associate?
Or have there been other theologians, church fathers, popes and councils who have also drawn this connection?”

The fact that the modern Lectionary put this together DOES show that there have been other theologians, namely those who put together the Lectionary, that did see the parallel, as the Lectionary predates Scott Hahn’s conversion.

You can’t just wrench your own question out of its original context and all of a sudden limit it to the “early” Fathers just because you got an answer you didn’t quite like.


Yes I can, because what was not posted from the original thread this started on in the Non-Catholic Forums was exactly that

“I didn’t say it was his position. However, it is factually true regardless of his view of it. The only major church exegete from the first, say, millennium of Christianity who even draws somewhat of a parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 is St. John Cassian.”




Indeed it does. However, I was unaware that a lectionary is an official interpretation of a passage by the magisterium of the Church, much less a reference to any preceding fathers, popes or councils?


It proves, without a doubt, that this is not Scott Hahn’s private POV.

Can you at least acknowledge that?

Why are you being so recusant to this?

You asserted that this was Scott Hahn’s private opinion.

It clearly is something the Church already saw.


I am not. However, it doesn’t cease to be his private interpretation any more than any Protestant who happens to agree with a whole host of any other Protestants.

You asserted that this was Scott Hahn’s private opinion.

It clearly is something the Church already saw.

The Church, or those who compiled a lectionary?


The lectionary has, in one fell swoop, refuted your assertion that Scott Hahn had a private interpretation not shared by anyone for 2000 years.

The Church, or those who compiled a lectionary?

Here, they are one and the same.

I am out of here.

Question asked and answered.

I am hopeful that you, Per Crucem, will** never assert again** that Scott Hahn came up with this connection, and it was “not seen by any church fathers, popes or councils”.


That wasn’t what I asserted. Feel free, however, to manipulate it otherwise.


Peter and the other Apostles were the first theologians to figure it out.

They understood what the the Joseph was “over the house” of Pharaoh and that Mordecai was “over the house” of King Ahasuerus. They understood what clothing someone with the robe of the king meant and what placing the key of the king on the shoulder meant.

They understood what appointment of a prime minister by a king looked like and understood Jesus’ actions and words in that light.

Peter, James, John, et al were the first to figure it out. They got it straight from Jesus.



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


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

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit