I am reading Stephen K. Ray’s book "UPON THIS ROCK’ and I believe I read in this book that when Jesus called Peter ,Cephas, that this besstowing upon Peter was linked to God and Isaish. If so, did Isaiah literally see God or part of his body, and why was Isaish so different from the others,I mean ( without getting into too many specfics of prohets and Kings) it seems like God chose many people to do different things at many different times, throughout history. God Bless you all. Randy
It is difficult to tell from your question without an excerpt. I have not read his book, but perhaps he is writing about Isaiah 22:22 and its association with Matthew 16:19. Both verses show the dynastic succession of the office of high priest as represented by the keys. In Isaias it was by way of Shebna to Eliakim, whereas in Matthew it was by Jesus to Peter.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I believe that the Isaiah scripture is not necessarily a prophecy of Peter becoming Pope. Rather, it gives us incite as to how a Jew in the times of Jesus would have understood Jesus’ words about the keys he was giving Peter. Isaiah 22 shows an example of how keys were past during those and times and the meaning behind them. Christ knew the scripture well and uses pretty much the same language that is used to pass the keys that was used in Isaiah. I.e. “bind and loose” in Matthew and “open and shut” in Isaiah.
These two scriptures read together and understood as Jews would have understood them at that time is very convincing of the primacy of Peter in an office that would be past down through succession. Someone else may be able to further explain. But this is how I understand it.
Yoiu couldn’t have said it better!
thank you all so much for your knowledge. My next question has to do with the significance of Sebna’s group etc. At one point in time dont the Israelites break up into separate groups? if they do, why is this particular group of Israel (Sebna and Eliakim)so important. Has it to do with direct lineage of David?
There was a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I was not explaining it as a prophecy, but as tradition of how the office was passed down.
Eliakim, who replaced Shebna, became the holder of the keys. Eliakim now becomes second in command under King Hezekiah, the descendant of King David.
Eliakim becomes the holder of the Keys, and so becomes the vicar, or the regent, or also called the “master of the palace” who ruled as an agent or representative for the king.
Cf. 1 Kings 18:3,4 2 Kings 10:5, and 15:5
Read more on my page at
Eliakim becomes the holder of the Keys; I call him Hezekiah’s prime minister in Catechism class, and apply that same term to Peter later on.
BTW when Eliakim gets the keys, we also learn that he “shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,” which sets the precedent for key-holding Peter to also be a father (you know, a papa) to his king’s subjects.
Gracious folks, can you plese tell me why Rome was so important. Why do the protestants object strongly to the idea that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome or some say he never set foot in Rome. WHY Rome?
Rome is important because Peter’s successor is the Bishop of Rome.
See some evidence of Peter being in Rome below.