Examples of Offences and Confessions of Faith in the Kingdom of Heaven – Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 deals with perseverance in the Kingdom of Heaven as does the previous narrative section (Mat 11:2 to Mat 12:50); however, the emphasis here is upon the rejection and acceptance of the doctrines of the Kingdom. This narrative section carries forward previous themes as well, seen in the fact that Jesus continues to train the Twelve as He performs miracles and ministers to the people (the theme of the second major division), and seen in the fact that Jesus faces increasing persecution from the Jewish leaders (the theme of the third major division). In addition, Jesus now reveals Himself to the Twelve and predicts His Passion and Resurrection. This narrative material is related to the fourth major discourse that will follow (Mat 18:1-35) in that Jesus will then teach His disciples on the same topic of how to deal with offenses. The emphasis in this narrative material is that it serves as a testimony of the fulfillment of Isa 29:13, reflecting the theme of this division of Matthew on persecutions from within.

Isa 29:13, “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:”

This prophecy tells us that there will be those who appear to be members of the Kingdom, but their doctrine in wrong because their hearts are not with God. The remedy to persevere amidst this challenge is to come to the revelation of God’s Word, a doctrine founded upon the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a confession of faith made by Peter (Mat 16:16) upon which the doctrines of the New Testament Church are founded.

Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 has one of the most difficult structures to identify within the Gospel. [471] The key to understanding its structure is the fact that it generally alternates between those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ and those who acknowledge Him. Regarding the passages of denial, the Jews deny the testimony of Jesus and John the Baptist (Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:12), the testimony of the Scriptures (Mat 15:1-20), and the testimony of Jesus’ miracles (Mat 16:1-12). Regarding the passages of acceptance, David Turner recognizes clear “affirmations of faith” woven in the midst of these denials of Jesus’ deity. [472] The pericopes that show the Jews denying the testimony of Jesus and John the Baptist are followed by a series of miracles that solicit a confession from the Twelve declaring Jesus as the Son of God (Mat 14:33). The pericope that shows the Jewish leaders denying the Scriptures for tradition is followed by the Syro-Phoenician woman’s confession of faith in Jesus’ words (Mat 15:28). The pericope that shows the Jews denying the testimony of miracles performed by Jesus is followed by the confession of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is the Son of God (Mat 16:16). These events climax when Jesus reveals various aspects of the atonement and the responsibility of His disciples to this revelation (Mat 16:21 to Mat 17:27).

[471] David L. Turner, Matthew, in Baker Evangelical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 357.

[472] David L. Turner, Matthew, in Baker Evangelical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 357.

Outline: Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Rejection of Jesus & John the Baptist Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:36

2. The Rejection of Old Testament Scriptures Mat 15:1-39

3. The Rejection of the Miracles of Jesus Mat 16:1-20

4. The Revelation of the Atonement of Jesus Christ Mat 16:21 to Mat 17:27

Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:36 The Rejection of the Doctrine of Jesus and John the Baptist In Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:36 emphasis is placed upon the rejection of the message and doctrine of Jesus Christ and of John the Baptist by the Jewish leaders (Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:12) and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God by the disciples (Mat 14:13-36).

Here is a proposed outline:

1. Rejection of Jesus’ Doctrine at Nazareth Mat 13:54-58

2. Rejection of the Baptist’s Doctrine by Herod Mat 14:1-12

3. Acceptance of Doctrine of Jesus Christ: Three Miracles Mat 14:13-36

a) Feeding of Five Thousand Mat 14:13-21

b) Jesus Walks on the Water Mat 14:22-33

c) Jesus Heals the Multitudes in Gennesaret Mat 14:34-36

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Handling Offences and Persecutions in the Kingdom of God Mat 13:54 to Mat 18:35 emphasizes the theme of how God’s children are to handle offences and persecutions over doctrinal issues within the Kingdom of Heaven. [468] The narrative passage of Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 emphasizes the many occasions when offences came into Jesus’ ministry from the Jewish leaders and shows us how Jesus responded to offences. This narrative material builds upon the theme of the previous narrative material found in Mat 11:2 to Mat 12:50 regarding man’s reactions to the King. [469] This is because persecutions will come from those who adhere to false doctrines when we preach the Gospel and we must learn how to handle these offences. In this fourth narrative section, Jesus also explains to His disciples the dangers of offending others. Thus, the fourth discourse (Mat 18:1-35) teaches the disciples how to properly deal with these offences within the Church, which Jesus experiences in the preceding narrative passage.

[468] Benjamin Bacon identifies the theme of 13:54 to 18:35 as church government and the problems of church unity. He says, “Because of this unmistakable interest dominating the whole structure of Division B (Matthew 18) we naturally expect from previous experience of our evangelist’s use of his material that Division A will lead up to this Discourse on church government with narrative selections of corresponding character. In reality such is the case” See Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1930), 397, 410.

[469] Craig Blomberg says two major themes are carried over from the previous narrative material, which are the increased intensity of the rejection of Jesus Christ and His message, and the progressive, Christological revelation of His identity to the Twelve. He says the development of these two themes create “sharper lines of demarcation between insiders and outsiders.” See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, in The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 226. David Turner describes the two leading themes in the fourth narrative section as “increased oppition and conflict” and the works and teachings of Jesus intended to increase the faith of His disciples. See David L. Turner, Matthew, in Baker Evangelical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 358.

The one Old Testament prophecy of this division in Matthew’s Gospel is Mat 15:7-9, which quotes Isa 29:13 and simply prophecies how God’s own people would rejected the Gospel, reflecting the theme of this division of Matthew on persecutions from within.

Mat 15:7-9, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Isa 29:13, “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:”

In the fourth major discourse (Mat 18:1-35) that immediately follows the narrative material Jesus lays down principles for His disciples to follow when dealing with offences. He quotes Deu 19:15 as a guideline for His disciples to use when dealing with offences.

Deu 19:15, “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

We may compares this major division of material to the General Epistles of 2 Peter , 1, 2, 3 John and Jude in that they also emphasize persecutions that come from those who hold fast to false doctrines.

The section of Matthew emphasizing sanctification through perseverance from persecutions within (Mat 13:54 to Mat 18:35) closes with a transitional sentence that concludes each of the five discourses, telling us that Jesus had ended His teaching (Mat 19:1).

Mat 19:1, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;”

Literary Evidence of a Common Theme between the Fourth Narrative Section and the Discourse that Follows There is literary evidence that connects the third narrative-discourse section with the fourth narrative-discourse section. While these two macro structures share the same theme of perseverance in the faith for the child of God, there is literary evidence to confirm this connection. [470] For example, the fourth narrative section is related in retrospect to the third discourse in the fact that the Greek word is used nine times in the Gospel of Matthew, with six uses in the third discourse (Mat 13:13-15; Mat 13:19; Mat 13:23; Mat 13:51) and three uses in the fourth narrative (Mat 15:10; Mat 16:12; Mat 17:13). This literary evidence reflects the common theme of the servant of God’s need to persevere in the faith in the midst of offenses by hold fast to one’s understanding and confession of faith in God’s eternal Word. In addition, the fourth narrative section shares a common theme with the fourth discourse that follows in the use of the Greek words and , key words Jesus uses four times in the course of the fourth narrative (Mat 13:57; Mat 15:12; Mat 16:23; Mat 17:27), as well as six times during the fourth discourse (Mat 18:6-7 [three], 8, 9). Note that this key word opens and closes the fourth narrative section (Mat 13:57; Mat 17:27).

[470] The thematic scheme of perseverance connects third and fourth narrative-discourse sections. Scholars acknowledge the connection of these sections. For example, A. G. van Aarde says, “ Matthew 13:53-17:27, the fourth micronarrative, in an associative manner relates retrospectively to the third discourse (13:1-52) and prospectively to the fourth discourse (18:1-35), while correlating concentrically with the corresponding third micronarrative (11:2-12:50).” He again says, “the “structural interrelatedness of chapters 13, 14-17 and 18 fits into the concentric and progressive structure of the Gospel of Matthew as a whole.” See A. G. van Aarde, “Matthew’s Portrayal of the Disciples and the Structure of Matthew 13:53 17:27,” Neotestamentica 16 (1982): 21, 22.

Sanctification: Perseverance – Numbers Versus Fourth Discourse which Deals with Persecutions from Within – We see in the book of Numbers the establishment of the journey of perseverance that the children of Israel endured during the forty-year wilderness journey. In a similar way the fourth discourse on church discipline establishes the perseverance of the Church that every believer must endure.

The narrative passage of Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 emphasizes the many occasions when offences came into Jesus’ ministry from the Jewish leaders. In this passage, Jesus explained to His disciples the dangers of offending others. Thus, the fourth discourse (Mat 18:1-35) teaches the disciples how to properly deal with these offences within the Church, which Jesus experiences in the preceding narrative passage.

In summary, the fact that Matthew 11-18 deals with obstacles and persecutions along the journey as a servant of the Lord is a clear reminder of how the children of Israel wandered in the desert facing similar challenges in the book of Numbers.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Narrative: Examples of Offences Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27

2. The Fourth Discourse: Dealing with Offences Mat 18:1-35

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Demand for a Sign

v. 1. The Pharisees also, with the Sadducees, came, and tempting, desired Him that He would show them a sign from heaven.

Here is a combination showing how far unionistic tendencies may lead if the object is opposition to Christ: the Pharisees, legalists, with their unceasing harping upon the details of Law and tradition: and the Sadducees, rationalists, with their denial of large parts of the Old Testament and all those doctrines that did not suit their reason. At other times these two Jewish sects were at sword’s points, but for the purpose of resisting Christ they gladly unite their forces. In order to tempt Him, they come, in a malicious, deceitful manner. In a haughty way they request, demand, a sign from heaven, In chapter 12:38 they had not been so arrogant. Their bitterness toward Christ grew in the same measure as their inability to overcome Him. “Just as if the wonders which He had done hitherto were nothing at all, since they had been performed on earth only. As though they would say: Oh, these earthly miracles are nothing! If He would show that He was powerful in heaven, then one might believe Him. Not as though they had been willing even then to believe, but they in the meantime blaspheme these miracles in such a way, although they are far greater than those which they demanded from heaven. For to raise the dead, to give sight to the blind: that surpasses all signs which it is possible to show from heaven by as much as man, who is the likeness of God, surpasses heaven and all physical creatures, and eternal life the temporal creatures.”

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Mat 16:1-4

The Pharisees and Sadducees desire a sign. (Mar 8:11-13.)

Mat 16:1

The Pharisees also with the Saddueees; rather, and the Pharisees and Sadducees. The scribes and Pharisees are often mentioned together as watching or attacking Jesus; but this is the first time that we hear of Pharisees combining with Sadducees for this purpose. The two sects were directly opposed to each other, the traditional belief of the former being antagonistic to the scepticism and materialism of the latter. But both were hostile to Christ, whose teaching, on the one hand interfered with rabbinism, and on the other maintained the existence of the supernatural and the certainty of the resurrection. The Sadducees alone seem to have attacked Christ only on two occasions. They were probably Herodians (comp. Mat 22:16), and on this account also disliked by the Pharisees; but they were powerful, and held most of the highest offices in the state, and their alliance was sought or allowed in order more effectually to compromise Jesus. Even theological hatred and political opposition sank into indifference in the face of what was regarded as a common danger. Strauss and his school regard this combination as so unnatural that they throw discredit on the whole account. This is shallow criticism. Nothing is more common than for persons opposed on all other subjects to coalesce for an unholy purpose in which they are jointly interested. The most violent political opponents will join forces in order to gain some desired point, and. when an attack on the Church is meditated, even unbelievers are gladly welcomed. Tertullian says forcibly, “Christ is always being crucified between two thieves.” Tempting. Trying him with captious questions, to bring him into a difficulty, or to give them an opportunity of accusing him of heterodoxy, or disloyalty, or insubordination, and of discrediting him with the people. A sign from heaven. The rabbis held that demons and. false gods could perform certain miracles on earth, but God alone could give signs from heaven, such as, e.g., the manna of Moses’ time, the staying of the sun and moon by Joshua, the lightning and thunder that came at Samuel’s word, the stroke of death on the captains who tried to arrest Elijah. They had heard of the miraculous meal just before, and saw how deeply the people were moved by it, and they would imply that such a miracle was no proof of a Divine mission, as it might have been wrought by magical or Satanic agency. Let Christ give a sign from heaven, and they would acknowledge his claims. They knew what Christ’s answer would be, as they had already attacked him with the same demand (Mat 12:38); and they hoped that he would either refuse to gratify them, as before, or else make an attempt and fail. In either case they thought they might turn the circumstance to his disadvantage. The Sadducees joined in the request, because they disbelieved in all such occurrences, and were fully persuaded that they were impossible, and any one who attempted to produce them must prove himself a miserable impostor. The word translated desired. () is emphatic; the verb is used classically in the sense of “to put a question for decision;” so the interrogation here would signify that this was to be a final test of the claims of Christ; on his answer depended their adhesion or opposition.

Mat 16:2

The paragraph consisting of this and Mat 16:3 is omitted by many good manuscripts, probably owing to its similarity to the passage in Mat 12:38. These verses are most probably genuine; and they certainly could not have been foisted into the text from Luk 12:54-56. The circumstances are too different, and the variations too marked, to make such interpolation probable. When it is evening. The Pharisees had demanded a sign from heaven; Jesus points to the western glow in the sky, and taunts them with being ready enough to read the signs of the weather, but slow to interpret proofs of more important circumstances. He does not, in the case of these mixed cavillers, argue from Scripture, but from the natural world, and he points out that, had they eyes to see and a mind to discern, they might mark tokens in historical events, in the moral and spiritual world, which attested his Messiahship as clearly as any specially given sign from heaven. Ye say, It will be fair weather (). Probably an exclamation, Ye say, Fair weather! Rabbinical schools made a point of teaching weather lore; prognostications on this subject were greatly in vogue, and the rains of the coming year were annually foretold. On such meteorological observations, we may refer to Virgil, ‘Georg,’ 1.425, etc.; and Pliny, ‘Nat. Hist.,’ 18.35 and 78.

Mat 16:3

It will be foul weather today more tersely in the Greek, Today a storm! Such prognostications are found among all peoples. Many examples are collected by Wetstein. Lowring (); a word applied to the expression of the countenance, and therefore applicable, by prosopopceia, to the look of the sky. Fillion quotes Aulus Gellius, Mat 13:29, “Non solum in hominum corporibus, sed etiam in rerum cujusquemodi aliarum facies dicitur. Nam montis et coeli et maris facies, si tompestive dicatur, probe dicitur.” O ye hypocrites (). The word is omitted by some uncial manuscripts, the Vulgate, etc., and many modern editors. If it is genuine, we must consider that Christ thus calls them, because their pretence of being satisfied with sufficient proof of Christ’s claims was a mere fiction, as they were obstinately determined never to acknowledge him. It would be casting pearls before swine to give further external proofs to people without sympathy and not open to conviction. The signs of the times ( ). Critical times, the age foretold for the appearance of the Messiah. These signs, which all who were candid and unbiassed might read, were such as the following: the sceptre had departed from Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet; the fourth great empire was established; the prophetic weeks of Daniel were at their close; the Baptist had come in the spirit and power of Elias; all the world was expecting the advent of some great personage; the best and holiest Jews were looking for the Redeemer; Christ’s own miracles and teaching proved his Divinity and the fulfilment of many obscure prophecies; these and such like signs were set for all to see and ponder, and the Lord, as he marked the obstinate unbelief of his countrymen, might well be grieved, and “sigh deeply in his spirit” (Mar 8:12).

Mat 16:4

A wicked and adulterous generation Jonas. These words our Lord had already uttered on a former occasion (Mat 12:39), but he does not here explain them, as he did before (see Introduction, 7). Under similar circumstances he repeats himself, but he wastes not time in useless discussions with perverse opponents who will not see the truth. Of his death and resurrection, whereof Jonah was a type, they knew and understood nothing. Perhaps they thought of Jonah only as a prophet against the heathen city Nineveh, and a preacher of repentance, and were disposed to resent the allusion as an affront to their vaunted righteousness. He left them. Took ship for Magedan, and crossed the lake to the northeast shore, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida Julias. He, as it were, despaired of their improvement, and left them in righteous anger at their obduracy. “A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned” (Tit 3:10, Tit 3:11). Jesus never taught publicly or worked miracles again on this spot.

Mat 16:5-12

Warning against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Mar 8:14-21.)

Mat 16:5

They had forgotten (, not pluperfect); came to the other side, and forgot; obliti sunt (Vulgate); i.e. they perceived that they had forgotten to take sufficient bread for the journey before them. The district which they were about to traverse was but sparsely inhabited, and offered no hope of supplying this want. It is doubted whether the ensuing conversation took place during the voyage or after they had landed. The language of St. Mark inclines one to believe that the deficiency was discovered during the transit, and the remarks now narrated were made then. As it would take some hours to cross, there was ample time to feel and expatiate upon the need; and if Christ had told them of his future movements, they would naturally feel regret for their carelessness and want of forethought. Or it might be that Christ’s observation concerning the leaven was made in the beat, and his reproof of their thoughts was given on landing.

Mat 16:6

The leaven. Christ’s thoughts were still fixed on the late disputants, whose powerful influence on popular opinion called for forcible warning. By “leaven” he does not here refer specially to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, as in Luk 12:1, but to the evil influence which they exercised, which was diffused far and wide, and penetrated to all ranks and classes. Their unsound opinions, their inability or disinclination to enter into the spiritual sense of Scripture, vitiated their whole system, and made them dangerous teachers directly they attempted to explain or amplify the letter of Holy Writ. It was this same perverse blindness that led them to refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah in spite of all the proofs which had been brought before them. That leaven, in one aspect, was regarded as a sign of impurity and corruption, we learn from the strict rules which banished it from Divine service, and especially during the Passover season. Says St. Paul, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal 5:9); and, “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened” (1Co 5:7). Elsewhere Christ makes a distinction between what these teachers taught ex cathedra, and what they put forth on their own authority or what they practised themselves (Mat 23:2, Mat 23:3, where see note).

Mat 16:7

They reasoned among themselves. With a crass literalness, the apostles utterly misunderstood the drift of their Master’s warning, and thought that he alluded to their forgetfulness in coming without bread. They were always slow to apprehend the metaphorical and spiritual signification of their Master’s language. Thus at the synagogue in Capernaum they failed to grasp his meaning when he spoke of himself as the Bread of life (Joh 6:1-71.), and at Jacob’s well they interpreted of material food his Divine words concerning the nourishment of the soul (Joh 4:1-54.). It is well remarked by Sadler (in loc.) that “it is no small proof of the good faith and consequent truth of the gospel, that the apostles should have recorded things so against themselves as this account. If they had written for any purpose except the simple exhibition of the truth, they could easily have suppressed facts such as this, so very discreditable to their spiritual, indeed to their mental, perception. But if we had lost accounts such as these, we should have lost the proof of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, miracle of its kind; for no miraculous change in the spirit of man which God has wrought can be accounted greater than thisthat men who, before the resurrection and the Day of Pentecost, should have exhibited such utter want of the lowest spiritual discernment, should, after the descent of the Spirit, have written such searching spiritual documents as the catholic Epistles of Peter and John.” In the present case some commentators take it that the apostles fancied Christ was warning them against procuring any leavened bread from Pharisees and Sadducees, whom Jesus so sternly denounced; but it is more probable that their anxiety arose simply from the want of provisions, not from the consideration that they were debarred from obtaining them at the hands of certain parties. These doubts they seem to have whispered one to another.

Mat 16:8

When Jesus perceived (). He knew their thoughts, if he did not overhear their words, and he reproved them severely on two accountsfirst, for want of faith in his care; and secondly, for not understanding the mystical allusion in the word “leaven.” Ye of little faith. They showed lack of faith by being solicitous concerning bodily wants, thinking that Christ was regardless of, or unable to provide for them under all circumstances. He applied the same term to them elsewhere, as when they apprehended not the lesson of the grass of the field (Mat 6:30), and when they were fearful in the storm on the lake (Mat 8:26).

Mat 16:9, Mat 16:10

Christ, in support of his reproof, refers to the two miracles of the multiplication of food, which ought to have assured them of his care and power. Do ye not yet understand? So he asked in Mat 15:16, “Are ye also yet without understanding?” Their heart was hardened, and they failed to apprehend the spiritual bearing of the incidents. Neither remember? This was an additional ground for censure, that they even forgot the facts at the very time when they ought to have been recalled to their memory. Jesus reminds them of the distinctive differences between the two miracles, mentioning even the receptacles in which the fragments were collectedin the one case , small baskets, and in the other , large panniers. It is surely wilful perversity that has deemed these two incidents, thus pointedly disjoined by our Lord, as versions of one story; and yet this is what some modern critics have suggested and upheld.

Mat 16:11

That I spake it not to you, etc. The Revised Version, following many modern editors, divides the clause into two, thus: that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven, etc. This is the second ground for the Lord’s reproof administered to the apostles. They had taken in a carnal, literal sense a word which he had used in a symbolical or mystical meaning. It is the want of spiritual discernment which he censures. They had had frequent opportunities of hearing and appreciating his mode of teaching: miracles, parables, discourses, had an inner signification, which it was their duty to apprehend. The want of understanding was a moral fault for which they were answerable. We may say it would have been easier for our Lord to have spoken of doctrine without using the misunderstood figure of leaven. But it is in the way of his providence to speak words which need thought and grace to make them fully comprehended. They are thus more impressed upon the heart and memory, and bring forth better fruit. A well instructed Hebrew ought to have no difficulty in understanding metaphorical allusions. His Scriptures were full of them, and could not be intelligently read without the light thus cast upon them.

Mat 16:12

Then understood they. Jesus did not explain his meaning further; but his reproof roused their intellect, made them reflect, set them on the road to the truth. The doctrine. This was what Jesus meant by “the leaven.” In a wider sense it might include practice as well as precept, manner of life as well as teaching. The same spirit permeated all. “See,” says St. Chrysostom, “how much good his reproof wrought. For it both led them away from the Jewish observances, and, when they were remiss. made them more heedful, and delivered them from want of faith; so that they were not afraid nor in alarm, if at any time they seemed to have few loaves; nor were they careful about famine, but despised all these things.”

Mat 16:13-20

The climax of recognition of Christ‘s true nature declared in the great confession of Peter. (Mar 8:27-30; Luk 9:18-21.)

Mat 16:13

Coasts (); parts, as Mat 15:21, etc. Caesarea Philippi. The addition to the name Caesarea is intended to commemorate its restorer and beautifier, the tetrarch Philip, and to distinguish it from the city of the same name on the coast between Joppa and Carmel (Act 8:40, etc.). Our Lord had landed at Bethsaida, where the Jordan enters the Lake of Gennesaret, turned northwards, and, following the course of the river, had now arrived in the vicinity of one of its chief sources at Caesarea Philippi, the most northerly city of the Holy Land. It was, if not identical with, in close proximity to, the Dan of the Old Testament, whence arose the saying, “From Dan to Beersheba,” to denote the whole extent of country from north to south. Later it was called Paneas, and now Banias. Philip altered the name to Caesarea in honour of Tiberius Caesar, his patron. Christ seems not to have visited the city itself, but only the outlying villages in the district. We may conjecture why at this Lime he moved to this remote region. It was probably, partly, a measure of precaution. He had excited the fiercest animosity of the dominant party, and even of the sceptical Sadducees; he was pertinaciously followed by their emissaries, always on the watch to lay hold of his words and actions, and to found upon them dangerous charges; and now, knowing it was time to announce to his followers in plain terms his claim to be Messiah, he would not do this in Judaea, where it might cause commotion, and embroil him with the authorities, but preferred to teach this great truth where he might speak freely without fear of immediate consequences, out of the reach of his persevering opponents. Virtually, also, his public work in Judaea and Galilee had reached its end. He had no chance of a hearing if he had made further attempts at teaching. The calumnies of the rabbis had affected the fickle populace, who would willingly have followed a military pretender, but had no heart to set at nought their national teachers in favour of One whom they were persuaded to regard as a dangerous innovator, not improbably upheld by Satanic agency. He asked his disciples. It was after a time of solitary prayer (Luk 9:18) that he put this question to his followers. Determined now to reveal himself, he desired to make them express the mistaken views which were rife concerning his Person and office, and to lead them to the more important inquirywhat opinion they themselves held touching this momentous mystery (verse 15). Whom (who) do men say that I the Son of man am? Quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis (Vulgate); Who do men say that the Son of man is? (Revised Version). The versions represent the variation of manuscripts between ..., and , omitting . The pronoun is probably genuine and emphatic. In the other case, “the Son of man” is equivalent to in verse 15. I call myself the Son of man: what do the multitudes say of me? Who do they consider the Son of man to be? This was the term he used to show the truth of the Incarnation”perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.” To Jewish ears it connoted Divinity (see Luk 22:69, Luk 22:70; Joh 3:13).

Mat 16:14

John the Baptist. This was the opinion of Herod Antipas (Mat 14:1, Mat 14:2), who fancied that Christ was animated by the spirit of John the Baptist, or was actually that personage’ revived; though it was noticed by others that John did no miracle (Joh 10:41), and lived a life in contrast to that of Christ (Mat 11:18, Mat 11:19). Elias; Elijah, who was taken up to heaven without dying, and was announced by Malachi (Mal 4:5) as destined to return before the appearance of Messiah. Jeremias. Some opined that he was Jeremiah, who was expected to come as a precursor of Messiah (2 Esdras 2:18), and reveal the tabernacle, ark, and the altar of incense, which, according to the legend of 2 Macc. 2:4-7, he had hidden in Mount Nebo, “until the time that God gather his people again together, and receive them unto mercy.” One of the prophets. One of the celebrated prophets of antiquity revived, restored to life again to prepare the way for the great consummation. The well known prediction of Moses (Deu 18:15) may have given rise to this idea. The four popular opinions here mentioned showed two factsthat Jesus had a high reputation among his contemporaries, and that he was by none at this time regarded as the Messiah. Even those who, after certain of his marvellous works, had been ready to honour him with that title, soon cooled in their ardour, and, checked by his reserve and the slanders of the Pharisees, learned to see in him only a wonder-worker or a precursor of the expected Prince and Liberator.

Mat 16:15

But whom (who) say ye that I am? More emphatic in the Greek, ; But ye, who do ye say that I am? This was the important question to which the previous one led. Ye, who have shared my life and received my teaching, witnessed my miracles and have been endued by me with supernatural powers, ye know better than the people, whose crude opinions you have heard and recounted; so tell plainly what you believe of me: who you think and say that I am? A momentous inquiry! upon which hung the foundation of the Christian Church. Their knowledge of the real nature of Jesus was now to be tested.

Mat 16:16

Simon Peter answered and said. The ardent Peter, when all were asked, replies in the name of the rest, giving, however, his own personal sentiment and belief, as we see from Christ’s answer (Mat 16:17). Some of the others probably would have been less ready to make the same confession; but in his vehement loyalty, Peter silences all hesitation, and declares boldly what must be the conviction of all his comrades. He speaks out the persuasion wrought in his soul by Divine grace. Thou art the Christ (), the Son of the living God. The Christ; the Anointed, the Messiah. The Son of God; of the same substance, one with the Father. Living; as alone “having life in himself,” “the living and true God” (Joh 5:26; 1Th 1:9). The same (or nearly the same) confession was made by Peter in the name of all the apostles at Capernaum (Joh 6:69); but the sense of the expression was different, and sprang from very different conviction. It referred rather to the subjective view of Christ’s character, as it influenced the believer’s inward assurance of the source of eternal life. Here the acknowledgment concerns the nature, office, and Person of our Lord. That there was some special distinction between the two enunciations is evident from Christ’s unique commendation of Peter on this occasion compared with his silence on the former. The present confession is indeed a noble one, containing itself a compendium of the Catholic faith concerning the Person and work of Christ. Herein Peter acknowledges Jesus to be the true Messiah, commissioned and sent by God to reveal his will to man, and accomplishing all that the prophets had foretold concerning him; no mere man, not even the most exalted of men (which common opinion held Messiah to be) but the Son of God, of the substance of the Father, begotten from everlasting, God of God, perfect God and perfect man, Son of God and Son of man. Such was Peter’s faith. The Church has added nothing to it, though she has amplified and explained and illustrated it in her Creeds; for it comprises belief in Christ’s Messiahship, Divinity, Incarnation, personality, and the momentous issues depending thereon. We need not suppose that Peter understood all this or speculated on the question how these several attributes were united in Christ. He was content to accept and acknowledge the truth, waiting patiently for further light. This is the attitude which Christ approves.

Mat 16:17

Jesus answered and said unto him. This weighty and momentous answer is given alone by St. Matthew. St. Mark, who wrote under the instruction of Peter, and for Roman Christians, mentions it not; the other two evangelists are equally silent, having evidently not understood the special importance attached to it. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona. “Blessed,” as in the sermon on the mount (Mar 5:1-43.), expressing a solemn benediction, not a mere encomium. Peter was highly favoured by a special revelation from God. Christ calls him “son of Jona,” to intimate that Peter’s confession is truethat he himself is as naturally and truly Son of God as Peter is son of Jona. So Christ addresses him when he restores the fallen apostle at the Sea of Galilee after the second miraculous draught of fishes, reminding him of his frail human nature in the face of great spiritual privileges (Joh 21:15, etc.; comp. Mat 1:1-25 :42). Simon would be the name given at his circumcision; Bar-jona, a patronymic to distinguish him from others of the same name. For (). This introduces the reason why Christ calls him “Blessed.” Flesh and blood. This is a phrase to express the idea of the natural man, with his natural endowments and faculties. So St. Paul says (Gal 1:16), “I conferred not with flesh and blood;” and “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood” (Eph 6:12). The Son of Sirach speaks of “the generation of flesh and blood” (Ecclesiasticus 14:18). No natural sagacity, study, or discernment had revealed the great truth. None of these had overcome slowness of apprehension, prejudices of education, slackness of faith. No unregenerate mortal man had taught him the gospel mystery. My Father which is in heaven. Christ thus accepts Peter’s definition of him as “the Son of the living God.” None but the Father could have revealed to thee the Son.

Mat 16:18

And I say also (I also say) unto thee. As thou hast said unto me, “Thou art the Christ,” so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (, Petrus), and upon this rock (, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between and is well knownthe former meaning “a rock,” the latter “a piece of rock,” or “a stone.” But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (Joh 1:42). The name was bestowed in anticipation of Peter’s great confession: “Thou shalt be called.” This preannouncement was here fulfilled and confirmed. Upon this passage chiefly the claims of the Roman Church, which for fifteen centuries have been the subject of acrimonious controversy, are founded. It is hence assumed that the Christian Church is founded upon Peter and his successors, and that these successors are the Bishops of Rome. The latter assertion may be left to the decision of history, which fails to prove that Peter was ever at Rome, or that he transmitted his supposed supremacy to the episcopate of that city. We have in this place to deal with the former assertion. Who or what is the rock on which Christ says that he will hereafter build his Church? French Romanists consider it a providential coincidence that they can translate the passage, “Je te disque, Tu es Pierre; et sur cette pierre je batirai,” etc.; but persons outside the papal communion are not satisfied to hang their faith on a play of words. The early Fathers are by no means at one in their explanations of the paragraph. Living before Rome had laid claim to the tremendous privileges which it afterwards affected, they did not regard the statement in the light of later controversies; and even those who held Peter to be the rock would have indignantly repelled the assumptions which have been built on that interpretation. The apostolic Fathers seem to have mentioned the passage in none of their writings; and they could scarcely have failed to refer to it had they been aware of the tremendous issues dependent thereon. It was embodied in no Catholic Creed, and never made an article of the Christian faith. We may remark also that of the evangelists St. Matthew alone records the promise to Peter; Mark and Luke give his confession, which was the one point which Christ desired to elicit, and omit that which is considered to concern his privileges. This looks as though, in their view, the chief aim of the passage was not Peter, but Christ; not Peter’s pre-eminence, but Christ’s nature and office. At the same time, to deny all allusion to Peter in the “rock” is quite contrary to the genius of the language and to New Testament usage, and would not have been so pressed in modern times except for polemical purposes. Three views have been held on the interpretation of this passage.

(1) That Christ himself is the Rock on which the Church should be built.

(2) That Peter’s confession of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or God incarnate, is the Rock.

(3) That St. Peter is the rock.

(1) The first explanation is supported by passages where in Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. “Destroy this temple;” “If any man eat of this bread; Whoso falleth on this stone,” etc. In the same sense are cited the words of Isaiah (Isa 28:16), “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious comerstone, a sure foundation.” Almighty God is continually called “a Rock” in the Old Testament (see 2Sa 22:32; Psa 18:31; Psa 57:2, Psa 57:6, Psa 57:7, etc.), so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself “this Rock,” in accordance, with the words of St. Paul (1Co 3:11), “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (), which is Jesus Christ.” But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: “Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church.” It is true that some few eminent authorities have taken this view. Thus St. Augustine writes, “It was not said to him, ‘Thou art a rock (petra),’ but, ‘Thou art Peter,’ and the Rock was Christ” (‘Retract.,’ 1.21). And commentators have imagined that Christ pointed to himself as he spoke. In such surmises there is an inherent improbability, and they do not explain the commencement of the address. In saying, “Thou art Peter,” Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock.

(2) The explanation which finds the rock in Peter’s great confession has been widely adopted by commentators ancient and modern. Thus St. Chrysostom, “Upon this rock, that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby he signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.” To the same purport might be quoted Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory Nyss., Cyril, and others. It is remarkable that in the Collect from the Gregorian Sacramentary and in the Roman Missal on the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul are found the words, “Grant that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti) to be shaken by any commotions.” Bishop Wordsworth, as many exegetes virtually do, combines the two interpretations, and we cite his exposition as a specimen of the view thus held: “What he says is this, ‘I myself, now confessed by thee to be both God and Man, am the Rock of the Church. This is the foundation on which it is built.’ And because St. Peter had confessed him as such, he says to St. Peter, ‘Thou hast confessed me, and I will now confess thee; thou hast owned me, I will now own thee. Thou art Peter,’ i.e. thou art a lively stone, hewn out of and built upon me, the living Rock. Thou art a genuine Petros of me, the Divine Petra. And whosoever would be a lively stone, a Peter, mast imitate thee in this thy true confession of me, the living Rock; for upon this Rock, that is, on myself, believed and confessed to be both God and Man, I will build my Church.” As the opinion that Christ means himself by “this rock” is untenable, so we consider that Peter’s confession is equally debarred from being the foundation intended. Who does not see that the Church is to be built, not on confessions or dogmas, but on menmen inspired by God to teach the great truth? A confession implies a confessor; it was the person who made the confession that is meant, not the mere statement itself, however momentous and true. Thus elsewhere the Church is said to have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), “Ye,” says St. Peter (1Pe 2:5), “as living stones are built up a spiritual house.” “James and Cephas who were reputed to be pillars” (Gal 2:9). In Revelation (Rev 21:14) the foundationstones of the heavenly temple are “the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Hence we gather that the rock is a person.

(3) So we come to the explanation of the difficulty which naturally is deduced from the language if considered without regard to prejudice or the pernicious use to which it has been put. Looking at the matter in a straightforward way, we come to the conclusion that Christ is wishing to reward Peter for his outspoken profession of faith; and his commendation is couched in a form which was usual in Oriental addresses, and intelligible to his hearers. “Thou hast said to me, ‘Thou art the Son of God;’ I say to thee, ‘Thou art Peter,’ a rock man, ‘and on thee,’ as a rock, ‘I will build my Church.’ “As he was the first to acknowledge Christ’s nature and office, so he was rewarded by being appointed as the apostle who should inaugurate the Christian Church and lay its first foundation. His name and his work were to coincide. This promise was fulfilled in Peter’s acts. He it was who took the lead on the Day of Pentecost, when at his preaching, to the hundred and twenty disciples there were added three thousand souls (Act 2:41); he it was who admitted the Gentiles to the Christian community (Act 10:1-48.); he it was who in these early days stood forth prominently as a master builder, and was the first to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles. It is objected that, if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised. The expression, of course, is metaphorical. Christ builds the Church by employing Peter as the foundation of the spiritual house; Peter’s zeal and activity and stable faith are indeed the living rock which forms the material element, so to speak, of this erection; he, as labouring in the holy cause beyond all others, at any rate in the early days of the gospel, is regarded as that solid basis on which the Church was raised. Christ, in one sense, builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ. The Church, in so far as it was visible, had Peter for its rocky foundation; in so far as it was spiritual, it was founded on Christ. The distinction thus accorded in the future to Peter was personal, and carried with it none of the consequences which human ambition or mistaken pursuit of unity have elicited therefrom. There was no promise of present supremacy; there was no promise of the privilege being handed down to successors. The other apostles had no conception of any superiority being now conferred on Peter. It was not long after this that there was a strife among them who should be the greatest; James and John claimed the highest places in the heavenly kingdom; Paul resisted Peter to the face “because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11); the president of the first council was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. It is plain that neither Peter himself nor his fellow apostles understood or acknowledged his supremacy; and that he transmitted, or was intended to transmit, such authority to successors, is a figment unknown to primitive Christianity, and which was gradually erected, to serve ambitious designs, on forged decretals and spurious writings. This is not the place for polemics, and these few apologetic hints are introduced merely with the view of showing that no one need be afraid of the obvious and straightforward interpretation of Christ’s words, or suppose that papal claims are necessarily supported thereby. I will build my Church ( ). My Church, not thine. Plainly, therefore, the Church was not yet builded. Christ speaks of it as a house, temple, or palace, perhaps at the moment gazing on some castle founded securely on a rock, safe from flood and storm and hostile attack. We know how commonly he took his illustrations from objects and scenes around him; and the rocky base of the great castle of Caesarea Philippi may well have supplied the material for the metaphor here introduced. The word translated “church” (), is found here for the first time in the New Testament. It is derived from a verb meaning “to call out,” and in classical Greek denotes the regular legislative assembly of a people. In the Septuagint it represents the Hebrew kahal, the congregation united into one society and forming one polity (see Trench, ‘Synonyms’). The name kehila in modern times is applied to every Jewish community which has its own synagogue and ministers. From the use of the metaphor of a house, and the word employed to designate the Church, we see that it was not to be a mere loose collection of items, but an organized whole, united, officered, and permanent. Hence the word Ecclesia has been that which designated the Christian society, and has been handed down and recognized in all ages and in all countries. It may be regarded as the personal part of that kingdom of heaven which was to embrace the whole world, when “the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15; see Introduction, 10.). The gates of hell () shall not prevail against it. Hades, which our version calls “hell,” is the region of the dead, a gloomy and desolate place, according to Jewish tradition, situated in the centre of the earth, a citadel with walls and gates, which admitted the souls of men, but opened not for their egress. There are two ways of explaining these words, though they both come to much the same idea. The gates of Hades represent the entrance thereto; and the Lord affirms that death shall have no power over the members of the Church; they shall be able to rise superior to its attacks, even if for a time they seem to succumb; their triumphant cry shall he, “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (1Co 15:55). Through the grave and gate of death they shall pass to a joyful resurrection. The other interpretation is derived from the fact that in Oriental cities the gate is the scene of deliberation and counsel. Hence “the gates” here may represent the evil designs planned by the powers of hell to overthrow the Church, the wiles and machinations of the devil and his angels, Hades being taken, not as the abode of the dead, but as the realm of Satan. Neither malignant spirits nor their allies, such as sin, persecution, heresy, shall be able to wreck the eternal building which Christ was founding. Combining the two expositions, we may say that Christ herein promises that neither the power of death nor the power of the devil shall prevail against it ( ), shall overpower it, keep it in subjection. The pronoun refers doubtless to Church, not rock, the verb being more applicable to the former than the latter, and the pronoun being nearer in position to . To see here an assurance of the infallibility of the pope, as Romanists do, is to force the words of Scripture most unwarrantably in order to support a modern figment which has done infinite harm to the cause of Christ. As Erasmus says, “Proinde miror esse, qui locum hunc detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem.”

Mat 16:19

I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The metaphor of a house or castle, with its gates that must be opened with keys, is still maintained; or else the idea is of the exercise of a stewardship in a household. But the latter seems unnecessarily to introduce a new notion, and to mar the concinnity of the passage. In Isa 22:22 we read, “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”where the figure is similar. The delivery of the keys of a city, etc., to a person, symbolizes the handing over of the authority to that person. “The kingdom of heaven” means here the visible Church of Christ in its most extended form. In this Church, hereafter to be constituted, Peter personally is promised a certain authority. This is a personal reward for his good confession, and a prediction of the way in which he was to exercise it. At the same time, there is a change in the figure used. He who was the foundation of the Church is now its overseer, and may open or shut its doors, may admit or exclude whomsoever he will, always following the guidance of the inspiring Spirit. This promise was fulfilled after the Day of Pentecost. It seems to have been at this time only promised, not conferred upon Peter. The actual gift of the power to him and his brother apostles took place after the Resurrection, as we read in Joh 20:22. The “power of the keys,” as it is called, is considered to have two branchesa legislative pewee and an absolving power. The former Peter exercised when he took the lead after the effusion of the Spirit, and opened the door to the Jews. It was his action that admitted the Gentiles, without compliance with the distinctive rites of Judaism, to all the privileges of the gospel (see Act 15:7). This most momentous precedent he established and made good for all time. These were legislative acts which he had the honour of introducing, and which, thus inaugurated, upheld, and defended by him, tended to advance that unity which the Lord held so dear. As an instance of his shutting the door of the kingdom in the face of an impious intruder, we may notice his rebuke to Simon Magus (Act 8:21), “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter.” The absolving power, supposed to be contained in the gift of the keys, seems rather to belong to the terms of the succeeding promise. We conceive that this power was first given to St. Peter in acknowledgment of his good confession, and as an emblem of unity, and was afterwards bestowed on all the apostles. That the Fathers did not regard it as limited exclusively to Peter, may he seen by quotations gathered by Wordsworth and other commentators. Thus Tertullian, ‘Scorpiac.,’ 10, “Memento claves hic Dominum Petro, et per illum Ecclesiae reliquisse;” St. Cyprian, ‘De Unit.,’ p. 107, “Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit;” St. Augustine, ‘Serm.,’ 295, “Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclcsiae.” Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. “Binding” and “loosing” has been explained in various ways. Some say the terms mean admitting or debarring from the Church, which would make them identical with the power of the keys, and would give no additional privilege; whereas it is plain that further honour is intended to be bestowed. Others affirm that the expression is to be understood of absolution from sin. They take the metaphor to be derived from a prisoner and his chain. Sinners are tied and bound with the chain of their sins; they are released on repentance by the ministry of reconciliation (2Co 5:18, 2Co 5:19); they are bound, when the means of grace are withheld from them, owing to the absence of tokens of’sincerity and faith. This is the view taken in the Anglican Ordinal, where to the priest it is solemnly said, “Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sips thou dost retain, they are retained.” But this was no special gift to Peter; it was bestowed not long after upon all the apostolic body in the very same terms (Mat 18:18), and was indeed inherent in the ministry. This interpretation also introduces a new element into the promise, which does not agree with the context. There is nothing to lead one to expect such an item, and to supply “sins” to the general term “whatsoever” twice repeated, is harsh and unnatural. A more reasonable explanation of the phrase is derived from the use of the terms among the Jews themselves. In their Talmudic glosses we find equivalent expressions. “To bind” is to forbid, to pronounce unlawful; “to loose” is to allow, to declare lawful. And the Lord here promises Peter a certain pre-eminence in the government and organization of the Church, and that the rules which he ordained and the sentences which he should pass in the due exercise of his apostolical authority, should be ratified and confirmed in heaven (Burgon). The phrase is found in Josephus, expressive of the possession, of unrestricted authority. Thus he speaks of the Pharisees as having power to loose and bind ( ) whom they would (‘Bell. Jud.,’ 1.5. 2). And it is noted that an inscription upon a statue of Isis reads, “I am the queen of the country, and whatsoever I bind no man can loose” (Diod. Sic., 1.27). This is a personal distinction conferred on St. Peter in the exercise of an office common to all the apostles, it was needful, in the early Church, that one should be chosen, primus inter pares, to be the chief office bearer and leader of the body of believers. Not that he conceived himself to be, or was recognized by others as, infallible, or as an irresponsible despot; many events before and after Pentecost forbid such an assumption; but his faith, character, and zeal pointed him out as well constituted to regulate and order the infant community, and to take the first part in maintaining that unity which was essential to the new kingdom. This personal primacy may justly be conceded, even by those who are most inimical to the arrogant claims of the papacy; for it carries not with it the consequences which have been appended. Precedence in rank does not of necessity involve supreme or even superior authority. A duke has no authority over a baron, though he has precedence. The fuller consideration of this sphere of the subject belongs rather to the historian and the polemist than to the expositor, and to such we leave it, only adding that, in his peculiar privilege, Peter stands alone, and that in his extraordinary power he had, and was intended to have, no successors.

Mat 16:20

Then charged he his disciples. Immediately after Peter’s confession and Jesus’ promise. St. Matthew’s word “charged” () becomes more emphatic in the other synoptists (), implying a command with a rebuke attached to it on its infringement; Vulgate, comminatus est (Mar 8:30). That they should tell no man that he ()was [Jesus] the Christ. The received text inserts the word “Jesus,” but very many good manuscripts omit it; and it seems to have been received by inadvertence, the point being that he was Messiah. The injunction to tell no man (with which comp. Mat 8:4) was necessary at this time for many reasons. The time was not ripe for the declaration which might have led to tumult and disorder among an excited populace. Any ambitious ideas which the apostles might have formed from what had just passed were here nipped in the bud. They were not sufficiently familiar with the true notion of the Messiah, especially a suffering Messiah, to be competent to preach him to others. This we see by Peter’s inconsiderate remonstrance in verse 22. Till they received the Holy Ghost after Christ’s ascension, they could not rightly and profitably preach of Christ’s nature, office, and kingdom. Jesus may have looked forward to their desertion of him in his hour of trial, and prevented them from proclaiming his real character, which, in the face of such desertion, would have proved a stumbling block to the faith of believers. Some of these reasons we may reverently believe were those which led Christ to lay this severe restriction on the enthusiasm of his followers (see on Mat 17:9).

Mat 25:21-46

SUFFERING: JESUS ACCEPTS AND DOES NOT SHUN IT.

Mat 16:21-28

Jesus announces plainly his death and resurrection. Rebukes Peter. (Mk 8:31-9:1; Luk 9:22-27.)

Mat 16:21

From that time. Henceforward Christ changes his teaching and his behaviour. He tells of his sufferings, and of their necessity in the order of things, so that any one who opposes this design is fighting against God; and shows how self-denial and pain must be the lot of his followers. Began to show unto his disciples. No longer obscurely, but plainly and without reserve. He had already intimated his future sufferings, though his disciples had been slow to receive these dark hints, so opposed to all their preconceived opinions of Messiah’s glory and victorious career. Such sayings as, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Joh 2:19); and, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Joh 3:14), had fallen unheeded on the disciples’ ears, and had not guided them to forecast the future. Even the allusions to their own trials, in the warnings about bearing the cross and following him (Mat 10:38), were not understood. The great point of his real nature had become clear to them; they had now to learn that the way to glory, both for him and them, led through suffering and death. Conscious of Christ’s Divinity, they could now more patiently endure the mystery of his cross and Passion. Unto Jerusalem. The appointed scene of these events (see Mat 20:17). He must () go thither to meet and endure these sufferings, because it was so ordained in the counsels of God and announced by the prophets (comp. Mat 26:54; Luk 24:26, Luk 24:46). Many things. These are detailed in Mat 20:18, Mat 20:19; Luk 18:31-33. Elders, chief priests, and scribes. The various members of the Sanhedrin (see Mat 2:4). The three classes are, in Nosgen’s opinion, intentionally named herethe elders, as the most aged and venerated members, or such as were distinguished by rank and character; the chief priests, heads of the twenty-four courses, as office bearers of the theocracy; and scribes, at that time occupying almost the position of the prophets. The whole religious world would thus be combined against Christ. Be killed. He does not here say “crucified,” as he did afterwards (Mat 20:19), only gradually revealing the whole awful truth. Be raised again the third day. This announcement was intended to support the disciples in view of Christ’s sufferings and death. And “the third day” is mentioned, not only for typical reasons, but to assure them that his death should be speedily followed by his return to life from the grave. It is obvious to us that Jesus prophesied plainly concerning his resurrection; but such an event, so unprecedented, so unexperienced, was not understood; and though the prediction was so far known as to cause his grave to be watched, it was only a vague kind of expectation, without form or definiteness, that was cherished, and the actual fact came as a surprise.

Mat 16:22

Peter took him (). Either taking him aside, or taking him by the hand or dressa reverent familiarity permitted by the Lord to his loving apostle. And now this same Peter, who had just before made his noble confession, and had been rewarded with unique commendation, unable to shake off the prejudices of his age and his education, began to rebuke () his Master. He presumed to chide Jesus for speaking of suffering and death. He, the Son of God most High, what had he to do with such things? How could he name them in connection with himself? Peter, while accepting the idea of Messiah as Divine and triumphant, could not receive the notion of his death and Passion. That the same person should be so humiliated and yet so glorious, was beyond his conception. He was as much in the dark as his fellow apostles; of that which was not specially revealed to him he knew nothing. It was the carnal mind that here influenced him, not the spiritually enlightened soul. By writing “began,” the historian intimates that he had not time to say much before the Lord mercifully interposed and cut him short. Be it far from thee; : Vulgate, absit a te. The Greek phrase is elliptical, being understood; “God be merciful to thee,” equivalent to “God forbid.” The complete expression occurs in the Septuagint of 1Ch 11:19. It is used in deprecation of a disastrous event. This shall not be unto thee; . This is a very strong assertion, not a prayer or wish, as some would make it; the use of language is quite against that, as the phrase is predictive, never prohibitory, in his mistaken zeal and his ignorant affection, Peter would be wiser than his Lord. The cross and Passion shall never be thy lot; Messiah cannot suffer, the Son of God cannot die. Such merely human asseveration, even prompted by undoubted love, had to be checked and rebuked.

Mat 16:23

He turned. Peter and the rest were following Christ, as he walked onward. Now Jesus stops, turns, and faces them. Get thee behind me, Satan. Jesus uses nearly the same words in rebuking Peter that he had used to the devil in his temptation (Mat 4:10); and justly, because the apostle was acting the adversary’s part, by opposing the Divine economy, and endeavouring to persuade Jesus that the way he proposed was wholly unnecessary. The lively stone has became a very Satan in opposing the Divine will; hence the sharpness of the rebuke administered to him. An offence unto me ( ); my stumbling block. Petros, the stone, to maintain the metaphor, is now “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence” (1Pe 2:8). He stood in the Saviour’s way, and impeded his onward progress in the course ordained. He who would turn him aside from Calvary is the enemy of man’s salvation, which was to be won there. Thou savourest () not; mindest not (as Rom 8:5); thy taste is not for the Divine plans, but for human considerations; thou art not promoting the great purpose of God, but worldliness and self-pleasing. “Peter,” says St. Chrysostom, “examining the matter by human and earthly reasoning, accounted it disgraceful to him [Christ] and an unmeet thing. Touching him therefore sharply, he saith, ‘My Passion is not an unmeet thing, but thou givest this sentence with a carnal mind; whereas if thou hadst hearkened to my sayings in a godly manner, disengaging thyself from thy carnal understanding, thou wouldst know that this of all things most becometh me. For thou indeed supposest that to suffer is unworthy of me; but I say unto thee, that for me not to suffer is of the devil’s mind;’ by the contrary statements repressing his alarm” (Oxford transl.).

Mat 16:24

St. Mark tells us that Jesus called the multitude unto him together with the disciples, as about to say something of universal application. The connection between this paragraph and what has preceded is well put by St. Chrysostom. Then. “When? when St. Peter said, ‘Be it far from thee: this shall not be unto thee,’ and was told, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan.’ For Christ was by no means satisfied with the mere rebuke of Peter, but, willing more abundantly to show both the extravagance of Peter’s words and the future benefit of his Passion, he saith, ‘Thy word to me is, “Be it far from thee: this shall not be unto thee;” but my word to thee is, “Not only is it hurtful to thee to impede me and to be displeased at my Passion, but it will be impossible for thee even to be saved, unless thou thyself too be continually prepared for death.”‘ Thus, lest they should think his suffering unworthy of him, not by the former words only, but by those that were coming, he teaches them the gain thereof.” If any man will (, wills to) come after me. To come after Christ is to be his follower and disciple, and the Lord here declares what will be the life of such a one (see a parallel passage, Mat 10:38, Mat 10:39). Jesus mentions three points which belong to the character of a true disciple. The first is self-denial. Let him deny himself. There is no better test of reality and earnestness in the religious life than this. (See a sermon of Newman’s on this subject, vol. 1. serm. 5.) If a man follows Jesus, it must be by his own free will, and he must voluntarily renounce everything that might hinder his discipleship, denying himself even in things lawful that he may approach the likeness of his Master. Take up his cross. This is the second point. St. Luke adds, “daily.” He must not only be resigned to bear what is brought upon himsuffering, shame, and death, which he cannot escape, but be eager to endure it, meet it with a solemn joy, be glad that he is counted worthy of it. Follow me. The third point. He must be energetic and active, not passive only and resigned, but with all zeal tracking his Master’s footsteps, which lead on the way of sorrows. Here too is comfort; he is not called to a task as yet untried; Christ has gone before, and in his strength he may be strong.

Mat 16:25

(Comp. Mat 10:39; Joh 12:25.) Whosoever will ( , whosoever wills to) save his life (). Here are set forth the highest motives for courage, endurance, and perseverance in the way of righteousness. The word translated “life” is used four times in this and the following verse, though in the latter it is rendered “soul” in the Anglican Version. The fact is the word is used in two senses: for the life which now isthe bodily life: and the life which is to comethe spiritual, the everlasting life. These are indeed two stages of the same lifethat which is bounded by earth and that which is to be passed with the glorified body in heaven; but they are for the moment regarded as distinct, though intimately connected by belonging to the same personality. And the Lord intimates that any one who avoids bodily death and suffering by compromise of duty, by denying Christ and disowning the truth, shall lose everlasting life. On the other hand, whosoever sacrifices his life for the sake of Christ, to promote his cause, shall save his soul and be eternally rewarded. Shall find it. “Find,” as the opposite of “lose,” is here equivalent to “save.” There may, too, be in it a notion of something great and unexpected, a treasure discovered, “salvation far beyond all that they looked for” (Wis. 5:2). Says St. Gregory, “If you keep your seed, you lose it; if you sow it, you will find it again” (‘Hom. in Evang.,’ 32.).

Mat 16:26

For what is a man (shall a man be) profited? This verse explains the paradox concerning loss and gain in the previous verse. It is probably intended as a reminiscence of Psa 49:7, Psa 49:8. Wordsworth notes that it is quoted by Ignatius, ‘Ep. ad Romans,’ 6.; but it is probably an early interpolation there. The whole world. It is but a trifle of the whole world, with its riches, honours, pleasures, which the most successful man can obtain; but granted it all lay at his feet, how would it repay him for the loss of everlasting life? Lose his own soul (life) ( ). The phrase means “suffer loss in respect of,” equivalent to “forfeit,” as in Luk 9:25. “Life” here is the higher life, the life in God. The Vulgate renders, Animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur. In exchange; : Vulgate, commutationem; as an equivalent for his life. Or, it may be, to purchase back his life. “Again, he dwells upon the same point. ‘What? hast thou another soul to give for this soul?’saith he. ‘Why, shouldst thou lose money, thou wilt be able to give other money;or be it house, or slaves, or any other kinds of possession; but for thy soul, if thou lose it, thou wilt have no other soul to give: yea, though thou hadst the world, though thou wast king of the whole earth, thou wouldst not be able, by paying down all earthly goods, together wits the earth itself, to redeem even one soul” (Chrys.,’ Hom.,’ 55). The value of the soul is often expressed in classical adages.

.

“Naught is of higher value than the soul.”

.

“Naught unto men is dearer than the life.”

So Homer, ‘Iliad,’ 9.401

“For not the stores which Troy, they say, contained
In peaceful times, ere came the sons of Greece,
Nor all the treasures which Apollo’s shrine,
The archer-god, in rock built Pythos holds,
May weigh with life
But when the breath of man hath passed his lips,
Nor strength nor foray can the loss repair.”

(Lord Derby.)

Mat 16:27

For the Son of man shall come. The final judgment would put things in their true lightwould show the value of self-sacrifice, would reveal the punishment of self-pleasing. Our Lord seems to refer to Dan 7:13, as it were, in testimony to the truth of what he had just said. Shall come; : venturus est (Vulgate), is more than the bare announcement, and implies that it is in accordance with the eternal counsels of God that he should appear this second time. In the glory of his Father. As one with the Father, and his Representative. So he speaks of “the glory which thou hast given me” (Joh 17:22). Reward; : render, reddet (Vulgate). The term includes punishment as well as recompense. Works (); doing, work. The word does not signify isolated acts, but general course of conduct, practice as a whole.

Mat 16:28

This verse has always been a crux to commentators, who cannot decide what is the event to which it refers. Many, taking it in connection with the preceding announcement, refer it exclusively to the day of judgment; but this idea is not compatible with Christ’s assertion that some present shall see it ere they die. Nor can it refer to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, and the mission of the Holy Ghost, which took place only half a year after this time, and the prediction of which so short a time before could not have been introduced in the terms here used. Other expositors, and some of great name, agree that the event to which Christ alludes is his transfiguration narrated in the next chapter. But there are insuperable objections to this view. How could Christ assert in the most solemn manner, Verily, I say unto you, that some of his hearers would tire to witness an event which was to occur only a week hence? Nor is it likely that he would thus publicly announce a transaction which was strictly private, seen only by three chosen witnesses, who were further charged not to reveal the vision till the Son of man was risen from the dead. The Lord had been telling of the final judgment; he now announces, with the formula used by him to present some revelation of Divine truth, that there was to be a coming of the Son of man at no very distant date. This advent is doubtless the destruction of Jerusalem, which, as it occurred only some forty years after this time, some of his auditors, apostles and the multitude, would live to behold. This great event was a type of the second advent, the two being closely connected by Christ himself (see Mat 24:1-51.). There is some truth in all the views that have obtained concerning this passage: “The prophecy unfolded itself by degrees; it has put forth buds and blossoms, but it will not be in its full bloom of accomplishment till the great day” (Wordsworth). There was some display of Christ’s kingdom at the Transfiguration; another at his resurrection, and the events consequent thereupon; but the great one was when the overthrow of Jerusalem and its temple made way for the full establishment and development of the gospel, putting an end to the first dispensation. Some standing (of them that stand) here. Among the apostles St. John certainly survived the destruction of Jerusalem. There seems to be no recondite meaning in the term “standing,” as if it signified “remaining steadfastly by me, adhering to my side;” as, taste of death is merely a periphrasis for “die,” and has not the sense of tasting the bitterness of death, experiencing its sting. It appears to have been originally a metaphor derived from a nauseous draught, which every one must drain. Coming in his kingdom. Not “into his kingdom,” but in the power and glory that appertain to his kingdom. Not that he will personally appear, but his mystical presence will be seen by its effects, the judgment on the Jewish nation, the establishment of a spiritual, yet visible kingdom in the place of the old covenant. There may be a similar allusion in Christ’s words about St. John, “If I will that he tarry till I come” (Joh 21:23), and “This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled” (Mat 24:34)where the dissolution of the Jewish polity is the event signified.

HOMILETICS

Mat 16:1-12

The visit to Galilee.

I. THE LORD CROSSES THE LAKE TO THE WESTERN SHORE.

1. He dismisses the multitude. They went away quietly, it seems. There was no need now to constrain the disciples to depart first. The people did not attempt to take the Lord by force to make him a King. They were more docile than the five thousand had been. They were full of thankfulness. They glorified the God of Israel. But they were simple-hearted people; they did not regard themselves as wiser than the Lord. They were content to believe and adore. So we must wait on him, and say, like the rustic people on the east of the Sea of Galilee, “He hath done all things well.” He sent them away, and took ship, and crossed to the western side of the lake.

2. The coalition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. They were bitterly hostile to each other. The Sadducees rejected the whole system of traditional interpretations and observances on which the Pharisees insisted so strongly, and maintained the necessity of accepting in every particular the literal meaning of the written Law. They were in possession of the chief places in the Church. They were cold hearted and apathetic. They clung to the honours and emoluments of the priesthood, but they had no earnestness, no faith in spiritual religion. They were the aristocratic party in the Jewish Church of the day. Their support of the Herodian family and the Roman rule made them unpopular with the people. The Pharisees were fanatics, full of zeal; but it was misguided zealzeal for the letter of the Law as interpreted by the immense mass of rabbinical learning which, though not yet digested into the Mishna and Gemara, was taught in the school of the rabbis, and regarded as at least of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves. The Pharisees were intensely national. They mixed with the people. They sympathized with and encouraged their hatred to foreign domination. Their principles were generally accepted. They were looked upon with reverence as the teachers of the nation. Their great popularity more than compensated for the fact that all the highest positions in the Church were held by the Sadducees, The Pharisees were narrow-minded fanatical zealots; the Sadducean priests were worldly unspiritual ecclesiastics. The two parties hated one another with all the bitterness of party spirit; but they hated the Lord yet more; and this common hatred now brought them together in ill-omened union against the most holy Saviour. Apparently they had been on the watch for his return. He had been some time absent; first, in the borders of Tyre and Sidon, then in the half-heathen Decapolis. The rude country-people had received him with enthusiasm; but, it may be, his holy human heart (for he was made like unto us, sin only excepted) yearned for the familiar Scenes of the much-loved Galilee, his own country, his home, so far as he could be said to have had a home during the years of his ministry. He returned; but his feet had scarcely touched the land when his enemies were upon him. They came with a renewed demand for a sign from heaven. The Lord had wrought miracles in abundance, but these they wickedly attributed to the agency of the evil one. Let him show some sign from heaven, they said, such as Joel and Daniel had predicted; then they would recognize him as the Messiah. They understood not the Scriptures. They confused the first and second advents. They expected an earthly Messiaha king like David or Solomon. They prescribed the kind of miracle which they required. So unbelievers now say, “Let there be such and such a miracle wrought publicly in London or Paris; then we will believe.” But this is tempting God. Such a demand implies a presumptuous boldness which is the very opposite of trustful faith. If men will not believe after all that God has done for our salvation, “neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.”

3. The Lord‘s answer. They were weather-prophets, he said. They talked much about the weather, as people do still; they knew the signs of its probable changes. These things interested them; they were much in their thoughts and on their lips. But there were signs of far more momentous import for those who had eyes to see. The sceptre had departed from Judah; the mystic weeks of Daniel were fulfilled; the Lord himself had pointed out to the messengers of the Baptist the signs of the Messiah’s presence. These things they would not understand. The signs of the times should be to us a subject for careful study and solemn thought. The signs of the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church should strengthen and encourage us; the signs which seem to point to the approach of the great apostasy and to the coming end should stir us up to watchfulness and earnest prayer; the signs which show the energy of the wicked one, and his awful power in ensnaring the souls of men, should kindle in us a determined resolution to resist even unto death. The Lord had shown signs of his Divine mission sufficient to the full to satisfy all earnest seekers after truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees came in the spirit of the tempter, tempting him. The Lord would work no further miracle in proof of his Messiahship; had he done so they would not have believed. He replied in the same stern words which he had used once before (Mat 12:39) in answer to the like demand. He left them, and departed. It was not his last visit to Galilee, but it was his last public appearance them. He preached there no more; he wrought no more miracles there. “He sighed deeply in his spirit,” St. Mark tells us, as he spoke these last words, and entered into the ship again. He had come to Galilee with words of love, with a message of peace and salvation; but these hard, selfish men rejected him, and prejudiced the people against him. He was indeed “a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” That deep sigh told the anguish of his spirit. He came to save them. He had given up the effulgence of the Divine Majesty. He was ready to lay down his life for their salvation; and they would not be saved. He had come to his own country, the Galilee which he loved so well; and they opposed and insulted him, and drove him from his only home on earth. Let us be patient when we meet with opposition and disappointments. Opposition and disappointments, if we take them meekly and in faith, will help to make us more and more like unto our Lord.

II. HE RETURNS TO THE EASTERN SIDE.

1. The Lord‘s caution. He bade his disciples beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. It was not the first time that he had used this figure; but they misunderstood him. Probably they were in great distress. They had hoped to return to Capernaum. They had seen it in the distance. Now they were obliged to depart again to the inhospitable eastern side of the lake, away from home and kindred, away from the scene of the many triumphs of the Lord’s earlier ministry. They felt, too, that their Master’s popularity was passing away. The influence of the scribes and Pharisees had undermined it. Now the Sadducees, who wielded all the power of the priesthood, had joined them in opposing him. The disciples continued faithful. They followed Christ in his retreat; but probably with very sad and troubled hearts. In their excitement they had forgotten to rake bread. They had only one loaf, St. Mark tells us, with his wonted exactness in little details. The discovery of their neglect added to their trouble. What should they do? Where should they find bread in those uninhabited regions? They interpreted the Lord’s warning according to the thoughts that filled their mind. He seemed to forbid them from using the bread of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, though they had but one loaf with them. They thought that Christ’s words were aimed at their neglect, as people sometimes suppose that the preacher is aiming at them, when it is really their own conscience that disquiets them. The disciples were full of excitement and hurry; the Lord was calm. Let us imitate him, and try to learn of him that holy calmness of spirit which will keep us by his grace thoughtful and collected amid trouble and disappointment.

2. His explanation.

(1) He rebuked them for their want of faith. They had seen his miracles. Twice he had fed with his sovereign bounty vast multitudes on those same barren shores which they were now approaching. He recalled to their memory the details of those wondrous banquets in the wilderness. He had bidden them take no thought for the morrow, what they should eat or what they should drink. Strange that they could have forgotten his words, enforced, as they had been, by those marvellous displays of power; strange that they could have been anxious about food while the Lord was with them. They knew him then after the flesh; we know him, if we are his indeed, with a deeper and holier knowledge. Let us trust him. If only he is with us, we have all that we can really want. We need not fear the enemies of faith, whether fanatics or freethinkers. We need not tremble for ourselves. We need not be anxious about our future, if only we are Christ’s and Christ is ours.

(2) He explained his words. It was not of bread that he had spoken; such a caution would have been like the formal precepts, the countless ceremonial rules of the Pharisees. The Lord’s words had a deeper meaning. As the children of Israel at the first institution of the Passover were forbidden to take leaven with them, in token that the defiling influences of Egypt were to be left behind; so now, when the disciples were departing from the controversy with the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Lord had warned them to take with them nothing that savoured of error and corruption. The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy; the leaven of the Sadducees was indifference. We may well dread such evil influences; we may well shun such evil examples. The leaven of hypocrisy or of indifference spreads itself with a corrupting power through the heart which admits it, through the society which encourages it. “Take heed and beware,” the Lord says. The human heart is prone to evil, prone to sloth; indifference and hypocrisy soon take possession of it, if they are once received through the contagion of sinful companionship. We must depart from the Pharisees and Sadducees. We must not make friends of the hypocritical and the indifferent; we must take none of their influences with us. We must depart with the Lord.

(3) We must be careful, in reading Holy Scripture, not to understand literally what is spoken figuratively; and we must be equally on our guard against the opposite error. We must not explain away by figurative interpretations what is intended to be taken literally. The disciples made both mistakes at different times. The student of the Scriptures needs humility, single-hearted patient thought, and earnest prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

LESSONS.

1. Party spirit is an evil thing; beware of it.

2. Study the signs of the times; look for the fulfilment of prophecy; prepare for coming troubles; prepare for the second advent.

3. Shun hypocrisy and indifference; be truthful and earnest; see that your religion is real and living.

4. Remember the Lord’s past mercies, and be not anxious for the future.

Mat 16:13-19

Caesarea Philippi.

I. THE GREAT CONFESSION.

1. The Lord‘s question. It was asked amid scenes of singular beauty; there was much to delight the eye: the gushing source of Jordan, the terraced heights on which the city was built, the majestic mass of Hermon with its crown of snow. But these fair sights were associated with sad thoughts of idolatry and sin. Dan was near at handthe seat of the old worship of the golden calf. The city itself was more than half heathen; its name told of the Roman supremacy; it had its great temple dedicated by the first Herod to Augustus Caesar; it had its famous cave sacred to the Grecian Pan. But here, in the tetrarchy of Herod Philip, the Lord found that rest and freedom from persecution which he could find no longer in his own Galilee. Awful events were coming; his hour was at hand; he must be alone with the twelve to prepare them for the approaching trial. St. Luke tells us that he was alone praying; only his disciples were with him. There were no thronging multitudes here needing his gracious mercy; there were no Pharisees and Sadducees to disturb him with their taunts and hypocrisies. But a great crisis was at hand, and the Lord was alone praying. The holy Son of God teaches us by his own blessed example the infinite value of prayer to prepare us for times of peril. He ever lived in unbroken communion with the Father. Those who by the help of his Spirit are learning to live in that fellowship which is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, will naturally have recourse to prayer in all the emergencies of life; habitual communion with God leads his people to live always in the spirit of prayer, and keeps them always ready. Those who thus ever live with God will instinctively draw closer to him, and pour out their hearts in the intense energy of earnest supplication at all the turning points of life, in the hour of danger or temptation, in the critical times of the history of the Church. It was a critical time now. The Lord had been rejected; he had been driven from Galilee, where he was once so popular. His own action had caused this seeming failure. Not long ago the multitude sought to take him by force to make him a King. They would have flocked around him in countless numbers and in fierce enthusiasm, if, like Judas of Galilee, he had raised the standard of national independence against the Roman rule; if he had announced himself publicly as the expected Messiah, he would have been hailed as the Deliverer, the Son of David, the Heir to David’s throne. But instead of following the current of popular thought and popular expectation, the Lord had set himself directly against it. He had put aside the offered crown; he had himself forced the apostles to leave him, and had sent the multitudes away in the hour of his seeming triumph. They did not understand his mission; his kingdom was not of this world. Henceforth his work of teaching lay mainly with the twelve; he was to convince them of the true character of his Person and office. He was bringing them to the point now. He was bringing them face to face with the great truth which they had long felt in their hearts, but which had not been yet distinctly declared save once or twice in private. “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” the Lord asked. In the dignity of his conscious Divinity he had never asked such a question before; he heeded not the opinions of men; he sought not their praise; he knew their hearts. But he asked for the sake of the apostles, to bring their vague thoughts into clearer distinctness, to deepen their convictions, to confirm their faith. The well known phrase, “the Son of man,” seemed to point to the true answer; from the time of Daniel it had a Messianic significance, it was associated with the Messiah, both by the priests (Luk 22:69, Luk 22:70) and by the people (Joh 12:34), but not, perhaps, always certainly and distinctly. “Who is this Son of man?” the people asked in the passage last referred to.

2. The answer of the disciples. They were men of the people; they had mixed freely with them; they had, heard frequent and eager discussions about their Master’s teaching and miracles, about his character, his authority, his claims. His life must have been regarded with the deepest interest and the intensest curiosity throughout the country. It excited jealousy and opposition in many quarters; but it could not be ignored by any one. It forced itself upon public attention; it was so strange, so unlike any other life in its originality, in its perfect holiness, in its Divine power. And now the Lord asked what had the disciples heard men say of him. The answer was sad, not disappointing, to him who knew all things; but a hard thing for the apostles to confess. None now owned him to be the Christ. There were many opinions: some, like the terrified Antipas, thought that he was John the Baptist risen from his martyr’s tomb; some thought that he was Elijah, come again as Malachi had prophesied; some said he might be Jeremiah, come to restore the ark, as the Jews fondly hoped (2 Macc. 2:1-8); others imagined that he might be some one or other of the old prophets, come, perhaps, as the forerunner of the Messiah. Such were the various opinions current among the people. None, as far as the apostles knew, then recognized his Messiahship. It had not been so always. From the time when John bare record that he was the Son of God, when Andrew said, “We have found the Messias,” there had been many who asked, “Is not this the Christ?” The belief revived afterwards at Jerusalem (Joh 7:41; Joh 9:22; Joh 12:13); but now in Galilee, his own country, it seems to have become extinct. The change in popular feeling had been brought about, partly by the Lord’s own conduct and teaching (Joh 6:66), partly by the influence of the enemies. Had he adapted himself to the spirit of the times, and yielded to the wishes of the people, the way to transient and apparent success lay open to him. His refusal gave strength to the combined opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and enabled them to undermine his popularity. He knew it. He asked the question, not for information, but to lead on to deep and holy teaching. Observe the truthfulness of the apostles; they report the exact truth; they do not attempt to hide the ebbing tide of popular applause. They do not flatter the Lord with false hopes; they were too sincere for that; he was too high and holy.

3. The second question. “But whom say ye that I am?” This was the question that was in the Lord’s heart. The views entertained about Christ in the world, the different phases of opinion concerning the Lord’s Person and office, are subjects of interest to the student of theology; but this is the momentous question which is presented to each individual soul, “What think ye of Christ? Whom say ye that I am?” The speculative opinions of unbelievers or half believers are not without their importance; but the great question is, what do they think who have known the Lord, who have heard his holiest teaching, and lived in close communion with him? What do they think who are to be the Lord’s ambassadors, who are to go forth in his Name to preach the gospel of salvation, to carry on the blessed work which he began? They must be men of deep and strong convictions; they must not be carried about by every blast of vain doctrine; they must be established in the truth of the holy gospel which they preach. Double minded and lukewarm men are worse than useless in the ministry; it is only the force of strong conviction that can win souls for Christ.

4. The confession. The question was put to all the apostles; Peter answers in the name of all. He was, as Chrysostom says, the mouth of the apostles, the leader of the apostolic choir. Yet there is some thing of his individual character, his fervid impetuous personality, in the strong decided answer. Peter had no doubts, none at all He may have shared (all the apostles shared) in the general mistake as to the office and work of the Messiah; he had looked for a king to reign on the earthly throne of David. But he was at least sure of thisthe Lord Jesus was the Messiah. Whatever might be his surroundings, whether poverty and seeming weakness or magnificence and sovereign power; however he might be received, whether scorned and rejected by Pharisees and Sadducees, or welcomed with the acclaiming shout, “Hosanna to the King of Israel!” whatever might happen, Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed King. Of this Peter was convinced with an absolute undoubting conviction. But this was not all. Peter not only recognized Jesus as the Christ according to the Jewish conception of the Messiah; he rises higher. The Lord was not what the Jews, it seems, expecteda Man very highly distinguished for wisdom and holiness, chosen by God to be the Messiah. He was far more; he was the Son of the living God. The words are full of force and energy. Men may become the sons of God by adoption and grace; but, we feel instinctively, no mere man could be styled “the Son of the living God.” The Lord is the Son of him who hath life in himself, and by virtue of that eternal generation he hath life in himself (Joh 5:26). He is the only begotten Son, Life of life, as he is Light of light, very God of very God. We know not whether St. Peter himself understood at the time the full meaning, the blessed, holy, awful meaning of his great confession. It was revealed to him now by the Father. The Holy Spirit led him by degrees to realize the great and solemn truths which it implied. Nathanael, indeed, had anticipated him; the disciples had hailed the Lord as the Son of God when he had come moving over the stormy sea to their succour; Peter himself, not long before, had confessed his faith in the same exalted terms (Joh 6:69). But on those occasions the Lord seemed not to heed the title which was ascribed to him. Now he formally accepted it. The time was come when the apostles should recognize their Master as the Christ, the time for the first founding of the Christian Church.

II. THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONFESSION.

1. The blessing. The Lord repeats the word which he had so often used on the Mount of the Beatitudes in describing the children of the kingdom; he applies it nosy to St. Peter. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona,” he said solemnly, using the full name, patronymic as well as personal name, as we do on solemn occasions; as he did once again when he put to the same apostle the searching question, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” Simon was blessed, for this knowledge had come, not from human teachers, but by revelation from the Father. Simon’s confession was not like other confessions of the Lord’s Messiahship, an inference from his words or works; it was the expression of an inward spiritual conviction, a knowledge gained by Divine revelation, like St. Paul’s knowledge of Christ (Gal 1:15, Gal 1:16), a knowledge which transformed his heart and consecrated his whole life to the service of the Lord. Blessed are they now who have the like knowledge, into whose hearts God hath shined, “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Blessed are they who with that inner knowledge of the heart own the Lord Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God; for thus to know Christ, he himself hath told us, is eternal life.

2. The prophecy.

(1) “Thou art Peter.” The Lord had given him that name long ago, at his first interview with him (Joh 1:42). It was then given by anticipation. Now Simon had shown the truthfulness of the Lord’s foreknowledge; he was proving himself to be a true Peter, or rock like apostle, strengthened and established by the grace of Christ for the work. to which the Lord had called him. He was Peter, rock like, a piece of rock. “That Rock was Christ,” the Lord whom Peter had just confessed to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. There is not “any rock like our God.” He is the Rock of Ages, the Rock that is higher than the highest of saints, the Rock of our refuge, the Rock of our salvation. The Lord Jesus is our Rock, because he is God, the Messiah, the incarnate Son of the living God. “The Word was made flesh;” that great fact is the foundation of all our hopes. “God manifest in the flesh” is the Rock on which the Christian Church is built, the one foundation once laid (1Co 3:11); the Stone which the builders disallowed, but nevertheless the Head of the corner; the chief Cornerstone, elect, precious. Peter had no strength in himself apart from the one Rock; he was sinking in the stormy sea when the Lord caught him by the hand; he was failing into a deeper abyss when the Lord’s loving mournful look recalled him to the sense of his sinfulness. Peter was as the dove (Bar-Jona: Jonah means “a Dove”) that is in the clefts of the rock (So 2:14); he was only safe, as we are only safe, when he was hidden in the Rock of Ages. Yet, in a secondary sense, Peter may be regarded as a rock. He derived his new name, which is by interpretation “a Stone,” from Christ the Rock; he derived his rock like character from spiritual union with the Rock of Ages; he was one of the living stones, hewn out of the Rock (Isa 51:1), built into the Rock, which form the spiritual house described by himself in his First Epistle. (Doubtless he was thinking then of these great words of Christ when he spoke of Christ as a living Stone, a chief Cornerstone, a Rock.) But he was more than this; he was one of those who helped to lay the one foundation, the one only foundation in the truest sense (1Co 3:11), the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets of the New Testament (Eph 2:20), when they preached Christ as the only Saviour. And in a secondary sense he might himself, like the other apostles, be called one of the foundations (comp. Rev 21:14), one of the pillars (Gal 2:9), and in another figure one of the master builders (1Co 3:10). But the foundationstones rest upon the Rock, the one true Foundation; and’ the wise master builders build under the one Master, which is Christ.

(2) The Church. We meet with this great word here for the first time as we read the Scriptures of the New Testament in the existing order; once more only it occurs in the Gospels (Mat 18:17). We must remember where this prophecy was spoken; in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, among the most remarkable rock scenery of the Holy Land, possibly under the shadow of the high red limestone cliff which overhangs the town, the summit of which was crowned by the white marble temple built by Herod in honour of Augustus. That rock, Dean Stanley says, “may possibly have suggested the words which now run round the dome of St. Peter’s.” That temple with its blasphemous dedication was an outrage in the eyes of the holy Son of God; the temple which he would rear was wholly different, built on a Rock more stable, more abiding far. “My Church”it was a wondrous prophecy. All seemed to have forsaken him save only the twelve; one was a traitor even in that little company; yet the Lord looked forward, in the vision of his Divine foreknowledge, to that great multitude which no man could number, called out from all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues. It was to be the whole congregation of Christian people called out of the whole world, first by himself, then by his apostles and their successors speaking in his Name. It was to be built up (edified) in him, resting on him the living Rock, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone. It was to be one, and yet many; many living stones built up into one holy temple, united into one by the one chief Cornerstone, the one Rock on which it rests. It was Christ’s, “my Church;” given to him by the Father, bought to be his own with his most precious blood, sanctified and illuminated by the indwelling of his most Holy Spirit. It is the Church of the living God; therefore the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. Hades is the realm of the disembodied dead; it is insatiable, it hath never enough, it enlargeth itself, and openeth its mouth without measure. The Lord himself, the Head of the Church, seemed once to yield to its power; he descended into Hades. But it was not possible that he could be holden of death; the third day he rose again from the dead. “He is alive forevermore, and hath the keys of Hades and of death.” Because he liveth, his Church shall live also. The gates of Hades shall not prevent his saints from rising to meet the returning Lord. The abode of the dead shall not retain the Church which belongs to Christ, the Son of the living God, the Church which is his bride, nay, his body; which liveth in the life of Christ and rejoiceth in his love. Filled with this blessed hope, the Church sings its song of triumph in the presence of death, “O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory? Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

3. The promise.

(1) The keys. The Church is now presented to our view as the kingdom of heaven, the holy city. The Lord Christ hath the key of David; he openeth, and no man shutteth; he shutteth, and no man openeth (Rev 3:7). That power was now delegated to St. Peter as the representative of the apostolic college. He exercised it when under his ministry three thousand souls were added to the Church on the great Day of Pentecost; he exercised it when he baptized Cornelius, when he said to Simon Magus, “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter.” The Church exercises that power now in preaching, in baptizing, in admitting to Communion, in declaring by God’s authority God’s absolution of the penitent. “He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent.”

(2) Binding and loosing. The words seem to mean, according to constant Hebrew usage, “to forbid” and “to allow.” The Lord commits to Peter, as afterwards (Mat 18:18) to all the apostles, the government of the Church; he gives him legislative authority, power to declare what is lawful, what is unlawful; what is obligatory, what is open. That power he exercised when he spoke in favour of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem (Act 15:7-11). That power St. Paul exercised again and again. That power in some degree is still vested in the Church. “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.”

LESSONS.

1. What is the Lord Jesus to us? Oh that he may reveal himself into our hearts, that we may know him as the Son of the living God!

2. It is a blessed thing to have St. Peter’s strong convictions; let us pray, “Lord, increase our faith.”

3. Christ is the Rock of Ages; let us seek to be living stones, built into that living Rock.

Mat 16:20-28

The cross.

I. THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMING SUFFERING.

1. Lord. Two figures come prominently into contrastthe Lord and Peter: the Lord looking forwards with sweet and holy calmness to agony and shame and death; Peter, eager and impetuous, burning with zeal for what seemed to him his Master’s honour. The Lord bade the apostles tell no man that he was the Christ. The people were not ready for the announcement; if they accepted it, they would in their present temper misunderstand it; they would again try to take him by force to make him a King. Let us learn of our dear Lord to be indifferent to titles, not to care to make known things that may bring us earthly honour. The Lord had received, as his due, the homage of St. Peter; he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. But while he accepted, as his by right, those loftiest of all conceivable titles, he prophesied the near approach of the extremest humiliation. He must go to Jerusalem; he must suffer many things; he must be killed. It must be, he said; it was necessary for the fulfilment of the Divine purpose, for the remission of sin, for the salvation of mankind. He must rise again the third day. He could not be holden of death, for he hath life in himself; he is the Life. The apostles did not understand him; they could not think that he was speaking literally; they could not believe that the Divine Messiah would suffer what seemed to them such utter degradation. And when it had come to pass, their misery and despondency were so great that they found no comfort in the prophecy of the resurrection; their horror and distress drove it quite out of their hearts. The Lord was graciously and tenderly preparing them for the coming trial. Let us prepare in the time of health and strength for what must come, sickness and pain and death; so by his grace may we be ready.

2. Peter. He was impulsive, impetuous, as always. He took the Lord, caught him by the dress or hand; he ventured to rebuke him, as if he was wiser than the Christ. The Lord interrupted him; he would not allow him to proceed in his thoughtless talk; he sternly checked his improper freedom. “Get thee behind me, Satan,” he said to the apostle whom not long before he had pronounced “blessed,” to whom he had committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The Lord had used those same strong words once before. The evil spirit, whom he had foiled in the wilderness, was now tempting him again through the agency of Peter. Again the Lord repelled the temptation. It was the old temptation, the last of Satan’s approaches in the wilderness (Mat 4:8, Mat 4:9), the temptation to wear the crown without bearing the cross; to take the kingdom which was his by right, but to take it without treading the path of suffering, the way ordained by God. Peter was a stumbling block now. Years afterwards, in his First Epistle (1Pe 2:8), he described “the chief Cornerstone” (with a manifest allusion to this conversation) as being to the disobedient and unbelieving “a Rock of offence ( ).” He was now making himself a stumbling block to Christ; he was minding, not the things of God, but the things of men. Men set their affections on earthly things, ease, comfort, honour, riches; these are not always good for us. Affliction, meekly borne, is better; it worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Peter acted the tempter’s part. Our kindest friends sometimes unwittingly do the like, when they dissuade us from enduring hardness, from making sacrifices for Christ’s sake. Peter loved the Lord fervently, but his love was not wise. He was presumptuous, forward, even in some degree irreverent. Perhaps he was exalted above measure by the Lord’s commendation, as St. Paul thought he himself might have been through the abundance of the revelations (2Co 12:7). There is no safety without humility; the nearer we draw to Christ, the more we need to learn of him that most precious grace.

II. THE DISCIPLE MUST FOLLOW THE MASTER‘S STEPS.

1. The daily cross of self-denial. The Lord had told the apostles of his own coming sufferings; now he warns them that those sufferings must, in some sense, repeat themselves in all his faithful followers, he speaks to all. “If any man willeth to come after me,” he said. There must be the wish first. There is no perseverance in religion without desire, without longing, without love. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness.” They who do not hunger are not filled. Again, the true Christian wish is to come after Christ. All men wish, more or less earnestly, more or less languidly, to get to heaven at last. That wish is, as many entertain it, utterly selfish. The Christian wishes to come after Christ, and, following Christ here, to be at last with him there. To come after Christ, then, is the central wish of the Christian life, and the means by which that wish is realized is self-denial. Christ pleased not himself; his disciples must follow him. The true self is the conscience; but the lower part of our nature, the appetites and affections which we share with the rest of the animal creation, are so noisy and turbulent, fill so large a part of our conscious existence (in many men, alas! almost the whole), that they seem to be the self, and usurp the name of self, which properly belongs to the higher self, the conscience and the reason. It is the lower self which we must deny. When appetite says, “This is pleasant,” but conscience answers, “It is wrong,” then we must take part with conscience, which bears in itself the evidence of authority, and deny that lower self which would disturb the harmony of our nature by usurping the position of command which does not belong to it. The precept is one of paramount importance. The Lord repeats it, translating it now into the distinctive language of Christianity, “Let him take up his cross.” He had used those words once already (Mat 10:38). It was long, probably, before the apostles understood them. We know their meaning now. The cross was a thing of horror once; but the exceeding great love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ has shed a halo of resplendent light around the tree of shame. The word has changed its meaning; it has become a name for the noblest self-denial, the most Divine self-sacrifice. Not all acts of self-denial are a bearing of the cross, but only those which spring out of faith in Christ, and radiate from the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. He taketh up his cross who denies himself daily in the faith of Christ, and for the sake of Christ, seeking only to please him and to be made more and more like unto him. Such acts of holy self-denial are taken up, so to speak, into the one great act of holiest self sacrifice, and become parts of it (Col 1:24), and derive their beauty and glory from the reflected glory of the Saviour’s cross. Such faithful Christians, whom the strong wish to come after Christ urges with ever growing earnestness to take up their cross daily, will follow him who bore the cross for them along the narrow way till they appear, sealed with the seal of the living God upon their foreheads, before the glory throne.

2. The true life. The wish which is centred in this present life is opposed to the Christian wish to come after Christ. When the heart is set upon the things of this life, comfort, station, wealth, and such like, it loses sight of Christ, who is the Life of men. Therefore he who willeth, whose set purpose is, to save this life, with all its treasures, must lose the true Life, which is Christ. For the Lord died upon the cross. His first followers shrank not from the death of martyrdom for his sake. All true Christians must have the martyr spirit; they must be martyrs in will; they must be willing, if need be, to lose all earthly things, even life itself, for Christ’s sake. The Lord gave himself for us. He asks for our whole self in return. We must keep nothing back, or we shall lose the true life, which is the life in Christeternal life, Christ himself. And if this is lost, all is lost. Nothing can compensate a man for the loss of the true life. No gain, not even the gain of the whole world, if it were possible, can balance that tremendous loss. For the loss is real, but the gain illusory. A man may seem to gain all that the world prizes; but if with that gain the true life is lost, there is no true joy, no brightness, no abiding gladness. And all that was gained, though it seemed like all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, must vanish in a moment when the years come to an end as it were a tale that is told. Then what shall a man give in exchange for his life, when the true life is lost, and only that life, which is living death, remains? What shall a man give then, when he hath naught to give; when his riches, and his knowledge, and his strength, and his earthly rank, and the time given him for working out his own salvation, and all his opportunities of serving God and doing the work which God had given him to do, have passed away forever;when all these things have fallen away from him and left him all desolate and alone, a poor soul, helpless and destitute, realizing, when it is too late, the bitter truth that it is in the sight of God wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and nakedwhat shall a man give then? Let him learn to give nowto give his heart, and, with his heart, his time, his labour, his prayers, his earthly goods. It is a poor gift at the best; but if it is given in faith and love, it is lent unto the Lord, and the Lord will repay with large increase in the great day of account. We are unprofitable servants; the best of us only do what is our bounden duty; we only give him what is his own. But he is pleased in his gracious condescension to accept this poor service of ours, and to give us in return that far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, that eternal life which is the gift of God.

3. The end. “The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels.” He is the Son of man in virtue of his incarnation; but in his essential Being he is God, equal with the Father as touching his Godhead. The Father’s glory is his; the angels of God are his angels, for “all things that the Father hath are mine” (Joh 16:15). Then he shall reward every man according to his work, his work as a whole. The award will be proportioned to the whole scope and meaning of each man’s earthly life in infinite justice, and, blessed be his holy Name, in infinite mercy. He bids us to look ever forward to the coming of that great day, and to estimate things in reference to the coming judgment. The glory of the world seems now, to our short-sighted eyes, very great and magnificent and overpowering. But look at it in the fierce light that streams from the judgment throne; then it shrinks into nothingness. Its brightness is like the poor little candle in the effulgent radiance of the noontide sun; you see that its beauty is marred with the traces of decay, rottenness, death. “The world passeth away but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Let us not lose that eternal life for the sake of this fleeting, dying world. For the Son of man cometh in his kingdom. There were some, the Lord said, standing there who should see that kingdom before they died. Three of them soon saw the transfigured Saviour in his glory. All, save one, saw the risen Lord, victorious over death, manifested as the Lord of life, the everlasting King, to whom all power in heaven and in earth is given. Some of them, we know not how many, saw the manifestation of his power in the destruction of Jerusalem; when the old dispensation made way for the kingdom of heaven, the one Catholic Church over which Christ shall reign as King until the end cometh; then, on the ruins of the old theocracy, was established that spiritual kingdom which shall reach its consummation in the day of the Lord. In each of these great events the Lord’s prediction was in some sense fulfilled. If we cannot define its meaning to our complete satisfaction, let us remember what he said of the last survivor of the apostles, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.”

LESSONS.

1. The cross is the very emblem of our religion; he is no true Christian who beareth not the cross.

2. The whole world is worth nothing to him whose soul is lost. No price can redeem the lost soul. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

3. The judgment is at hand. Think of this life in the light of the judgment. “Love not the world.”

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Mat 16:4

The cry for a sign.

It strikes us as somewhat remarkable that the contemporaries of our Lord should be inquiring a sign; for was not his work teeming with signs and wonders? Plainly the demand of the sceptical people, and the response with which Christ met it, give us another view of miracles and their relation to the evidences of Christianity from that commonly held by apologists.

I. MEN DESIRE A CONVINCING SIGN OF THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. This desire is not in itself wrong or unreasonable. To believe without sufficient evidence is a symptom of weakness, and such a faith is only a superstition. It is not a mark of pride, but a simple consequence of loyalty to truth, that we should seek for good grounds on which to establish our convictions. If this were all that the people demanded, our Lord could not have met the cry for a sign with the auger which we see he displayed against it. But it is evident that the Jews were not satisfied with the signs Christ offered. They wanted a “sign from heaven”some flaring portent that would compel conviction. Is there not a tendency in the present day to look away from the only sources of truth that are available, and to demand impossible grounds of conviction?

II. THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN MAY SPRING FROM AN UNWORTHY CHARACTER. It is most unjust to accuse doubters of exceptional wickedness. Many people have no doubts simply because they dare not face truth. They would be sceptics if they were not cowards. On the other hand, it cannot be maintained that scepticism is in itself an indication of sanctity. Now, Jesus tells us that the pure in heart are they who shall see God. But all mendoubters includedhave lost the vision of God by their sin. Thus the whole faculty of discerning the spiritual has become dim. Further, an age of self-indulgence must be an age of aggravated spiritual blindness.

III. CHRIST WILL NOT SATISFY THE UNWORTHY DEMAND FOR A SIGN,

1. He cannot. With all reverence this must be affirmed. No portent can prove a spiritual truth to one who has not spiritual sight. You might as well expect the blare of a trumpet to reveal the beauty of a landscape to a blind man.

2. He would not if he could. Forced faith has no moral worth. Truth revealed to unprepared hearts is but as pearls cast before swine. Abraham refuses the prayer of Dives that Lazarus, risen from the dead, should be sent to his brothers, telling the miserable man that no good would come of such an errand.

IV. CHRIST GIVES THE SIGN THAT IS REALLY NEEDED. He never disappoints the honest seeker after truth, although he does not always lead to truth by the expected path. The only truth of value is that which touches our hearts and consciences, and this is not thrust upon us by sheer authority, with threats of punishment if we will not accept it blindfold. That insolent and tyrannic ecclesiastical method is quite abhorrent to “the sweet reasonableness” of Jesus. His way is to bring a genuine proof to the awakened soul, and he compares this to the sign of Jonah. The preaching of Jonah convinced by reaching the consciences of the Ninevites. Christ’s teaching, his lifeabove all, his death and resurrectionspeak to our consciences. When these are responsive, they can perceive the weight of his claims.W.F.A.

Mat 16:6

Dangerous leaven.

It is astonishing to us that our Lord’s disciples should have been so slow to understand the simplest metaphors employed in the teaching of their Master. When he speaks of leaven, they think of baker’s bread! The fact that the evangelists describe this singular backwardness is a strong evidence of the truthfulness of the Gospel writings; for it is not to be supposed that such humiliating circumstances would have been invented or imagined by a later generation which regarded the apostles with the greatest reverence. The backwardness itself must have been one of the trials of Christ; his efforts to meet it and overcome it reveal his wonderful patience and perseverance. By such means he succeeds in bringing his warning lesson home to the dullest comprehension (Mat 16:11, Mat 16:12).

I. THE CHURCH IS INFECTED WITH DANGEROUS LEAVEN.

1. Evil influences in her midst. The leaven is plunged into the meal; it cannot produce any effect until it is thus mixed up with what it is to influence. We have to beware, not only of entirely external dangers, but of such as are found in the very teaching and practices of Christian people.

2. Subtle influences. The leaven is almost invisible. There is at first but “a little leaven.” Obscure, unobserved influences may be the causes of much serious harm.

3. Spreading influences. The growing power of the leaven, its marvellous capacity for propagating itself, makes it a serious thing to admit but a little. Sinful ideas tend to spread and permeate Christian society when once they are permitted to exist unchecked.

II. THE LEAVEN OF EVIL MAY COME FROM RESPECTED AUTHORITIES, The Pharisees were the professed saints of their day; the Sadducces were the party of the priesthood and of the national council. Yet both of these were spoken of by our Lord as sources of evil influence. We can with difficulty picture to ourselves the immense significance of his words. It is as though the mediaeval Church were warned against the influence of the monks and priests; as though the Church of today were told that there was danger for her in the presence of the most pious looking of her communicants and the most respected of her ministers. Surely here is a warning against being misled by appearances in religion.

III. THE LEAVEN MAY ASSUME VARIOUS FORMS. It is startling to meet this conjunction of Pharisees and Sadducees, because we know that the two parties were bitterly opposed to one another; but then we also know that they were brought into a sort o partnership in their common enmity to Jesus Christ. Now, both of them are represented as constiuting the dangerous leaven.

1. Pretentious piety. This is one of the most dangerous of evil influences, because

(1) it ensnares with a show of religion, and

(2) it denies the true essence of religion. It is hypocrisy (Luk 12:1).

2. Worldly scepticism. The doubt of the typical Sadducee was not the perplexity of the serious student of truth; it was the scoffing indifference of the man of the world who did not believe in the spiritual because his whole life was absorbed in the earthly.

IV. THE DANGER OF THE LEAVEN NECESSITATES A WATCHFUL ATTITUDE. “Take heed and beware.” It is not enough to cultivate Christian graces. The servant of Christ must be a soldier as well as a husbandman. He must stand as a sentry challenging all suspicious thoughts and influences. He must exercise the policeman’s office in arresting the dangerous disturbers of the peace and purity of his soul.W.F.A.

Mat 16:13-17

The great confession.

Jesus had now reached a crisis in his ministry. Away from the scenes of his earlier labours, at the beautiful Roman colony by the foot of Mount Hermon, close to the famous altar of Pan, where the Jordan springs from the mountain side, he suddenly called upon his disciples to give a definite expression of their thoughts concerning himself.

I. THE MOMENTOUS QUESTION. This was preceded by a less important inquiryas to the various opinions of the world about Christ. Then the disciples were brought face to face with the question for themselves, “Whom say ye that I am?” We must be able to furnish an answer to this question. The whole weight and worth of the gospel hangs upon it. The special character of the gospel is that it is immediately concerned with its Founder. The Christian ethic and the Christian theory of the universe will neither of them redeem the world. Beneath and before all else comes the Person of Christ. To know him is to know the gospel. If he is not what he claims to be, all our faith rests on a delusion. But if his claims are true, all else is of secondary importance.

II. THE DIFFICULTY OF ANSWERING THIS QUESTION. The Jews were much perplexed. They could not but be impressed with the greatness of Christ, yet they failed to recognize his high claims. It would not have been surprising if the disciples also had been perplexed; indeed, many were troubled, and many forsook the great Teacher (Joh 6:66). Jesus had not fulfilled the hopes of the people; the religious leaders of the nation had definitely rejected him; be was now in voluntary exile, deserted by the crowds that had once followed him with enthusiasm. If some of us find it difficult to believe in him today after his great work has been completed, and we see the fruits of it in history, is it wonderful that many felt the difficulty in his lifetime?

III. THE TRUTH CONFESSED. St. Peter does not hesitate or doubt for one moment. He knows that his Master is the Christ, the Son of God. His confession contains two ideas.

1. The office of Christ. The apostle saw that Jesus was the long expected Messiah. This truth means to us that he is the Saviour of the world.

2. The nature of Christ. The apostle also saw that Jesus was “the Son of the living God.” How lab these words expressed a faith in the essential Divinity of Christ we cannot say. The Church was not very slow in perceiving that tremendous truth, for we find that the earliest heresy was not a denier of the Divinity, but a denial of the humanity, of our Lord.

IV. THE SECRET OF THE CONFESSION. How did the apostle come to see this great, truth under the most unpropitious circumstances? Jesus says it was a revelation. We need not understand by that term any direct heavenly voice. The revelation was inward. Some such revelation is always needed. Until the eyes of our hearts are opened, we cannot perceive the true character and nature of Christ. In the spiritual world this is parallel to the fact of daily life that we can only understand a man when we are in sympathy with him.W.F.A.

Mat 16:18

The rock on which the Church is built.

This famous sentence, which is emblazoned in great letters of gold round the interior of the dome of St. Peter’s at Rome, has been a centre of controversy in the Church for generations. It would be beside our present need to discuss the history of that controversy. Leaving out of account the angry arguments of polemical theology, let us see what positive truth our Lord is here teaching us; for too often the jewel of truth is lost by both parties in a quarrel while they are contending as to who has a right to the possession of it.

I. ST. PETER‘S CONFESSION IS THE ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT. Accepting this idea as the most probable outcome of a fair exegesis of the passage, let us see what its real significance is.

1. The Church is built on Christ. He is its Author, its original Foundation (1Co 3:11), and its chief Cornerstone (Eph 2:20). When we abandon faith in Christ we forsake the grounds of our faith.

2. The Messiahship and Divinity of Christ are essential to the stability of the Church. These two facts were the contents of St. Peter’s confession. The Church cannot rest on vague sentiments concerning Christ. Exact philosophical definitions may not be attainable; the history of theology shows that the effort to form them nearly wrecked the Church. But the great central truths themselves are essential.

3. The confession of these truths is requisite in order that the Church may be firmly planted. It looks as though our Lord spoke of the confession as being itself the foundation. We must have faith in Christ before we can profit by him, and we must have courage to confess him if we would possess a robust Christian life.

II. THE CHURCH ON THIS ROCK WILL BE SECURE.

1. It is built by Christ. Therefore the superstructure will be sound as well as the foundation. Our Lord is ever at work on his Church. He can do nothing with those who will neither believe him nor confess him. But wherever he finds the faith and confession, he himself builds up the strong structure of a Christian character.

2. It is assailed by evil. The powers of hell attack the Church because she is their enemy; therefore the question of a sure foundation is of vital importance. The floods are sure to come and try the house.

3. It cannot be overthrown. This is a positive prediction of Christ’s, and it ought to dispel our fear and confirm our faith. Of all he has predicted nothing has failed. He promised that the grain of mustard seed should become a great tree; and his promise has come true. His assurance that nothing shall overthrow the Church built on the true confession of faith in him has proved to be correct for nearly twenty centuries.

4. Its security is shared by those who confess the faith it embodies. St. Peter’s name is justified by his rock like confession. The Christian character is confirmed by a loyal faith and a bold confession. The spirit of St. Peter’s confession is typical of the Christian heroism that can withstand all attacks of doubt or opposition.W.F.A.

Mat 16:21-23

A terrible anti-climax.

Immediately after receiving his apostles’ confession of his claims Jesus began to tell them of his approaching death. He wanted to be assured first that they had the faith which would stand the test of this announcement. Then he delayed no longer in confiding to them the dark secret which oppressed his own heart. The result was a terrible anti-climax. St. Peter, who had been treated with the greatest honour, is seen for the time being as only an incarnation of the tempter.

I. THE SAD ANNOUNCEMENT. Jesus now for the first time distinctly declares his approaching rejection by the rulers, his death, and his subsequent resurrection.

1. The facts predicted.

(1) Rejection. This looked like utter failure, for Christ came to be the King and Deliverer of Israel.

(2) Death. This would put the crowning stroke on the. apparent. failure. It would also add, a new horror, for “all that a man hath will he give for his life.”

(3) Resurrection. This should completely transform the prospect. But the final announcement does not seem to have been understood or at all taken in by the disciples.

2. The foresight. Jesus saw what lay before him, yet he set his face steadfastly to go up to Jerusalem. His foresight meant much to him.

(1) Additional distress. God mercifully veils the future from us. If we saw the coming evil with certainty it would be very difficult to face it. But Jesus walked with the shadow of the cross on his path.

(2) Courage.

3. The prediction. Why did Jesus tell his disciples of this awful future?

(1) To prepare them for it, and prevent the disappointment of false hopes.

(2) To claim their sympathy.

II. THE FOOLISH REBUKE. St. Peter’s conduct is culpably officious. He lays hold of Christ with undue familiarity, and even ventures to rebuke his Master. His action, however, is true to the well known impetuosity of his character, and it reveals very natural traits.

1. Intense affection. The apostle loves his Master unwisely but greatly, with a love that is not sufficiently submissive, yet with one that is most intense. It is easy for cold-hearted people to blame the apostle. But they who do not approach his love for Christ are not the men to sit in judgment upon the devoted disciple.

2. Elated self-confidence. Jesus had just greatly commended St. Peter. It looks as though he were one of those unhappy people who lose their balance when they are too much praised. Such people have many a sad fall from glorious self complacency to deepest humiliation.

3. Sudden surprise. The apostle did not speak deliberately. The astounding words of Christ started an ill-considered remark. Hasty words are not often weighty words.

III. THE STERN REPLY.

1. Rebuffing a temptation. The quick answer of Jesus shows how keenly he had felt the well meant dissuasion of his friend, which had just chimed in with the cravings of his human nature. Here was a real temptation of the devil which must be faced and conquered! Jesus recognized it as a stumbling block laid on his path.

2. Unmasking an illusion. The words were from St. Peter, but the spirit of them was Satan’s, and the keen conscience of Jesus at once assigned them to their true source. In an unguarded moment the apostle had let the tempter into his heart, had become but a tool of Satan. The character of the words reveal their origin, they have a savour of men about them. The common principles of men of the world are many of them directly counter to the will of God. Then, for all their innocent appearance, they are of a Satanic character.W.F.A.

Mat 16:24

The great condition.

The heart-searching truths of this verse are too often neglected in popular presentations of the gospel. We have a Christianity made easy as an accommodation to an age which loves personal comfort. Not only is this unfaithful to the truth, no part of which we have any right to keep back; it is most foolish and shortsighted. It prepares for a surprising disappointment when the inevitable facts are discovered; and it does not really attract. A religion of sweetmeats is sickening. There is that in the better nature of man which responds to the doctrine of the cross; it is the mistake of the lower method that it only appeals to the selfish desire of personal safety, and therefore does not awaken the better nature at all. Christ sets the example of the higher and truer method; he does not shun to set before us the dangers and difficulties of the Christian course. If we meet with them we cannot say we have not been warned.

I. CHRISTIANITY IS FOLLOWING CHRIST. It is not merely receiving certain blessings from him. If we think we are to enjoy the fruits of his work while we remain just as we were, we are profoundly mistaken. He does give us grace, the result of his life work and atoning death. But the object of this grace is just that we may have strength to follow him. It is all wasted upon us and received quite in vain if we do not put it to this use. Now, the following of Christ implies three things.

1. Imitating him.

2. Seeing him.

3. Obeying him. He whose experience comprises these three things is a Christian; no one else is one.

II. FOLLOWING CHRIST IS CONDITIONED BY SELF–SURRENDER TO HIM. This is what be means by self-denial. He was not an ascetic, and he never required asceticism in his disciples; those who did not understand him accused him of encouraging an opposite mode of life. There is no merit in putting ourselves to pain for the mere sake of enduring the suffering. Christ will not be pleased if we approach him in agony because we have affixed a thumb screw to our own person. It is possible to be very hard on one’s body and yet to remain terribly self-willed. What Jesus requires is the surrender of our will to himthat we may not seek to have our own will, but submit to his will.

III. SELF–SURRENDER TO CHRIST LEANS TO BEARING THE CROSS FOR HIM. It is impossible to give ourselves up to Christ without suffering some loss or trouble. In early days the consequence might be martyrdom; in our own day it always involves some sacrifice. Now, the cross which the Christian has to bear is not inevitable trouble, such as poverty, sickness, or the loss of friends by death. These things would have been in our lot if we had not been Christians. They are our burdens, our thorns in the flesh. They are sent to us, not taken by us. But the cross is something additional. This is taken up voluntarily; it is in our power to refuse to touch it. We bear it, not because we cannot escape, but because it is a consequence of our following Christ; and the good of bearing it is that we cannot otherwise closely follow him. He, then, is the true Christian who will bear any cross and endure any hardship that is involved in loyally following his Lord and Master.W.F.A.

Mat 16:25, Mat 16:26

The gain that is loss, and the loss that is gain.

Great confusion has been introduced into these verses in the Authorized Version by the rendering of the same Greek word as “life” in Mat 16:25, and “soul” in Mat 16:26. The Revisers have helped to a better understanding of the passage by translating the word “life” throughout. Christ was not speaking of the soul as we understand it, of the higher nature of man; but of life as opposed to the idea of being killed and so losing one’s life.

I. SELF–SEEKING IS SELF–LOSING. Jesus is warning his disciples of the dangers and hardships of his service. Many will be tempted to shrink from the cross in order to save their lives. They are told that a cowardly unfaithfulness under persecution is not the way to save their lives. It is true a violent death may be thus avoided. But what is the use of a life preserved at the cost of honour and fidelity? It is not really saved, for it is so degraded that it has become a worthless thing. Thus it is a wasted life, a lost life. The same is true today under other circumstances. The man who denies Christ for his own convenience lowers himself to the level of worthlessness. He who greedily grasps at his own pleasure to the neglect of higher interests so impoverishes his nature by his mean and narrow way of living that his life is really ruined. This is the case on earth. It will be more apparent in the next world, when Christ comes to “render unto every man according to his deeds” (Mat 16:27). Even in spiritual things, if a man’s religion is purely selfish it will be of no use to him. If he thinks only of his own salvation, and nothing of the service of Christ and the benefit of his fellow men, he will be lost. It is not the teaching of Christ that our great business is to save ourselves. Religious teachers are greatly to blame for inculcating this most unchristian notion. Christ comes to save us from ourselves; but this will not be effected by the cultivating of a habit of supreme self-seeking in religion. Such a habit is ruinous to all that is worthy in a man. Therefore Mat 16:26, which is often quoted in favour of a self-seeking religion, should be read in the light of Mat 16:25.

II. SELF–LOSING IS SELF–FINDING. This is the opposite to the principle just considered; it has a positive importance of its own that demands careful consideration. ‘How is the paradox verified in experience? We must first of all call to mind the immediate circumstances our Lord had in view. His disciples were being warned of coming persecutions. Some of them would lose their lives in martyrdom. Yet then they would most truly find them, for they would be the heirs of life eternal, and would live on in the bright future. That is the first lesson of the words. But they go much further. What is true under persecution is true at all times. The martyr temper is the Christian spirit. We gain the only life worth living on earth when we deny ourselves and embark on a career of unselfish service. The abandonment of selfish aims is the acquisition of heavenly treasures. There is a blessedness in the life of obedience and self-surrender that the selfish can never know. Happiness is not attained by directly aiming at it; it comes in as a surprise to him who is not seeking it when he is busy in unselfish service. Now, these lessons are driven home and clenched by the obvious truth of the following verse (Mat 16:26). What is the use of a world of wealth to a man who loses his life in acquiring it? The pearl seeker who is drowned in the moment of clutching his gem is a supreme loser even while he is a gainer. Nothing will compensate a man for making shipwreck of his life by self-seeking.W.F.A.

HOMILIES BY MARCUS DODS

Mat 16:13-19

Peter’s confession.

This renewed retirement of our Lord is best accounted for by his need of quiet. What was now to be done? Another Passover was coming round. To proclaim himself at Jerusalem was indeed certain death; and yet was not the hour for taking this step at last come? Filled with inward conflict, our Lord journeys on and on until he finds himself at the very edge of the land of Israel But when his own mind is made up he at once communicates with the disciples, because it was necessary that those who were to be his witnesses should understand the state of matters and should willingly accompany him on the fatal journey to Jerusalem. And in asking them to declare frankly what they thought about him, he wished them to do this in presence of their remembrance of other and more generally received opinions, and feeling that the weight of authority was against them. With that generous outburst of affectionate trust which should ring through every creed, Peter exclaims, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord does not conceal his intense relief and keen satisfaction. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for this faith is wrought in thee not by mere logical inferences from my works, nor by weighing other men’s opinions, but by that enlightenment which God produces and suffers never again to be obscured.” In this divinely wrought conviction of Peter’s our Lord finds at last the foundationstone or solid rock on which the earthly building of his Church can be raised. Now for the first time does he introduce his disciples to the great idea that this divinely wrought power to see his nature and confess him is destined to form men into the most distinct and permanent of associations; that a new society is now begun in this little circle, a society, however, formed of those whom God calls, and who are distinguished from all others by their attachment to what is Divine, and by their being recipients of a Divine teaching. The significance, therefore, of this moment cannot be exaggerated, though it has been misunderstood. When our Lord says, “On this rock will I build my Church,” he introduces to the minds of his hearers a new idea. They see their future associates in the faith forming together an edifice or spiritual temple in which God will dwell. And they are assured that amidst the wreck of other societies this shall stand. The power of “Hades,” “the unseen,” that mysterious region into which all human things pass, is to have no power over the Church. This is the fact: while empires moulder into a mere memory, the Church renews herself from age to age, and is as living now as ever before. But that Christ should have predicted this, and at the very time when all seemed over with his hope of being received by Israel, seems almost as wonderful as the continuance of the Church itself. “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”this certainly involves that Peter should have a position of the highest authority in the Church. And in point of fact, it was Peter who opened the gates of the kingdom to the Gentiles. This power is further explained in a form of speech common among the Jews, and which bore a perfectly definite meaning. The power to bind and loose was what we speak of as legislative power, power to introduce new laws and to repeal old ones. Such is the overwhelming return which our Lord makes to Peter for his confession. No confession can rival the first, or can bring the comfort, the relief, the hope which Peter’s brought to the overburdened spirit of his Lordno confession now made can seem to our Lord as the firm rock on which the Church may rise. And yet every acknowledgment must bring gratification to his spirit, and must be responded to by some recognition more or less distinct. Perhaps it is not easier for us than it was for Peter to come to a clear decision regarding the Person of Christ. Certainly there was a great weight of authority against Peter, but our own judgment is not free from the disturbing effect of similar influences. The verdict of the leaders of thought in our own day is almost unanimously against the distinctive claims of Christ. Christians, too, betray a consciousness that they are in a less secure and certain position than formerly, and are too careful to let it be seen they appreciate the difficulties of belief. There is all the louder call upon us to make our confession of Christ full, clear, hearty, and steadfast; to form an opinion for ourselves; so that we come to Christ with what he can accept as a fresh tribute, and not as a mere echo of some other people’s confession. We see here that the difference between acknowledging him as a Prophet and acknowledging him as the Son of God is just the difference between faith and unbelief. In answer to Peter’s “Thou art Christ,” comes our Lord’s “Thou art Peter.” It is an instance of the fulfilment of his promise, “He that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my Father;” but it is more than this. In recognizing who Jesus was Peter learned what his own character and his own prospects were. Now, for the first time, he saw the significance of his own name. It is so with every one. It is in the vision of Christ’s true nature and purpose that a man awakens to a sense of his own worth and of the possibilities that lie before him. For you as for Peter he will mark out the proper work; he will give you a place as a living stone; he will impart to you every quality you need in the difficult circumstances of life and in the actual career that lies before you.D.

Mat 16:20-28

Necessity of the cross.

Peter’s words pierced like a sharp thorn into the very heart of Christ, and roused as keen an indignation as his previous words had awakened gratitude. For the horror which our Lord saw in Peter’s face as he announced the near approach of death reflected the horror he himself had passed through during those past days in which he had been making up his mind to die; the incapacity of Peter to understand that death should be the necessary step to glory tended to upset the balance of his own mind as well as to disclose to him the extreme difficulty there would be in persuading the world at large that a crucified King could be a King at all. Peter seemed for the moment to be the very embodiment of temptation, to be inspired by that very spirit of evil which had assailed him in the wilderness. Instead of a rock on which to found the Church, he had become a rock of offence. The words of reprimand were severe, but in the circumstances intelligible. Seeing, then, the unwillingness of the disciples to think of a Messiah who should not come with armed followers and all the pomp and circumstance of war, our Lord from this time forward spends much time in an endeavour to demonstrate the necessity of his death, and to fix in their minds that in following him to Jerusalem they were going to see him die. Again and again we find him solemnly assuring them that he must be taken and put to death, and that he would rise again. And yet when he was crucified they were entirely disheartened, and had no expectation of his rising again. Our wonder at the small impression made by our Lord’s words is lessened when we consider the originality of his conception of the Messiah’s glory. Only by Divine illumination, he said, could Peter have known him to be the Christ, but even a higher Divine illumination was needed to teach him the doctrine of the cross. So clean counter to natural human belief is this law that the truest glory is in humiliation for others, that even now each one has to discover this law for himself, and, when he discovers it, thinks he alone has had it revealed to him. So difficult is it for us to comprehend that, what the world needs for its regeneration more than the strong hand of a wise Ruler is the entrance into it, and the diffusion throughout it, of a meek and lowly spirit, of a righteous and God-fearing life. But our Lord assures us that not only for the Leader, but for the follower, this law holds good; these who would be with him in his glory must take his own path to it. The man who means to keep near Christ must not only deny himself one or two enjoyments or sinful indulgences, but must absolutely deny himself, must renounce self as an object in life, must give himself up as the enthusiastic physician gives himself up, regardless of all consequences to self, to the relief of his patients or to the advancement of science. You may say that the physician who does so does not deny himself, but gives expression to his highest and best self, and that is what our Lord means when he adds as his first proof of the truth of his law, “For whosoever wilt save his life shall lose it: and whosoever wilt lose his life for my sake shall find it.“ So long as you make self your object, your end, and your centre, you are losing your life and your self; but when you are enabled to abandon self and to live for righteousness, for God, for Christ, for the community, you emerge into life eternal, you find your truest self. “And what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” This is one of those truths that need no demonstration, and yet are very difficult to act upon. To gain even a very small part of the world is so appreciable a gain, whereas the loss of the soul is so inappreciable often in the process, and it seems so easy to regain it, that we are tempted to act as if it were a very small matter. A third ground on which our Lord rests his injunction to follow him is laid down in the twenty-seventh verse. All permanent happiness is so bound up with character that he can only make men happy in proportion to their growth. The reward chiefly desired by every one who loves him is an increase of that love and a truer likeness to himself, and in eternity, as on earth, Christ and all who are like him, will find their glory in works of self-sacrificing compassion and helpful mercy. Mat 16:27, Mat 16:28 : As far as can be gathered from the abbreviated form we have in the text, our Lord meant to say that the man who spent his life on self, and so lost his truest life, would find his mistake in the day when at Christ’s second coming things are forever arranged according to the principles he himself laid down and lived on in his first coming, and then, as if to answer the doubt whether such a day of true judgment should ever come, he goes on to say that the kingdom of heaven would, even in the lifetime of some standing there, be sufficiently manifested to make his Divine power clear to them.D.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Mat 16:1-4

The signs of the Messiah.

Coming into the borders of Magadan, after the miracles of the mountain in which he healed all manner of diseases, and miraculously feasted about eight thousand persons, Jesus encountered the Pharisees and Sadducees, who, sinking their sectarian differences for the time, agreed to tempt or test him by demanding a special sign of his Messiahship. Jesus declined to gratify them in this, appealing to the signs of the times which should be sufficient for them, and giving them himself a special sign. Let us consider, then

I. THE SPECIAL SIGN WHICH THE PHARISEES SOUGHT.

1. They sought a sign from heaven.

(1) This was dearly the sign of the Prophet Daniel (see Dan 7:9-14). The Pharisees then desired Jesus then and there to prove his Messiahship to them by appearing in the heavens as the Son of man in glory, and to establish a visible kingdom.

(2) This is a true sign of the Messiah. Not only is it a favourite sign with the Jews, but one also which Jesus acknowledged. He commonly spoke of himself, in manifest allusion to that very sign, as “the Son of man.” But why, then, did he not gratify their expectations? The answer is:

2. They sought that sign too soon.

(1) It is a sign of a second advent of Messiah. A second advent there must needs be, for Messiah is described in prophecy in two distinct characters, which he could not fulfil at one and the same time. He is to come in the character of a Priest, to make atonement for sin, in humiliation, suffering, and death. He is also to come in the character of a King, in glory and immortality.

(2) In the first of these characters Jesus had then appeared. He must first suffer before he can enter into his glory, and therefore, also, before he can be revealed in his glory (cf. Gen 3:15; Deu 18:15-19; Psa 16:8-10; Psa 22:1-31.; Isa 50:5, Isa 50:6; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24; Luk 24:26).

(3) In the second character he promises in due time to appear (cf. Mat 24:29-35; Mat 26:64-68; Rev 1:7; Rev 14:14). And in this character accordingly he is expected by his disciples (cf. Act 1:11; 1Th 1:10; 1Th 4:14-17; 2Th 1:7-10).

II. THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES TO WHICH JESUS APPEALED.

1. Those connected with his personal advent.

(1) At the period of his birth there was a general expectation. The weeks of Daniel were fast running out within which Messiah was to be cut off (see Dan 9:23-27). He must be born a considerable time before the date of his Passion. Gentiles then shared in the expectation of the Jews.

(2) His birth was itself a miracle. He was born of a virgin, and m the house and lineage of David. This was according to the requirement of the first promise in Eden, that he should be the “Seed of the woman,” and of that remarkable place in Isaiah where a virgin of the house of David was to bring forth a son, who was to be distinguished as Immannel (see Gen 3:15; Isa 7:14; Mat 1:23).

(3) That birth was also attended by miracles. The annunciation to the Virgin by Gabriel corresponded to that made to Manoah’s wife concerning the birth of Samson, who was a type of Christ (cf. Jdg 13:2-5; Luk 1:26-35). The wonderful birth was then celebrated by angels, who appeared to the shepherds; and by a star seen by the Wise Men in the East (cf. Num 24:17; Mat 2:2; Rev 22:16; Luk 2:9-14).

2. Those connected with ills public ministry.

(1) Foremost amongst these was the miracle at his baptism, when he was about to enter upon that public ministry (Mat 3:16, Mat 3:17).

(2) This was followed up by the testimony of the Baptist. That testimony could not be impeached. The Baptist was authenticated as a prophet of God by the miracles connected with his birth (see Luk 1:5-22). In that character he was acknowledged by his nation. He announced himself, as the angel had designated him to be, the harbinger of Messiah. In that capacity he pointed out Jesus to his disciples as the “Lamb of God that beareth away the sin of the world” (Joh 1:29).

(3) This wonderful character Jesus was able to sustain. He wrought the miracles which the prophets said Messiah was to work. He did everything and suffered everything which the prophets said Messiah was to do and suffer in his advent as a Priest.

(4) The very wickedness of the generation that “tempted him, and proved him, and saw his works,” was a sign of the times (cf. Isa 6:9-12; Mat 13:14, Mat 13:15). And to all but themselves is their obstinacy in rejecting Jesus, together with their long continued sufferings, a proof that Jesus is the Christ; for these things he foretold (cf. Mat 23:34-39; Luk 21:22-24).

III. THE SPECIAL SIGN WHICH JESUS GAVE.

1. He gave them a sign from the earth.

(1) They sought a sign from heaven. The sign they sought, as we have seen, was that of the Prophet Daniel. That he gave them was the sign of the Prophet Jonah (cf. Mat 12:39).

(2) They sought the sign of the kingdom of glory. He gave them the sign of the priesthood and suffering. The burial presupposes the death, and the death the suffering, of Messiah. These things he afterwards plainly showed to his disciples (see verse 21).

2. This sign best suited a wicked generation.

(1) It fulfilled the sacrifices of the Law. Those sacrifices were ostensibly to make atonement for sin. But in what sense? Ceremonially and typically. Morally they could not remove sin. To suppose so would be to outrage common sense. “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” Their inability to do this was acknowledged, for it was necessary to repeat the sacrifices. In the light of the great sin sacrifice of Calvary, all is plain.

(2) It fulfilled the sacrifice of Isaac. In the daily prayers read in the synagogue we have this: ” ), O most merciful and gracious King! we beseech thee to remember and to look back on the covenant made between the divided offerings, and let the recollection of the sacrificial binding of the only son appear before thee, in favour of Israel.” But what sense is there in this unless the “sacrificial binding” of Isaac be accepted as typical of the only Son of God, the Seed of Isaac, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed?

(3) The sign of a sufficient sacrifice for the expiation of sin is, of all others, to be desired by a wicked generation. But were the Lord to have answered their foolish prayer, and to have appeared without a sin sacrifice, as their King in judgment, they would be the first to be destroyed in the fires of his anger.

3. Jesus rested his claims upon this sign.

(1) He predicted that he “must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed.” Within a year this was literally fulfilled.

(2) But now comes the testing point. He added, “and the third day be raised up” (see verse 21). So about a year earlier he explained this sign of the Prophet Jonah to certain scribes and Pharisees. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the seamonster; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (see Mat 12:40).

(3) This also was fulfilled to the letter. No event of history is better authenticated than the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And if the evidence that Jesus is the Christ will not convince the Jews, they cannot be convinced by evidence; they can only be convinced by judgment. The sign from heaven will convince them.J.A.M.

Mat 16:5-12

The leaven of error.

After an encounter with certain Pharisees and Sadducees at Magadan, Jesus warned his disciples against their teaching. This is not written for their sakes alone, but also for our admonition. From Luke’s account we may infer that Jesus likewise warned the people (see Luk 12:1). Every age has its Pharisees and Sadducees, and it becomes us to note

I. THE ERRORS AGAINST WHICH WE ARE WARNED.

1. Those which distinguish the Pharisee.

(1) He plumes himself upon his orthodoxy and superior sanctity. The ancient Pharisee was scrupulous in observing the ritual of the elders, and refused to eat with sinners. Hence his name, from the Hebrew word , “to separate.” But the reputation of orthodoxy is no security against error. The apostate Greek Church is called “orthodox;” and her Romish sister claims infallibility. These and their kindred are the Pharisees of our times.

(2) He is zealous for Church traditions. The ancient Pharisee pretended that his traditions came to Moses on Mount Sinai together with the Law, immediately from God, and concluded that they were of equal authority. Several of these traditions are mentioned in the Gospels; but a vast number more may be seen in the Talmud. Corresponding to these are the “apostolical traditions” and papal “decretals” of the Romanists.

(3) Such authority is worthless, to say the least. For any simple story passing through half a dozen hands will be found to receive so many new complexions and additions, and to suffer so many distortions and omissions, that the original narrator could scarcely recognize it. Church traditions are in this respect no better than others. Perversion and distortion could only be prevented by plenary inspiration continued throughout all the links of transmission.

(4) But it is worse than worthless. The ancient Pharisee set his tradition above the Law of God by making it the interpreter of the Law, and thus by it the Law was made void (cf. Mat 15:1-9; Luk 11:39-42). The vicious effects of the traditions of our modern Pharisee upon the Gospel corresponds. What single truth of God is there that has not been distorted by this process?

2. Those which distinguish the Sadducee.

(1) The Sadducee of old derived from Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus Sochaeus, who lived about three hundred years B.C. Antigonus, in his lectures, taught the duty of serving God from filial love and fear rather than in a servile manner, whence Sadoc concluded that there are no rewards after this life. His followers proceeded to deny the existence of a spiritual world, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the providence of God (see Mat 22:23; Act 23:8). They differed little from the ancient Epicureans.

(2) Sadduceeism is not limited to ancient times. We have it still under the names atheism, deism, agnosticism, positivism, rationalism, erastianism. They are, in many respects, the opposite of Phariseeism. The one is the reaction of the other. Hence they are associated evermore.

(3) As the Pharisee boasts superior piety, so does the Sadducee affect superior intelligence. Sadduceeism is fashionable through the concessions of ignorance to this affectation. Herod was the head of the Sadducees in Galilee. The “leaven of the Sadducees” is otherwise described as the “leaven of Herod”. Herod’s courtiers, of course, were Sadducees. The conceited amongst the vulgar would sympathize with boasted intelligence, that they might, in turn, be credited with an intelligence which they did not possess.

3. Those common to both.

(1) Failure to discern the signs of the times. The prophecies of Scripture were lost upon them. The events of providence were to them without significance. Their intelligence went no further than discerning the face of the sky. With all their boasted piety and affectation of sagacity, Pharisees and Sadducees were alike in this condemnation. Note: The neglect of the study of prophecy is neither creditable nor innocent.

(2) Opposition to the truth of God. As Pilate and Herod became friends in their hostility to Christ, so did the Pharisees and Sadducees sink their differences to oppose him. However fiercely errors may wrangle together, they will evermore combine against the truth of God.

(3) Herein the Sadducee is open to the same impeachment of hypocrisy as the Pharisee. Pretence in devotion is the hypocrisy of the Pharisee; yet he opposes Christ, who is the impersonation of goodness. Pretence of a free and impartial search after truth is the hypocrisy of the Sadducee; yet he also opposes Christ, who is the impersonation of truth.

II. THE NECESSITY FOR THE ADMONITION.

1. Error is like leaven, subtle in its influence.

(1) As the “kingdom of heaven,” in the parable, “is like unto leaven,” so is the kingdom of hell. Many interpret the parable to describe the subtle working of error in the lump of the Church, rather than the secret working of the truth in the lump of the world (cf. Mat 13:33; 1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9).

(2) Its subtlety lies in its hypocrisy. “Think not that false doctrine will meet you face to face, saying, ‘I am false doctrine, and I want to come into your heart.’ Satan does not go to work in that way. He dresses up false doctrine like Jezebel. He paints her face, and tires her head, and tries to make her like truth” (Anon.).

(3) Christians are not proof against this subtlety. They are often such as have no great forecast for this world. Here the disciples “forgot to take bread.” Mark says they had only one loaf in the ship (Mar 8:14). In nothing is the veracity of the sacred writers more plainly seen than in the unsparing fidelity with which they record the proofs of their own infirmity. Their very simplicity would expose them to the subtlety of error. It was therefore needful to warn them.

(4) In the false concern of the disciples concerning the bread, we see already a Pharisaic care for externals, and a Sadducean forgetfulness of the supernatural. “It is because we took no bread.” Men blame themselves most for carelessness in externals, which is just that in which God blames them least. We may blame ourselves for a forgetfulness for which God does not blame us, while he blames us for a forgetfulness for which we blame not ourselves. They did not remember the miracle of the loaves. If through thoughtlessness we come into straits, even then we may trust Christ to bring us out of them. The experience of the disciple is an aggravation to the sin of his distrust.

(5) For lack of faith it is easy to fall into errors of doctrine. “Why reason ye among yourselves? We waste much precious time in profitless reasonings. Reasonings are profitless when they are apart from Christ. “O ye of little faith.” There are degrees of faith. Little faith may be the germ of great faith. Want of faith is accompanied by want of quick spiritual discernment.

2. The influence of error is demoralizing.

(1) It makes the Pharisee a hypocrite. The ancient Pharisee, with all his affectation of sanctity, was but self-righteous; he was proud, unjust, selfish, and worldly. The semblance of piety was the mark of wickedness. The modern Pharisee is like him.

(2) As superstition demoralizes the Pharisee, so does scepticism demoralize his complement. When the restraints of belief are removed, the rein is thrown over the neck of appetite and passion and every propensity of the evil heart. Extremes meet.

(3) Creed has greater influence upon temper and conduct than men are commonly aware of. Doctrines act in the soul like leaven; they assimilate the whole spirit to their own nature. False doctrine is like evil leaven souring the temper, and swelling and inflating with pride. Unsound faith will never beget sound practice. Zeal for purity of doctrine is essential to godliness.

(4) Error tends to blasphemy. “It is because we have brought no bread.” The disciples here judged unworthily of Christ, viewing him through their own low medium of unbelief. Men are prone to make themselves their standard for Christ rather than making him their standard. As we can view Christ only in our thoughts, the spiritual alone can think justly of him.

3. The issues of error are disastrous.

(1) Christ cannot abide with perversity. After suitably replying to the Pharisees and Sadducees at Magadan, “he left them, and departed” (verse 4). A sinner abandoned by the only Saviour is in a melancholy case. Thereupon he warned his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, viz. lest it should land them in a similar state of abandonment.

(2) Christ separated himself from them by crossing the sea. Was not this action parabolic? Did it not suggest that “great gulf fixed” by which the righteous are forever separated from the wicked (see Luk 16:26)?

(3) The caution to “take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” suggests that their doctrine is especially pernicious, like poisoned leaven. The disciples should beware of any doctrine coming through such hands. “Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and. that ye receive not of her plagues” (see Rev 18:4).J.AM.

Mat 16:13-20

The true confession.

“Who’s who?” This is, generally speaking, a question of very little consequence. When the “Son of man” is concerned, it is of infinite moment. Everlasting issues turn upon the manner in which it is answered. From this important text we learn

I. THAT THE FAITH WHICH IS HUMAN IS UNCERTAIN.

1. It may take colour from the distraction of guilt.

(1) “Some say John the Baptist.” So said Herod. He has murdered the Baptist (cf. Mat 4:1-12). Herod’s courtiers would say as Herod said.

(2) Herod had not heard of Christ before. Some men never concern themselves with the claims of Jesus until conscience alarms them.

(3) Such alarms will come. They come in visitations of judgmentdeath bed experiences.

(4) The faith so excited is too often uncertain.

2. It may be influenced by the spirit of the world.

(1) “Some say Elijah.” For Elijah was promised as the forerunner of Christ (see Mal 4:5, Mal 4:6). And the time for the advent of Messiah had arrived (see Gen 49:10; Dan 9:25).

(2) But why say “Elijah” rather than “Messiah”? The spirit of the world blinded them. They expected a secular king. They were too materialistic to see that John Baptist had come “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” They now confounded Christ with an Elijah of their own devising, and missed him. in the mists of the world the spiritual Jesus is still fatally missed.

(3) They confounded the advents. They are two. Messiah was to come in humiliation. He was also to come in glory. They looked for the glorious appearing to be heralded by Elijah in person. They failed to discern the Christ in his suffering. Yet the advents are intimately related. Those only who confess him in his sufferings can share in his glory.

3. It may be distorted by the vanity of reason.

(1) “Some say Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” The doctrine of metempsychosis, transmigration, or passing of the soul from one body into another, was accepted among the Jews (cf. verse 14; Mat 14:2; Joh 9:2).

(2) This doctrine largely entered into the Pharisees’ notion of the resurrection. To them the question of the Sadducees would be a real puzzle, which Jesus answered to the astonishment of both (see Mat 22:23-33).

(3) Herod, though a Sadducee, yet favoured this Pharisaic notion. In this he was inconsistent. But what of that? Unbelief is inconsistent evermore under the excitements of conscience.

II. THAT THE TRUE FAITH OF CHRIST IS A REVELATION FROM GOD.

1. In its doctrine.

(1) “But whom say ye that I am?” The disciples of Jesus should have it. They had the best opportunity of judging.

(2) What, then, was their confession? “Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Here Jesus was identified as the Messiah of the nation’s hope. His Divinity also was recognized.

(3) But this confession had been made before. After the stilling of the storm, “they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God” (Mat 14:33). Nathanael’s confession was still earlier (see Joh 1:49). And still later we have another remarkable confession (see Joh 6:69).

(4) The disciples of Jesus were, several of them, disciples of John; and from John they had this testimony concerning Jesus (see Joh 1:35-42).

2. In its experience.

(1) In this confession of Peter there is a new element, and an element too of great importance; for it had a special commendation. The earlier confessions were more speculative. This was experimental; from the very heart.

(2) Miracles cannot carry conviction to the heart. No effort of reason can give it. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.”

(3) It is immediately from God. “No man can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.”

III. THAT HAPPY IS HE THAT CONFESSES CHRIST FROM THE HEART.

1. He is a living stone in the living temple.

(1) Simon, at his call, received this patronymic (see Joh 1:42). Literally, Peter is a “stone;” metaphorically it is stability, strength. The change of name suggests change of nature, or conversion (cf. Gen 32:28).

(2) The firmness of the rock belonged not to Peter in respect to his mental temper (see Mat 26:69; Gal 2:11).

(3) It belonged to him in connection with his faith. He had the patronymic in anticipation of his confession; for when he made it Jesus said, “Thou art Peter,” q.d. now thou hast merited thy name. Heart faith is the principle of Christian firmness.

(4) Whoever has the faith of Peter thereby becomes himself a Petera living stone. Peter himself witnesses to this (see 1Pe 2:4, 1Pe 2:5). Translate this figure, and what does it import?

2. He is founded on the Rock of Ages.

(1) This Rock is not Peter. Petros does not signify “a rock” otherwise than as a stone is a rock. Stone, not rock, is the proper meaning of that term. Petra is the name for the living rock. On the petra the Church is built.

(2) Peter is accordingly found amongst the other apostles, and together with them also the prophets, as one of the many foundationstones resting upon the Rock (see Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).

(3) Christ, who is the Foundation (see Act 4:11, Act 4:12; 1Co 3:11), is also the Builder of his Church. In his hand every stone has its proper place and fitting.

3. His salvation is secured.

(1) “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” In ancient times the gates of fortified cities were used to hold councils in, and they were usually strong places. This expression means that neither the counsels nor strength of Satan can prevail against the truth of this confession, nor against the Church that is founded on it.

(2) Hades is the abode of disembodied spirits, and death is the gate or entrance into that abode. But death does not prevail against the living Church. Its members die, but others take their places.

(3) Neither does death prevail against any living member of the Church to remove him out of it. For death does but translate him from that part of the Church which is militant to that other part which is triumphant. For the one true Church of Christ is catholic to the universe and to the ages. “Hell hath no power against faith; faith hath power for heaven.”

IV. SIGNALLY BLESSED IS HE THAT IS FOREMOST IN THIS CONFESSION.

1. Peter had the honour of the keys.

(1) Keys were anciently a common symbol of authority; and presenting the keys was a form of investing with authority; and these were afterwards worn as a badge of office (see Isa 22:22). Peter’s authority was to open the gate of faith to the world.

(2) He accordingly first preached the gospel to the Jew, on the memorable Day of Pentecost (see Act 2:41). He first preached the gospel to the Gentiles also (see Act 10:44-47; Act 15:7).

(3) In this honour Peter stood alone. In the nature of the case he could have no successor. In the preaching of the gospel to Jew and Gentile his successors are counted by millions; but in being the first to preach it he has no successor.

2. He had the power of binding and loosing.

(1) “The term of loosing and binding was customarily applied by Jews to a decision about doctrines or rites, establishing which were lawful and unlawful. Thus of many articles, it is said, ‘The school of Shammai, which was the stricter, bindeth it; the school or followers of Hillel looseth it'” (Lightfoot).

(2) This Peter was to do authoritatively, by plenary inspiration, and therefore so as to be ratified and confirmed in heaven. And in this accordingly Peter took the initiative, declaring the terms of salvation when he first used his keys.

(3) But beyond this he had no distinction from the other apostles, who were also inspired authoritatively to set forth these terms. The question which Peter answered was addressed to the whole company of the apostles, “Whom do ye say that I am?” and Peter answered it in their name, or as their representative (cf. Joh 20:21-23).

(4) In this the apostles have no successors. Plenary inspiration has ceased with them. The fruits of that inspiration come down to us in the New Testament canon. To this we have our one and sole appeal.

3. Every foremost confessor has his honour.

(1) The martyr has his crown. He has his conspicuous place in the better resurrection (see Rev 2:10; Rev 20:4 6).

(2) Superior goodness will be signally recognized (see Dan 12:3; 1Co 15:41, 1Co 15:42).J.A.M.

Mat 16:21-24

Christian self-denial.

After the noble confession of Peter Jesus “began to show unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suite.” This intelligence roused all the devil in Peter, so that he took that Blessed One whom he had just acknowledged to be the “Son of the living God,” and began to rebuke him. Simon was not innocent of selfishness in his concern for the life of his Lord, for he shrewdly concluded that the servants might suffer with the Master. Jesus strongly resented this evil spirit of the world, and urged the absolute necessity of self-denial.

I. SELF–DENIAL IS REQUIRED BY OUR RELATION TO GOD.

1. The will of God is the creature‘s law.

(1) Ether expands, flame ascends, water finds its level, the blade of grass pushes sunward. Theories may be hazarded to explain these things, but the theories will need explanation. Sooner or later we come back upon the principle that the will of God is the creature’s law.

(2) Man is no exception. His intellect, conscience, affections, will, are as truly creatures of God as the instincts of animals, the habits of plants, or the properties of matter.

(3) God does not coerce the human will, but he gives us a law with sanctions. The very superiority of our endowments should influence our heart to love and serve him to the limit of our ability.

2. Yet our inclinations cross the will of God.

(1) Originally this was not so. We were created in innocency and uprightness. Our senses let in the evidences of the power, wisdom, and goodness of our Creator. Our intellects were filled with admiration of his perfections; our hearts glowed with love to him; our obedience was loyal and delightful.

(2) But in an evil hour this Eden was blighted, and we became earthly, sensual, devilish.

3. Therefore now the necessity for self-denial.

(1) Without, it we cannot regain the forfeited favour of God. Worldliness must be fought and conquered. The flesh with its affections and lusts must be crucified. Waywardness must be resisted.

(2) Without self-denial that favour cannot be retained. Let the duty of reproving sin be neglected because it is unpleasant, and the relish for the worship of God will go, and his service will degenerate into formality. Let the duty of giving bountifully to the cause of God and humanity be restrained because the love of gain is pleasant, and the life of God will languish and expire.

II. SELF–DENIAL IS REQUIRED BY OUR RELATION TO MAN.

1. The human race is one great family.

(1) Polygenists should consider the striking differences in persons confessedly of the same nation and race, and how they might be aggravated by the influence of climate, diet, and habits of life extended over many generations. The same class of dog that in the tropics will grow a thin covering of hair will in the arctic regions grow a thick coat of wool. Let the experiment be fairly made with the negro, and he will flourish in any climate. Let him not be suddenly removed from one extreme of climate to another; but let him pass through gradations in a series of generations so as to give the powers of adaptation a chance.

(2) Developmentarians who trace the American Indian to the broad-nosed simian of the New World, the African to the Troglodytic stock, and the Mongolian to the orang, should consider that no two tribes of men differ as the orang and chimpanzee.

(3) Moses ought to know what he was writing about, living as he did within a few generations of the origin of our race. If the accepted chronology may be taken as correct, he was contemporary with men who were contemporary with Abraham, and Abraham was contemporary with men who remembered Noah, and Methuselah was at once contemporary with Noah and Adam. Could Moses have imposed on the men of his generation a fanciful account of the origin of their race which the traditions of every family might be presumed to contradict?

(4) Sin, not science, is the true origin of polygenism. Sin is dissocializing. It expels brotherly love, generates hatred, variance, emulation, strife, sedition. It originates wars and tyrannies.

2. The necessities of the family call for self-denial.

(1) Some of these are physical. Should not our luxuries minister to the necessities of the hungry and naked and homeless (see Jas 2:15, Jas 2:16; 1Jn 3:17)?

(2) Some are spiritual. What is done for the headmen abroad and at home? For the street Arab? For the inhabitant of the mansion who habitually neglects the means of grace? Do we give money? Do we give personal service to Church work, which is more valuable than money?

(3) The temper of the world will tax our self-denial. Meet a hypocondriac, and he will weary you; but you may release yourself by asking after the health of his soul. The subject is unpalatable to the impenitent, but without encountering resentments we cannot clear our consciences of the blood of souls.

III. SELF–DENIAL IS REQUIRED BY THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST.

1. He stooped to the form of a servant.

(1) Born in a stable; cradled in a manger; associated with poverty.

(2) But who is this? The King of glory!

(3) Can the sticklers for precedence be the servants of this great Exemplar? How small in his great presence are the artifices (of pride! How contemptible is borrowed greatness!

2. He exercised himself with fasting.

(1) At the entrance upon his ministry he fasted in the wilderness as our Exemplar. If we would be successful in our spiritual conflicts we should in our measure follow him here.

(2) In this age of wisdom men see no reason in fasting, and vet here is a kind of devil that will not depart without faith; and here is a kind of unbelief that will not go out but by prayer and fasting.

3. He took up his own cross.

(1) He went to Jerusalem to suffer. There he “suffered many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes.” The false accusation, the shame, the spitting, the scourge.

(2) There, at Jerusalem, he literally carried his cross. On it he was “killed.”

(3) And every man has his cross to lift and carry, and perhaps on it to be killed for Christ’s sake. It is not his place to rebuke Jesus for bringing him to it, but, when he finds it, to lift it and shame the devil.J.A.M.

Mat 16:25-28

Profit and loss.

As the time of the brief ministry of Jesus drew to its close, he began to show his disciples how he must go to Jerusalem and suffer and be killed, and rise again the third day. The sombre part of this anticipation was a terrible shock to the strong Jewish prejudices of Peter; and he lost sight of the glorious element of the resurrection. So is prejudice blind evermore. He had. the presumption to take Jesus to task, and stoutly protested against any such issue. For this temerity Peter merited a terrible rebuke from Christ, who, after administering it, insisted upon self-denial and cross lifting as essential to his discipleship. Then he proceeded to reason and expostulate in the words of the text.

I. WHAT IS THE GAIN? THE WORLD.

1. Not the empire of the universe.

(1) “The whole world,” in the largest sense, includes not only this globe, but the sun, the planets, and the moons of this solar system; and, moreover, all the firmaments of such systems within the searching power of telescopes and beyond into immensity.

(2) The proprietorship of the world in this large sense belongs to God alone. Such a sceptre could be wielded only by the Infnite.

2. Not the empire of this earth.

(1) Alexander the Great is said to have “conquered the world,” and then to have “wept because he had not another world to conquer.” Yet was that empire of Alexander but a small portion of the globe after all. And instead of conquering the other world of his own mind, his evil passions conquered him.

(2) The Romans were said to be “masters of the world,” but there were barbarians beyond they could never subdue. There were vast continents they never knew.

(3) The British empire is the most extensive that the sun has seen. Yet are we far from possessing the monopoly of the globe. Universal empire, in this sense, is still reserved for the proper Man.

3. All the pleasures of the worldling.

(1) In his enjoyment of all natural endowments. Health of body; symmetry of proportions; vigour of mind; hilarity of spirits.

(2) All accidental advantages. The inheritance of wealth, of title, of position.

(3) All opportunities of animal indulgence. Luxuries of the tablechoice wines, rare fruitsall in profusion. Every conceivable gratification for the appetite and passion.

(4) All opportunities for intellectual gratification. A taste cultivated to appreciate the finest poetry, the most exquisite music, the noblest eloquence, consummate painting and sculpture, and refinements of art, together with all these things.

4. But hold, the colouring is too high!

(1) Who can have all this with religion? Can it be all indulged if the claims of religion are respected?

(2) But who can have all this without religion? For are there not punitive sequences bound up with indulgence?

(a) Health will not abide it.

(b) Capacity is limited, and to surcharge is to produce revulsion and disgust.

(c) Conscience will have its reckoning.

(d) Fear will intrude with thoughts of the coming of the “Son of man in the glory of his Father with his angels” to “reward to every man according to his deeds.” It will bring alarmingly near the judgment in the doom of death.

II. WHAT IS THE LOSS? THE SOUL.

1. Its greatness is seen in its achievements.

(1) Those of the astronomer. The calculation of the Nautical Almanac. The discovery of the planet Neptune. Light thrown upon chronology.

(2) Those of the chemist and electrician.

(3) Those of the engineers

(4) What a loss when such great rowers are prostituted, wasted, blighted, damned!

2. It is evident in its capability of God.

(1) Powers to contemplate his being and attributes; his government and his claims.

(2) Enjoying his friendship. Reciprocating his love. Working out his purposes.

(3) Hoping in his promises of heaven.

(4) But all this capability is capability also of suffering. Awful to the sinner is the very justice of his judgment. Thoughts of the being and attributes of an infinite Enemy. How terrible are the fires of his wrath!

3. It is seen in God‘s estimate.

(1) He framed the creation for man (see Psa 8:1-9.).

(2) He gave himself for man. Became incarnate in our nature. In that nature suffered and died for us.

(3) Carried our nature into heaven. There it is exalted above all principality.

(4) In it he will come forth “in the glory of his Father with his angels.”

(5) The distance between heaven’s rapturous height and hell’s horrible depth is the measure of God’s estimate of man.

III. WHAT IS THE PROFIT?

1. For what do you barter your soul?

(1) “All that is in the world” is soon summed up. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the vain glory of life, is not of the Father” (1Jn 2:16).

(2) But what have we here?

(a) Sensuality. Wine. Women.

(b) Covetousness. Gain by meanness. Gain by trend. Gain by oppression.

(c) Ambition.

The esteem of the deceived. Or the esteem of the vain. What does it profit?

2. What is the profit when life is spent?

(1) What would a damned soul give for the opportunity to retrace his steps?

(2) But life is spent before a man is dead. What does the world profit when a man outlives its pleasureswhen his energy is spent?

3. What must we sacrifice for the soul?

(1) Not the world, in its use.

(2) We must sacrifice the world in its abuse. All sin must go.

(3) Life must be sacrificed if necessary. But then “to die is gain.”J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

Mat 16:4

The sign of Jonas.

There are many indications of the persistency with which our Lord was worried and hindered by a hostile party from among the Pharisees. They were ever trying new devices for entangling him. They hoped to nonplus him; or to get him to try something in which he would fail, or to say something which they could turn into an accusation. On this occasion the Pharisaic party united with the Galilaean Sadducees in what seemed a clever scheme. They were to plead that such miracles as he wrought could not prove his Divine claim, because they were all susceptible of natural explanations. They were to say that, if he meant them to believe in him, he must do some really wonderful firingmake thunder in a clear sky, as Samuel did (1Sa 12:18), or bring fire from heaven, as Elijah did (1Ki 18:38). Of course, they intended the people to hear them put this test, and they would make use of his refusal as proof of his inability. Our Lord did refuse. He understood the temper and needs of his time far better than they did; and if they wanted manifest signs from heaven, the people did not; or if they did, such signs were not really best for them. What would most help to awaken men was the mystery of his death and resurrection. That was the true sign of his spiritual being and mission. These Pharisees might take that sign. It was foreshadowed in the story of Jonah. It was all they would get. They must do the best they could with it.

1. THE SIGN OF JONAS WAS INTENDED TO PUZZLE. Those who knew nothing of the spiritual nature of Christ, or of his redemption by suffering and sacrifice, could make nothing of this sign. It is a good way in which to treat malicious questioners, to answer them by giving them something to puzzle over, a “hard nut to crack.” Can we imagine how these Pharisees, who were so clever at “splitting hairs” in argument, discussed this “sign of Jonas”? The people must have smiled when they saw them so answered and so discomfited.

II. THE SIGN OF JONAS WAS INTENDED TO SUGGEST. For us it suggests what was then the special burden on the mind of Christ. He was anticipating the time of his suffering and death. For them the sign seemed to say, “Your prejudiced opposition to me will grow until it consummates in securing my death. You will throw me overboard, as Jonas was thrown over. But you will be baffled even then. Like Jonas, I shall rise again.”

III. THE SIGN OF JONAS WAS INTENDED TO TEACH. Only one point in the story is recalled by Christ. The only likeness between Jonas and Christ is that “rising again.” The sign of the Divine origin, Divine mission, and Divine nature of Christ is his resurrection from the dead.R.T.

Mat 16:6

Pharisaic leaven.

In their short journeyings among the villages, and when they went east of the lake for the sake of retirement, the disciples were accustomed to carry in their little baskets sufficient food for a day or two. By some mischance the food had been forgotten on this occasion. Their minds were full of this lack of bread; and so they thought their Master’s mind must be full of the same thing. He was quite unconcerned about bodily food, and meditating on the mischievous influence, upon themselves and upon others, of the characteristic spirit and disposition of the Pharisees, of which so striking an illustration had just been given. It was an evil force, an active force, and a dangerous force.

I. PHARISAIC DOCTRINE AS AN EVIL FORCE. It was the notion that a good creed will excuse an evil life; that a man may do evil that good may come; that religion is formality; that subtlety is more important than sincerity; that blind prejudice can make honest judgments. The “leaven” will go into the term “hypocrisy,” or “religious insincerity;” “the unreality of a life respectable, rigid, outwardly religions, even earnest in its zeal, and yet wanting in the humility and love which are the essence of true holiness.” Such hypocrisy and insincerity is a ruinous influence in character. A man cannot be noble who allows any shams. Religion a mere garb is worthless to man and dishonouring to God. Nothing roused our Lord’s indignation like the leaven of insincerity.

II. PHARISAIC DOCTRINE AS AN ACTIVE FORCE. Here we find the reason for calling it leaven, which is a thing which will not keep quiet, and remain where it is and as it is. Leaven will act; it will grow; it will push through; it will pervade. Leaven consists of plant cells, which multiply with extraordinary rapidity under favourable circumstances. A doctrine which allows licence to man’s evil passions, and hides it under a show of superior piety, is a doctrine that readily finds a sphere in man’s corrupt nature, and there it acts vigorously. A little of such leaven leaveneth the whole lump. We need to see clearly that all error is active; but all error that tends to give moral licence is, for fallen man, especially active. You can never hope to keep such error still.

III. PHARISAIC DOCTRINE AS A DANGEROUS FORCE. Therefore our Lord warned his disciples against letting the Pharisaic spirit get into them unawares. It works such havoc in character. Any evil is possible to a man who once permits himself to excuse insincerity. Piety is nourished upon absolute truth and righteousness. Guile, formality, and outward show never can support it.R.T.

Mat 16:13

Opinions concerning Jesus.

It seems strange that our Lord should want to know men’s opinions about himself. Two explanations may be given.

1. These disciples mixed more freely with the people than Jesus could, and were more likely to know the common talk. So they could give him information which would materially help his work.

2. Our Lord’s question may only have been meant to introduce a conversation, through which he might teach those disciples the higher truth concerning himself. Jesus removed into the district of Caesarea Philippi for the sake of retirement and safety. His work in Galilee was virtually finished, and something in the nature of a review of that work, and estimate of its results, was befitting. Our Lord’s work, in its higher aspect, was a self-revelation. What he said, and what he did, were intended to show what he was. The mystery of the Person of Christ is the subject of the gospel. So our Lord, in asking, “Whom do men say that I am?” really proposed to test the results of his self-manifestation in mighty deeds and gracious words and holy example.

I. A POOR OPINION CONCERNING JESUS. “Some say that thou art John the Baptist.” This was a poor opinion. There was no personal thought or consideration in it. In a time serving sort of way, some folk had taken up the excited exclamation of Herod, “It is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead.” It was foolish, for there was no real likeness between the two men, or their two missions. Jesus could never have even suggested rough, half-clad John. Beware of taking up something somebody else is pleased to say about Jesus. Only very poor opinions of him can be gained in that way.

II. A BETTER OPINION CONCERNING JESUS. “Some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” Elijah was a bad guess; for Jesus was in no way like him, Elisha would have been better. Jeremias was not a bad guess. And it was an advance to liken Christ to one of the spiritual, teaching prophets. It should be borne in mind that there was an almost universal expectation of the return of Elijah, and that this had grown to be a national mania, so that every unusual man was suspected to be Elijah.

III. A BEST OPINION CONCERNING JESUS. Peter may have been actually in advance of the other disciples in discerning the mystery of Christ; or he may only have been spokesman of a general apprehension. The disciples saw two things; but they involved more than they then saw.

1. Jesus was Messiah; but not the kind of Messiah anticipated.

2. Jesus was Son of the living God; and this involved that Jesus was doing his Father’s moral work in the souls of men.R.T.

Mat 16:16

Visions of the mystery of Christ.

It was the end and aim of our Lord’s life to reveal the mystery of himself to his disciples. But what is so strange and yet so significant is, that he made scarcely any direct declarations on the subject. He evidently wanted it to be the impression left by his presence, his words, and his works. Later on in his life we find more of what may, in a good sense, be called self-assertion. But in his earlier ministry he virtually answered all inquiries as he answered the two disciples sent from John Baptist: “Go and show again the things ye do see and hear.” Let him make what he can of them, and of me by the help of them. The impressions of himself had been borne in daily, for long months, upon those disciples, and so they had gained visions of his mystery. What is that mystery?

I. IT IS HIS DIVINITY. Because the word “divinity” has been applied to created beings, many persons prefer to speak of the Deity of Christ. The opened vision of the disciples found God in a man; they discerned the “Divine-human being, man with God for the soul of his humanity.” It is hardly in place to inquire what notions of incarnations of deity prevailed among pagan nations, because such notions could not have reached or influenced these simple disciples. It is to the point to inquire how the Old Testament records and associations would help them. There were “theophanies” of various forms, which must have been helpful and suggestive. St. John the apostle, in his Gospel, finely represents the process which had gone on in his own mind, by the help of which he had grasped the mystery of Christ’s Deity. It was the humanity that did it. John gives a series of narratives, and one after another they make on the reader a twofold impression.

1. He saysHow manifestly Jesus was a real brother-Man!

2. But then he saysHow manifestly Jesus was more than man, a Divine Man! No true notion of Christ’s Divinity can ever be attained save in the disciples’ way, by actual, constant, living contact with Christ’s humanity. It is that extraordinary humanity which convinces of the Divinity.

II. IT IS HIS SONSHIP. A previous homily has dealt with this point. The impression on which we now dwell is that the Divinity of Christ is to be conceived as “equality with God,” not subordination or creation. The contrast to son is servant. A servant is told the will; a son shares the will. A servant is at the footstool; the son is on the throne. “I and my Father are one.”R.T.

Mat 16:18

The rock truth.

“Upon this rock I will build my Church.” There has been grave dispute over this passage. Is the rock foundation of the Church

(1) Peter himself; or

(2) Peter’s faith; or

(3) Peter’s confession; or

(4) Christ himself, the Son of the living God?

Without entering into that discussion, we may simply say that this is truethe confession which Peter made expresses the foundation, the rock truth of Christianity, every doctrine of which rests secure on the Divine-human Sonship of our Lord. Peter is taken as representing this rock truth, because he was the first distinctly to give it expression. The figure of rock foundation needs explanation in the light of Eastern modes of building, and ideas of building. Still, we know the importance of sound foundations, though there is no longer more than a poetical interest in foundation stones.

I. THIS CONFESSION WAS THE ROCK FOUNDATION OF CHRIST‘S REVELATION. For Jesus brought a revelation from God, which was a revelation of God. Search down to the foundation on which all Christ taught of God rests; refuse to be satisfied until you have discovered its primary truth, its absolutely first and essential principle, and you will find it to be the Fatherhood of Godthe permission to think of God. through the associations of our human fatherhood. But direct revelations of the Divine Fatherhood cannot be made to men; they come as the correlative of Fatherhood, as Sonship. Christ the Son primarily does thisreveal the Father-God.

II. THIS CONFESSION WAS THE ROCK FOUNDATION OF CHRIST‘S MISSION. That mission was, to bring men to God. It included and involved much. Bearing penalty, setting example, teaching truth, offering a self-sacrifice, etc.; but get to the very foundation of it, and we see it was to recover for men their sonship and their proper son relations with God. Then we see how the Divine and perfect Sonship of Christ is the “rock truth” of his mission. Only the Son could hope to undertake and carry through the work of recovering sons.

III. THIS CONFESSION IS THE ROCK FOUNDATION ON WHICH CHRIST‘S MISSION IS CONTINUED. Thoughtful readers will be struck by the constancy with which Christ used the term “Father,” and the apostles use the term “Son.” Those apostles clearly apprehended that the gospel they had to preach was the good news of the Divine Fatherhood; and that whoever received their gospel became sons again, linked in obedience, lure, and faith with Jesus, the “Son of the living God.”R.T.

Mat 16:19

The power of the keys.

It is necessary to understand the Eastern associations which help to explain our Lord’s figure of the “keys.” The key in the East was a symbol of authority; it was made long, with a crook at one end, so that it could be worn round the neck as a badge of office. To “confer a key” was a phrase equivalent to bestowing a situation of great trust and distinction. The expressions “binding” and “loosing” are figurative expressions, which were in familiar use in the rabbinical schools. “The school of Shammai bound men when it declared this or that act to be a transgression of the sabbath law. The school of Hillel loosed when it set men free from the obligations thus imposed.” It should be borne in mind that this passage is a part of Christ’s private teaching of the apostles. He was feeling that his own active work was nearly done, and very soon the work of saving men would rest on them. He would prepare them to understand their coming responsibilities; and he would assure them of their competent endowment to meet those responsibilities.

I. THEY WOULD HAVE SERIOUS AND AUTHORITATIVE WORK TO DO. It is remarkable that Jesus never attempted any organization of those who professed to believe in him. But he contemplated that his apostles would have to organize the converts they made. They could not help occupying a position of authority. They would be consulted on doctrines; on the application of doctrines to practical life and conduct; they would have to deal with inconsistent disciples. What they would have to do was illustrated in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and in the admission of Cornelius. Their Lord would prepare them for undertaking those responsibilities.

II. THEY WOULD HAVE SPECIAL ENDOWMENTS FOR THEIR SPECIAL WORK. That is God’s law. He makes the gift fit the service that is called for. Among the gifts in the early Church one is named “governments.” That is the gift with which they were endowed. And this distinction needs to be made clear. Their gift came, not because they were apostles, but because this particular work was entrusted to them. Gifts are not possessions or rights; they are trusts; and all the honour of them lies in being thus trusted.

III. THEY WOULD HAVE SPECIAL DIVINE RECOGNITION IN THEIR WORK. What they did, in the loyal and faithful use of their gifts of government, would be owned and sealed by God. Illustrate by the Divine judgment on Ananias, following on Peter’s condemnation of him; and the Spirit following Cornelius’ admission.R.T.

Mat 16:21

Testing the higher beliefs.

After our Lord had secured the recognition of his Divine claims, he proceeded to test the belief of those apostles, to see whether it was clear of those materialistic notions of his Messiahship which so constantly had hindered them. The test was found in the assurance that his Messiahship would seem to be a failure, and his bodily life end in shame and a cross. If they had grasped the spiritual nature of Christ’s mission, they would not have felt so much his earth failure. If they still held their material hopes, the very mention of failure and a cross would be to them an offence indeed. Compare the record, in Joh 6:1-71, of Christ’s testing his disciples by declaring high mystical truths. “Many went back, and walked no more with him.” He even appealed unto the twelve, saying, “Will ye also go away?”

I. HIGHER BELIEFS MAY BE IMPULSIVE SENTIMENTS. A sort of vision a man may gain. Something that is a hope rather than an opinion; a sentiment rather than a judgment. Perhaps every man has some sublime but unworkable ideas. There are things we dream, wish they were true, and wonder whether they are. Perhaps the apostolic grip of the Divine Sonship was one of these things that are held convulsively for a moment. Perhaps St. Peter really spoke beyond himself, and no quiet, clear conviction lay behind his impulsive speech. And very probably he was, for the moment, quite beyond the reach of the rest. Our working beliefs and. our visions of truth often differ.

II. HIGHER BELIEFS MUST BE MADE WORKABLE PRINCIPLES. No truth is really worth anything to us that will not come as a vital force into our actual life, duty, and relation. Christ will not keep his apostles up in the high realms of mystical truths. “If you believe me to be the Son of God, we had better recognize some filets and truths, and see how the belief will affect them. This Son of God is going to suffer, to rid a prey to his foes, and to be killed. Will you still believe that he is the Son of the living God when you see him on a cross?” This is the point of our Lord’s reference, just here, to his sufferings. All our advanced beliefs must be tested. No matter how beautiful they may seem to us, they are of no real value, they are vain dreams, unless they wilt stand the test of being actually fitted to fact, circumstance, and duty.R.T.

Mat 16:23

He hinders Christ who would hold him back from his sufferings.

This brings before us another relation in which our Lord’s sufferings stand. We have seen their relation as a testing of that higher truth to which St. Peter had given expression. Now we see how they bore on that particular mission which Jesus came to carry out. His sufferings were essential to that mission. He saved the world by his sufferings.

I. OUR LORD‘S PURPOSE TO ENDURE SUFFERINGS. It should be clearly seen that our Lord knew beforehand all that was to happen to him; and he might have avoided all the pain and distress. Instead, he voluntarily determined to go steadily along the path, bearing and enduring all, because that was the Father’s will for him. Explain in this way: Our Lord had to present to God the living sacrifice of a perfectly obedient Son. But he could not be a perfectly obedient Son if his obedience had not been adequately tested. The series of sufferings through which our Lord passed are the various testings of his Sonship. And because Christ was resolved to make the great redeeming sacrifice, he resolved to bear and endure every way in which the Father might be pleased to test his Sonship. A violent and shameful death was the final test.

II. OUR LORD‘S OFFENCE AT THOSE WHO WOULD HINDER HIM FROM ENDURING HIS SUFFERINGS. They did the work of the flesh, which shrinks from suffering; they did not help the sanctified will to gain free expression. St. Peter became a tempter, a worker of evil; one who did the work of an adversary, of man’s great adversary. Our Lord here uses the word “Satan” as a figure, without reference to the personal devil. Any adversary, any one who works against our best interests, is a Satan. To withdraw Christ from his sufferings was to withdraw Christ from his mission; since he could only be made “perfect,” as a Bringer on of souls, by the experience and testing of suffering. Olshausen thinks that St. Peter forgot himself, and presumed upon the praise which Christ had given him for his noble confession. But it is better, in each case, to treat St. Peter as a mere representative, a mere spokesman, and to see how very imperfect an apprehension of Christ’s deeper truth his words involve.R.T.

Mat 16:26

The great gain, and the greater loss.

“What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” This is an extreme, a paradoxical utterance. No man can, in any precise sense, “gain the whole world.” If he could, it would weigh nothing in the scale against the value of his life. For on life depends enjoyment of possessions. Illustrate by the parable of the rich farmer who boasted of what he possessed, and lost it all when he died in the night. Compare our Lord’s advice to “lay up treasure in heaven.”

I. THE GREAT GAIN IS EARTHLY THINGS. Look over the whole world. Examine the pursuits of every class. Read the story of the long ages. This is clearly men’s opinion everywhere. They live to get, to win, to grasp, to hold what they call wealth, earthly valuableshouses, laud, jewels, money, fame. Is that really great gain? Test it by one thingHow does it stand related to man’s real soul life? Then it is seen to belong only to the body, which man has for a while; and in no way to the being that he is, and will be forever. All a man acquires of a merely earthly character belongs to his body, and goes with his body when his body goes; then it is his no more. Treasure on earth is but falsely and unworthily called “great gain.”

II. THE GREATER LOSS IS SPIRITUAL CHARACTER. For character is a man’s true wealth; it belongs to the being he is, and is forever. And one application of our Lord’s teaching here comes out in a very striking way. Gaining earthly things is only too likely to involve the destruction of spiritual character, because it is so sure to hinder that “self-denial” which is the absolutely essential foundation of noble and enduring spiritual character. A man gains the heavenly treasure by what he gives up, and not by what he holds fast to (see Mat 16:24). The sublime illustration is presented in the case of our Lord himself, who acquired nothing earthly, who gave up everything he had that men are wont to esteem as gain, but who gained the eternal treasure of tested spiritual character, perfected Sonship.

In conclusion, meet the difficulty of the apparently unpractical character of such teaching. Show that it is really a question of relativity. Which is to be first, possessions or character?R.T.

Mat 16:28

The coming of the Son of man.

“Not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” This is immediately suggested. “Christ’s coming,” and “Christ’s coming in his kingdom,” must be phrases used with a variety of meanings and with a variety of references. We begin to feel that it must be used as a proverbial phrase. Various explanations of our Lord’s meaning have been given. Examine three.

I. CHRIST CAME IN HIS KINGDOM AT THE TRANSFIGURATION. This meaning is suggested by the fact that the narrative of the Transfiguration immediately succeeds, and the evangelist appears designedly to set them in close connection. That was a very sublime manifestation of his glory, but it is difficult to understand how it could be called a “coming of the kingdom.” Moreover, there is no point in saying that some would be spared to the coming of the kingdom, when all were to be spared over the Transfiguration. That explanation cannot be regarded as satisfactory.

II. CHRIST CAME IN HIS KINGDOM AT THE DAY OF PENTECOST. That is properly regarded as the actual starting of Christ’s new and spiritual kingdom. In part it may fulfil the reference of our Lord. But here again the difficulty occurs that the apostolic band was intact at the Day of Pentecost, with the exception of the traitor Judas, who had “gone to his own place.” It is hardly possible to rest satisfied with this explanation.

III. CHRIST CAME IN HIS KINGDOM AT THE FALL OF JERUSALEM. “This was a judicial coming, a signal and visible event, and one that would happen in the lifetime of some, but not of all, of those present.” John certainly lived beyond this event. “In a sense which was real, though partial, the judgment which felt upon the Jewish Church, the destruction of the holy city and the temple, the onward march of the Church of Christ, was as the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom.” This is altogether the most satisfactory suggestion; and we need only suppose that Christ was carried away in his thoughts beyond the present, and was helped in thinking of the sufferings that were immediately before him, by comforting visions of the success and glory which would follow his suffering and his sacrifice in the world’s by and by.R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Mat 16:1. The Pharisees also Dr. Campbell reads the last verse of the last chapter and the prefect verse, Then having dismissed the multitude, he embarked, and sailed to the coast of Magdala. Thither some Pharisees and Sadducees repaired, who, to try him, desired that he would shew them a sign in the sky. Whilst Jesus wasinDalmanutha,orMagdala,thePharisees, having heard of the second miraculous dinner, and fearing that the whole body of the people would acknowledge him for the Messiah, resolved to confute his pretensions fully and publicly: for this reason they came forth with the Sadducees, who, though the opposers and rivals of the Pharisees in all other matters, joined them in their design of oppressing Jesus, and together with them demanded of him the sign from heaven. It seems that the Jews, from Dan 7:13 expected that the Messiah would make his first appearance in the clouds of heaven, and take unto himself glory and a temporal kingdom. See the note on ch. Mat 12:38-39. Agreeable to this, Josephus, describing the state of the affairs in Judaea under Felix, tells us, “That the deceivers and impostors pretending to inspiration, endeavouring to bring about changes, and so making the people mad, led them into the wilderness, as if it had been to shew them signs of liberty:” Wherefore when the Pharisees desired Jesus to shew them the sign from heaven, they certainly meant, that he should demonstrate himself to be the Messiah, by coming in a visible and miraculous manner from heaven with great pomp, and by wresting the kingdom out of the hands of the Romans. These hypocrites craftily feigned an inclination to believe, if he would but give them sufficient evidence of his mission: however, their true design was, that by his failure in the proof which they required, he should expose himself to general blame. It was upon the same principles that they continued their demands in the Apostles’ time (see 1Co 1:22.); though so many signs from heaven had then been given, in the voice from thence, in the preternatural darkness at our Lord’s crucifixion, in the descent of angels in repeated instances, and in that of the Holy Spirit in a visible form, as well as in most sensible effects. See Josephus’s Jewish War, b. 2. 100. 12 and Lardner’s Credibility, lib. 1. 100. 5.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 16:1 ff. Comp. Mar 8:11 ff. Not a duplicate of the incident recorded in Mat 12:38 (Strauss, de Wette, Bruno Bauer, Schneckenburger, Volkmar, Weizscker, Bleek, Scholten), but a second demand for a sign , and that from heaven , in which respect it is distinguished from the first. With regard to the alliance between Pharisees and Sadducees , supposed by some to be utterly improbable (de Wette, Strauss, Weiss, Scholten), it is sufficient to say, with Theophylact: , , , . In the unbelieving hostility with which they are animated, they demand of Him the very highest sign which the Messiah would be expected to give (Mat 24:29 f.; Joe 3:3 f.), intending thereby to have Him put to the test, but thinking, all the time, that it would be beyond His power to comply with their demand.

] Their challenge was put in the form of inquiry .

The compound never means: to request, to beg ; see note on Mat 15:23 .

Their questions had reference to such a sign, by way of Messianic credential, as, coming from heaven , would be visible to their outward eye.

] spectandum praebere , Joh 2:18 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

D. CHRIST MINIFESTS HIMSELF AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN HIS SUFFERINGS;BEING REJECTED BY THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES, OR BY THE COMBINED THEOCRATICAL AUTHORITIES OF GALILEE

Mat 15:39 to Mat 16:12

Contents:Although the Lord landed privately on the western shore near Magdala, He was immediately met by His enemies. The combined authorities of the country now demand of Him to prove His claims to the Messianic title by showing that sign from heaven, which in their carnal expectations they connected with the appearance of the promised Deliverer. Their object evidently was to represent His probable refusal of their request as an acknowledgment of His being a false Messiah. Jesus dismisses them with a rebuke, In which He again points them to the sign of Jonah, i.e., to His death and resurrection. Thus rejected in Galilee, He immediately returns across the sea to the eastern shore, there to prepare in retirement for His last journey to Jerusalem. The warning addressed to the disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and scribes was intended to teach them that they were now to forsake Galilee, which had practically surrendered itself to heathenism, just as Hoses and his people had left the land of Egypt.

1. The Sign from Heaven. Mat 15:39 to Mat 16:4

Mat 15:39 And he sent away the multitude [multitudes, ], and took ship [entered into the ship],15 and came into the coasts of Magdala [Magadan].16

Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came,17 and tempting, desired him 2that he would shew [to show] them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be18 fair weather: for the sky is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites,19 ye can [ye know how to]20 discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign [and no sign shall] be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet21 Jonas [Jonah]. And he left them, and departed.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat 15:39.Into the coasts of Magdala [Magdalan, Magadan].The circumstance that Jesus secretly lands in an obscure and unknown place, throws considerable light on the degree of hostility and persecution which He had to encounter during His last journey in Galilee. The watchfulness of the Jewish leaders appears from this, that despite the precautions used by the Lord, they are seemingly ready immediately to meet Him, this time with a categorical demand.Magdalan lay on the western shore of the lake. Probably it is the modern small Village of el Mejdel, about an hour and a half to the north of Tiberias, and protected toward the sea by high cliffs (Robinson, ii. 897; Schubert, iii. 250). Robinson enumerates the various arguments against placing it on the eastern shore of the lake. In all likelihood the name of Mary Magdalene was derived from this place, which also gave birth to several of the Rabbins mentioned in the Talmud. According to Mar 8:10, the landing took place in the district of Dalmanutha, probably a village not far from Magdalan. We conjecture that the Lord touched the shore somewhere between these two villages, and nearer to Dalmanutha than to Magdalanthe account in Mark being the more accurate, while Matthew only speaks of Magdalan, as being the place more generally known. Winer suggests that Magdalan was the of the Old Testament; Ewald, that it was Megiddo, which, however, according to Robinson, 2:329, lay farther inland. The view of Ewald is based on the reading , in Codd. B., D., the Syriac version, etc. (which has been adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf), and with which the reading (Vulg., Ital.) may be compared. But Codd. C., M., the Coptic translation, etc., read . Now it is quite possible, either that this difference of reading may have originated from a desire to assimilate this name to that of a better known place, or else that Magada, the name of an obscure village on the lake, may have been converted into that of the well-known birthplace of Mary Magdalene.

Mat 16:1. And the Pharisees and (the) Sadducees.According to Strauss and de Wette, this is the same event as that recorded in Mat 12:38. The remark is true, but only so far as the spirit, the tendency, and some of the external features, not so far as the peculiar characteristics, of the narrative are concerned. Evidently, it occurred at a later period of history; the place where the Saviour landed, the demand made upon Him, and His reply, are all different. Strauss and de Wette regard it as improbable that the Pharisees and Sadducees should have combined. And yet these two parties must have united in the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus to death! Instead of such idle conjectures, it would have been well if critics had rather inquired how it came that the two parties even at this early period united in their hostility to the Saviour. That both the Pharisees and the Sadducees are introduced with the article,1 implies that in this case they represented the hierarchical authorities of the country generally. In the former contest, the Synagogue alone had been represented, while now in all probability the Sanhedrin itself, in its official capacity, deals with Jesus. Hence also the express demand of a sign from heaven, which may be considered as the logical inference from the last interview between the Pharisees and Jesus. On that occasion, the Saviour had not only discarded the authority of traditionalism, but His statements might even be interpreted as implying superiority to the law itself. This they knew was equivalent to asserting His claims as the Messiah. Accordingly, they now gave full utterance to the idea which the Pharisees of Galilee had previously urged, though in a less distinct manner ( Matthew 12), by demanding a sign from heaven. Withal, as Theophylact remarks, their request still implies the supposition that the miraculous cures performed by Him had been effected by the power of Beelzebul.

Tempting (), or in order to tempt Him.This does not necessarily imply the presupposition that He was really a false Messiah, and hence unable to show the sign from heaven. For, if He had acceded to their request, they would have been well satisfied with Him, and He would have been a Messiah according to their own mind, pledged to fulfil all their carnal hopes (see Matthew 4) Repeatedly afterward did they utter their secret desire that it might even be so; nor does this hope seem to be wholly extinct even in the derisive taunt, If He be the Son of God let Him come down from the cross. But these carnal hopes were already in great measure eclipsed by their unbelief and their hostility. Hence the primary object of this twofold temptation was to represent Jesus to the people as a spurious Messiah, who was unable to substantiate His claims.

A sign from heaven.The same request had already been proffered by the Jews after He had driven from the temple those that bought and sold (Joh 2:18); and His reply Destroy this temple, etc., substantially conveyed the same meaning as the answer given on the occasion recorded in the text. A second demand to the same effect was made, according to Joh 6:30, immediately after the first miraculous feeding of the multitude, or about the same time as the request mentioned in Mat 12:38; a proof that the artifice of entrapping Him by such a proposal was at the time further carried out. In the text, this demand is brought forward a third time, and now in most explicit language. This sign from heaven was popularly expected to be outwardly visible; such passages as Dan 7:13 being interpreted in a sensuous manner, and probably referred to some visible manifestation of the Shechinah. From the answer of Christ, in which the appearance of the clouds as a sign of the weather is subordinated to the signs of the spiritual world, we infer that the Pharisees and Sadducees shared the popular notions. The sign which they expected was, therefore, something purely external, belonging to a totally different sphere from the miraculous cures performed by Jesus. That the term implies not merely questioning (as Fritzsche and Meyer suppose), but a formal demand, appears from die reply of Jesus: , …, , and from the meaning of in Mat 15:23. The reply of Jesus is entirely adapted to the character of the deputation. If on a former occasion He had convinced the deputation from the synagogue that they were wretched teachers of the law, He now shows that these rulers were equally indifferent politicians, i.e., very superficial observers of the signs of the times. They knew how to prophesy the weather for the ensuing day, but not how to interpret the signs of the times.

Mat 16:2-3. When it is evening.Curiosi erant admodum Judi in observandis tempestatibus cli et temperamento aris. Lightfoot. We would suggest that the Lord attached a symbolical meaning to what He said about the signs of the weather. The red at even of the Old Testament betokened fair weather at hand. Similarly, the red sky at the commencement of the New Testament indicated the storm about to descend upon Israel. But they were incapable of understanding either one or other of these signs.

Mat 16:3. The signs of the times.The plural is here used on account of the contrast of these two times. Beza, Kuinoel, and others, apply the expression to the miracles of Jesus; Grotius, to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies; Meyer and de Wette, to the Messianic hopes and views entertained by the people in connection with Jesus. But undoubtedly these signs of the times depended mainly on their own relationship and conduct toward the Lord, which really constituted the contrast between this evening and morning, or the contrast of these . Accordingly, we might apply the redness of the sky at evening to the activity of Christ, and the red and lowering sky in the morning to His sufferings on the cross. This would strictly accord with His sign of the prophet Jonah. Besides, the reply of Jesus also involved the rebuke, that their views of the sign from heaven were entirely carnal and sensuous, applying only to the clouds and the outward sky; while the true sign from heaven consisted in the spiritual indications of the times. The circumstance that Jesus thus addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees before the people, seems to have been the reason why Luke records the event in a different connection (Luk 12:54). Compare also the of Luk 12:29.

Mat 16:4. The sign of Jonah.This time without any further explanation; implying that their present demand was connected with the former request of the Pharisees (Luke 12), and hence that they were already acquainted with His explanation of the sign of Jonah. As if He would say, I refer you to My former statement on this subject as sufficient and final.

And He left them.This abrupt termination indicates that He judicially gave them up. Bengel: Justa severitas. Comp. Mat 15:10; Mat 21:17; Mat 22:46; Mat 24:1. But the strongest evidence of this judicial surrender lies in the fact that Jesus at once passed to the eastern shore, and in His warning of the disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Manifestly Jesus now immediately returned with His disciples to the other side. (Comp. here Meyer against Fritzsche.)

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The demand of the Pharisees for a sign from heaven was certainly in itself no absurdity. But it depended upon an entire confusion of the first and the second advent of Christ. It is quite true that the prophecies on which they founded their views contained references to vast transformations in the world which would result from the completion of Christs mission. But as the death and resurrection of Christ are related to the end of the world as the principle to the full development, or as the seed-corn to the ripe fruit, so also is the sign of Jonah (or Christs death and resurrection) most definitely connected with those signs from heaven which shall usher in the final catastrophe. Indeed, strictly speaking, it is the sign from heaven in principle which by and by will also appear in the clouds of heaven (Mat 24:30).

2. Ye know how to discern the face of the sky, but.Of course this statement does not imply that it was easier to interpret the signs of the spiritual world than those of the sky. But the former, and not the latter, was the calling and business of the Sanhedrin, while in reality they were better prophets of the weather than interpreters of those prophecies which it was their duty to expound. Besides, the statement also indicates that the signs of the sky are uncertain, and may deceive us; while moral signs, if properly understood, never mislead.

3. Mark relates that the Saviour sighed deeply in spirit when His enemies again met Him with this demand. He fully comprehended the decisive importance of that hour. Henceforth He could no longer tarry in GalileeGalilee rejected Him. This holds even more true of Judea, whence these persecutions issued. The Master felt that now only a brief time of respite was left Him on the other side of Jordan, to prepare Himself and His intimate disciples for the decease at Jerusalem.
4. This was the third occasion on which Jesus was driven from Galilee, and passed over the lake into the mountains. The first time it was to avoid the court of Herod; the second time He retreated before the traditionalism of the schools; the third time before the hardened hierarchy of the whole country.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The demand of a sign from heaven; or, the old temptation under a new form. 1. The old temptation: (a) The proposal itself, to be a worldly Messiah, a Jewish conqueror, not a Saviour of nations; to overthrow the old world, not to renew the spiritual world by regeneration, and thereby to transform the external world. (b) Why a temptation? Because it was based upon elements of truth which were perverted into error. 2. The new form of this temptation, (a) It was under the guise of a sign from heaven; (b) partly an allurement and partly a threat, forming a transition from the temptations from the pleasures of the world (Matthew 4) to those from its sufferings (Matthew 26); (c) it was urged with the evident intention to represent the Lord to the people as a false Messiah, and thus to destroy His influence, even if He escaped their hands.How the Jewish politicians, in their knowledge of the weather, overlooked the signs of the spiritual weather: (a) They lost the brightest day; (b) they encountered the severest storm.The successors of the prophets sunk to the level of weather-prophets,a warning example.How even their superficial knowledge of nature would rise in testimony against their theology.Why the Lord here calls them hypocrites? (a) Because they neglected and misunderstood those spiritual signs which it was their calling to interpret, while, on the other hand, they gave themselves to the interpretation of outward signs with which they had no business; (b) because in general they perverted their spiritual into a secular calling.Outward calculations of things always end in this, that a man at last becomes slavishly dependent upon wind and weather.How most men allow themselves to be so engrossed by the signs of the visible sky as to overlook what is going on in the spiritual sky.The true signs of the time.Signs at evening and in the morning in the kingdom of God.Let us not be dependent on wind and weather, but look up to the Sun of righteousness.Why no other sign than that of Jonah could be given to this evil and adulterous generation.He left them and departed; or, the decisive hour: 1. His death was now decided upon; 2. their fall and judgment were now decided; 3. the grand course of events during the long-suffering of Christ, from His resurrection to His second advent, was now decided; 4. the future condition of the Church as sharing the fate of her banished and persecuted Lord was now decided; 5. the termination of the old things of this world by the final judgment was now decided.And He left them; or, the silent commencement of a new era.He departed; but they are still standing and waiting for the sign from heaven.

Starke:The Pharisees and the Sadducees.Hedinger: In any undertaking against Christ or His people, Pilate and Herod will always be ready to join hands, Luk 23:12.The enemies of Christ always repeat objections which have already been thoroughly answered and refuted.Unbelief trusts God no further than it can see with its eyes and feel with its hands; while true faith simply relies on the word of God, even though it sees neither signs nor miracles.Canstein: Let us give heed to those times which God has marked by certain signs.Woe to those from whom Jesus departs; who is to be their Saviour and Helper?

Gerlach:If your vision were not at fault, you could descry miracles enough to satisfy you!

Heubner:How fruitful is human wisdom in expedients for our earthly concerns, and how inexperienced and unskilful in divine things!There are signs of the times in the kingdom of heaven.These signs only a devout mind can read; the Spirit of God discloses the purposes of God.A Christian and a spiritual policy.Christ does not beg for applause.

Footnotes:

[1][The article before is omitted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Alford on the best authorities, which Dr. Lange must have overlooked.P. S.]

[15]Ch. 15, Mat 15:39.[ .]

[16] Mat 15:39.[The authorities are divided between , , and . The Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. read , and so do Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Alford. Lange prefers . See his Exeg. and Crit Notes in loc.P. S.]

[17] Mat 16:1.[Better: And the Pharisees and (the) Sadducees came, () .P. S.]

[18] Mat 16:2.[The interpolation here and in Mat 16:3 is unnecessary. Fair weather! is more lively. So Ewald, Lange: Sehn Wetter! Meyer: Heiteres Wetter! The Greek has only one word in each case, (from and , gen. of ), clear sky, fine weather, and , storm, rainy, foul weather.P. S.]

[19] Mat 16:3. , hypocrites, is wanting in Codd., C., D., L., etc., and thrown out by Lachmann and Tischendorf [Cod. Sinait. omits all the words from , to Mat 16:2-3, probably by an oversight of the transcriber.P. S.]

[20] Mat 16:3.[ . So also Lange: ihr verstehts. The second discern () of the E. Vers, is an interpolation, but makes the sense clearer. The lit. rendering is: Ye know () how to discern the face of the sky; but can ye not ( ) the signs of the times? Lange gives an emphatic sense and translates: die Zeichen der Enttcheidungszeiten, the decisive epochs, such as the one of Christs ministry on earth.P. S.]

[21] Mat 16:4. is wanting in B., D., L., and erased by Lachmann and Tischendorf. [It is also omitted in the Codex from Mt. Sinai, and in the editions of Tregelles, and Alford. Lange retains it in his version, but in smaller type and in parenthesis.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The sign of Jonas, the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees guarded against; Peter’s profession of Christ, and the Lord foretelling his death, are the several subjects of this Chapter.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would show them a sign from heaven. (2) He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. (3) And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? (4) A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.”

It is very awful to behold men in an unwakened, unregenerate state, professing, like those Pharisees, great concern for religion. In all ages there have been multitudes amusing themselves, and deceiving others, on this ground. Signs from heaven, false: interpretation of the Prophets, and men untaught by God the Holy Ghost, setting up a system of instruction for others. To all such the cross of Christ will be as offensive as to the Pharisees of old. But to all such there will be no sign given but like that of Jonas, to offend them still more, and to work no work of grace.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Spiritual Discernment

Mat 16:3

Jesus Christ found that He was in the midst of a number of weather-wise people; they were quite experts in the reading of the cloudy signs, they knew what the weather would be Today and perhaps tomorrow, and they published their forecasts of the weather; but when it came to higher reading, reading on another level, they were as moles and bats from whom the genius of daylight penetration had been withheld. Do we make one another up? do we hold varied trusteeships? and are they brought under one grand obligation, so that we may, thus supplementing one another, constitute a great social unit? Are there not really readers of the clouds and readers of the unseen? could they not meet now and then in common counsel to see how things stand and what the general outlook is? They must not despise one another; for one man can do this, and another man can do that, and neither man can do both. So that we are mutual trustees, we supplement each other; if we could enter into the spirit of this arrangement, we should have brotherhood, free, frank interchange of opinion, and work together in a great and beneficent association. I. But whilst we recognize these great common gifts, we recognize also a partition of ability, so that one man is an expert along line A, and another man is an expert along line B, and each must work out his own vocation. As there are great commonwealth blessings of nature, so there are great republican blessings in moral and spiritual regions. God did not intend any man to be born a slave. Liberty belongs to every responsible creature; his responsibility will limit and define his liberty, and thus give him the very best of it Liberty that wantons itself into licence really conducts itself into the worst bondage. Regulated liberty is freedom. God means every soul in this sense to be free. There are common instincts, common privileges. And yet singular to say, and yet necessary to say, there are limitations which are round about the individual, so that he has his talent, his two talents, his five talents, himself not to be numbered with other men in certain great generalities. The individuality of the soul is never lost; it is never drowned in the river of mean compromises; it should stand forth individual and yet associated; a great personality, yet part of a greater humanity. To combine the whole and the part, the great universal gift and the special endowment: this is the problem, and Christianity alone sufficiently and finally solves it.

II. By the text we are entitled to enlarge what we can see into what we cannot see except by the vision of the soul. Here is a great lesson in inductive reasoning. Because such and such is the direction of the wind and such and such are the indications of the clouds, therefore we shall have such and such weather. Quite right; I do not oppose your forecasts; but why not carry up the idea, and endeavour to reason concerning the things you see with the eyes of the heart in the spiritual realm, and draw your inductions according to the great basis of fact, phenomena, and experience available to every student who faithfully and humbly and lovingly endeavours to discover the will of God? There is a spiritual barometer, there is a spiritual thermometer; there are many ways appointed and therefore approved of God by which we can put this and that together and draw wide inferences from great spiritual premises. If we had eyes to see we should know that from the beginning God has a certain purpose and will surely accomplish it. That purpose is a purpose of beneficence.

III. We must recognize the fact that there is a difference in sight. We recognize this in the sight of the bodily eyes; why not recognize it in the inner and truer sight of the soul? Can you read a placard fifty yards off? Your answer is, I certainly cannot do so. Are you entitled from that consciousness to declare that there is not a man in the world that can read it? You have to admit that there is sight longer than yours. Can you read the Bible without lenses, glasses, or mechanical aids of any kind? You may possibly reply, Certainly I cannot do so. Does it therefore follow that no other man can read it without such aids? In a moment you say that to make any such contention would be simply absurd. That is right: why not apply that fact to a higher level, and find for it a broader and deeper interpretation? We must listen to the higher voices. We are at liberty to test the spirits whether they are of God; that may often be a bounden duty which we cannot shirk under any plea or pretext. Yet there remains the great fact that we have a book which is filled with holy messages from the holy God, and these have been so often confirmed that their very confirmation becomes not only an argument but a starting-point of the most profound and elaborate reasoning. If any man has read the book of Genesis aright he knows that there is a book coming that shall be full of anthem, song, and triumph; for the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ. He read that in the very first verse of the Bible if he was a prophet when he read that opening verse. There is a great philosophy of implication; one thing means another, points to another, and gives assurance of another.

Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. iii. p. 175.

Mat 16:3

Carlyle opens his Latter-day Pamphlets with this paragraph: ‘The Present Time, youngest-born of Eternity, child and heir of all the Past Times with their good and evil, and parent of all the Future, is ever a “New Era” to the thinking man; and comes with new questions and significance, however commonplace it look: to know it, and what it bids us do, is ever the sum of knowledge for all of us. This new Day, sent us out of Heaven, this also has its heavenly omens; amid the bustling trivialities and loud, empty noises, its silent monitions, which, if we cannot read and obey, it will not be well with us! No; nor is there any sin more fearfully avenged on men and Nations than that same, which indeed includes and presupposes all manner of sins: the sin which our old pious fathers called “judicial blindness”; which we with our light habits, may still call misinterpretation of the Time that now is; disloyalty to its real meanings and monitions, stupid disregard of these, stupid adherence, active or passive, to the counterfeits and mere current semblances of these. This is true of all times and days.’

‘French revolutions teach nobody!… So with the Jews of old,’ wrote F. W. Robertson in one of his letters. ‘They were very weather-wise, but could not read the signs of the times. Jewish ladies were a good deal surprised when they found themselves sold as slaves to Romish voluptuaries; and Parisian ladies were equally astonished when, after having spent such enormous sums on their coiffures and ribbons, they one fine day found their head-dress arranged for them at the national expense, la guillotine .’

In his Life of Gibbon (pp. 48, 78), Mr. Cotter Morison notes how in the latter half of the eighteenth century, ‘scholars, men of the world, men of business passed through this wonderland [of Parisian society] with eyes blindfolded. They are free to enter, they go, they come, without a sign that they have realized the marvellous scene that they were permitted to traverse. One does not wonder that they did not perceive that in those graceful drawing-rooms, filled with stately company of elaborate manners, ideas and sentiments were discussed and evolved which would soon be more explosive than gunpowder. One does not wonder that they did not see ahead of them men never do. One does rather wonder that they did not see what was before their eyes.’ Even as a member of Parliament, he adds, Gibbon failed to read the signs of his age. ‘He lived at one of the most exciting periods of our history; he assisted at debates in which constitutional and imperial questions of the highest moment were discussed by masters of eloquence and state policy, and he hardly appears to have been aware of the fact.’

In the second volume of his Cromwell, Carlyle also writes: ‘Human crimes are many; but the crime of being deaf to the God’s voice, of being blind to all but parchments and antiquarian rubrics when the Divine Handwriting is abroad on the sky certainly there is no crime which the Supreme Powers do more terribly avenge!’

References. XVI. 3. H. Hensley Henson, Christ and the Nation, p. 193. H. S. Lunn, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxix. p. 69. A. T. Pierson, i bid. vol. xli. 1892, p. 273. J. Guinness Rogers, ibid. vol. lv. 1899, p. 6. C. M. Sheldon, ibid. vol. lviii. 1900, p. 1.

Mat 16:4

The sign was that quality in the preaching of Jonah itself which is represented as producing repentance in his hearers. The appeal of Jesus to His race must, Heb 6 aid, be judged by itself. It accepted no testimonial from any external result, even when such external result was present.

Miss Wedgwood.

References. XVI. 4. R. T. Talbot, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxx. 1906, p. 107. E. Aldom French, God’s Message Through Modern Doubt, p. 43. XVI. 4-12. J. Laidlaw, The Miracles of Our Lord, p. 105. XVI. 6. J. Stalker, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liii. 1898, p. 259. XVI. 6, 12. D. Fraser, Metaphors in the Gospels, p. 135. XVI. 12. R. Scott, Oxford University Sermons, p. 151.

Faith

Mat 16:13-17

I. Two truths lie upon the surface of this narrative. The first is the importance attached by our Lord to the faith in Himself, and the other the supernatural character of such faith as the gift of God.

1. The importance attached by our Lord to faith in Himself for here there comes to the surface the end for which He had separated and was training the twelve. It was that they might gain a firm and unqualified faith in Himself that they might know how to confess and profess His name.

2. ‘Whom do ye say that I am?’ St. Peter it is who obeys the promptings of the Spirit which all were secretly acknowledging. ‘Thou art the Christ,’ he cries, ‘the Son of the living God.’ This is what our Lord had wanted. This is what He was waiting for. ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; blessed art thou, for faith in Jesus Christ is the one necessity of man’s redemption. Blessed art thou, because this fundamental act of faith is not of thyself, or of anything visible or tangible, or merely human. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee; but My Father which is in heaven.’ He means that humanity of itself can never discover God or find Him out The recognition of God must always be God’s own disclosure of Himself in the heart of man.

3. We pass a stage downwards in Church history. St. Paul, like his Master, asserts the necessity of faith and also its supernatural character. ‘No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost’

II. These old lessons are what we again and again must learn and relearn, and lay to heart. Faith is necessary that first if we would share the Christian hope and life.

And, again, faith is supernatural. That means it is the gift of God, not the result of the mere action of our own faculties. It is only by an act of faith of our own that we can set to our seal that God’s offer in Christ is true, and this act of faith, this giving out of ourselves in loving venture of surrender, is always a motion which we know, even in the making of it, to have its origin far beyond ourselves. It comes upon us as a movement from above, a movement in us of the Divine Spirit.

III. There are two sorts of faith. There is the faith by which we come to believe, and there is the faith in which we Christians are meant to live. Both are supernatural both, that is to say, are the work of God in us, though they correspond to different states of the Holy Spirit’s activity, for He works upon men to make them Christians, and He dwells, as in a temple, in the hearts of them who are already Christians. Always we need to remember that, as the creation, so also the sustaining, of the life of faith is a Divine gift, and demands on our part a reverent waiting for the gift of the Divine Spirit.

Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxviii. 1890, p. 1.

References. XVI. 13. J. Parker, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvii. 1895, p. 282. J. D. Jones, The Elims of Life, p. 43. XVI. 13-15. J. Clifford, The Secret of Jesus, p. 3. C. J. Ridgeway, Is Not This the Christ? p. 1. XVI. 13-16. H. C. Beeching, The Grace of Episcopacy, p. 34. J. Marshall Lang, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxvii. 1890, p. 168. A. W. Potts, School Sermons, p. 47. G. Critchley, The Penny Pulpit, vol. xii. No. 694, p. 221. XVI. 13-17. B. D. Jones, Pulpit Notes, p. 173. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxiv. No. 2041. XVI. 13-18. A. G. Mortimer, One Hundred Miniature Sermons, vol. ii. p. 229. J. H. Rigg, Scenes and Studies in the Ministry of Our Lord, p. 116. XVI. 13-19. J. Laidlaw, Studies in the Parables, p. 283. XVI. 13-28. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Matthew IX.-XVII. p. 322.

Elijah Or Jeremiah

Mat 16:14

It is of the deepest interest to discover what was the common impression about Jesus, and in this report conveyed by the disciples we get a hint of the utmost value. Did you ever think of the vast difference there was between the characters of Elijah and Jeremiah? Yet some said about Christ, ‘This is Elijah,’ and others said, ‘No, it is Jeremiah’. The one is ardent, enthusiastic, fierce sometimes. The other is the prophet of the tender heart and tears. And the remarkable thing is that the common people should have taken these types, which are so wide apart, and should have found in them both the character of Christ. In other words, the impression which Jesus made was that of a complex, inclusive personality. And I want to try to bring before you some of these qualities of different natures, which harmonize so perfectly and wonderfully in the human nature of our Lord.

I. I am arrested in Christ’s character by the perfect union of mastery and charm. It is one of the rarest things in the world to find the masterful man possessed of the indefinable quality of charm. Some men are born to be obeyed, some to be loved; but Jesus preeminently was born for both. That is why people said, ‘Lo, here is Elijah,’ and others, ‘No, it is Jeremiah’. All that had marked the noblest of the prophets was harmonized and reconciled in Him.

II. I am arrested in Christ’s character by the union of remoteness and accessibility. There is something in Christ that always suggests distance. There is much in Christ that tells us He is near. Now there are many people who convey the impression of remoteness, though none in the same way as Jesus did. What you feel is, when men are so remote, that you must not trouble them with your small matters. You must not look to them for the sweet word of sympathy. You must not expect them to bother about you. The strange thing is that though Christ stood thus remote, men should have come to Him with every worry.

III. I am arrested in Christ’s character by the union of enthusiasm and tranquillity. His feelings were often powerfully stirred, yet the whole impression is one of profound peace. It is very easy to be cold, yet calm; to be uninterested, unimpassioned, and so tranquil. It is very easy to deaden down the feelings, till a man has made a solitude and called it peace. But the abiding wonder about Christ is this, that He had an ardent, eager, enthusiastic heart; yet breathed such a deep, such a superb, tranquillity, that men instinctively felt He was at rest.

IV. There is the union of abnegation and appreciation. What is the last word in the ideal of Jesus is it asceticism, or is it joy?

The wonder of Jesus is not this or that; the wonder of Jesus is this and that together. In the deepest of all senses Christ renounced the world and trampled all its glory underfoot. The first condition of following in His train was that one should lead the life of self-denial. Yet he who so followed Him was never deadened to the call of lovely or delightful things; he was led into a world where birds were singing, and which was beautiful with the lilies of the field.

G. H. Morrison, The Wings of the Morning, p. 76.

References. XVI. 14. A. Ramsay, Studies in Jeremiah, p. 281. XVI. 15. Marcus Dods, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 116; see also vol. lxix. 1906, p. 149. G. Jackson, ibid. vol. lxiv. 1903, p. 171. XVI. 15, 16. J. D. Jones, ibid. vol. lxv. 1904, p. 276. E. W. Moore, Life Transfigured, p. 177. XVI. 15-17. E. B. Pusey, Parochial Sermons, vol. ii. p. 283. XVI. 15-18. R. M. Benson, The Life Beyond the Grave, p. 606. XVI. 15-17, 21. C. W. Furse, Sermons Preached at Richmond, p. 22. XVI. 16. Hastings Rashdale, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiv. 1903, p. 5. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for Saints’ Days, p. 141.

I Will Build My Church

Mat 16:16 ; Mat 16:18

The words were drawn from Christ by the confession of Peter. The disciple said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and the Saviour answered, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’.

I. In many lives, by no means in all, the purpose for which life was given, for the fulfilment of which life is to be spent, disengages itself in one lustrous moment. The clouds are scattered, and the meaning of life is written as with a pencil of lightning. This does not mean that all is new. A man may, in the depths of his feeling and thought be aware of his place and work, and yet things change when the significance of his destiny crystallizes itself in a sentence. As Browning makes Childe Roland say

Burningly it came on me all at once, This was the place!

So men have said to themselves in one of these moments that count as years in a lifetime, these moments when mists lift off I will make this discovery I will write this book I will love this woman I will serve this cause I will extend this Empire. It is as if they had suddenly turned and seen the revealing angel. So our Lord, Who from the beginning knew His work, put everything into the words ‘I will build My Church’.

II. Let us ask how Christ builds his Church. I shall borrow from Ruskin’s famous book, The Seven Lamps of Architecture. As Ruskin himself says: ‘We know not how soon all architecture will be vain, except that which is not made with hands’. I take three of his seven lamps to help us in expounding how Christ builds His Church, how we must build it, if we are to be labourers together with Him.

1. In the first place, there is the Lamp of Sacrifice. The Church is built on sacrifice, and by sacrifice. It is built on the one Sacrifice offered for sins for ever, and built by the continual sacrifice of the members, on the sacrifice which will make up at last that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ.

2. In the second place, there is the Lamp of Power. We see it shining in these calm words, ‘I will build My Church’. Says the French aphorist: ‘Attempt difficult things as though they were easy, and easy things as though they were difficult’. Christ addressed Himself to His long and terrible task with a certain repose of mind and temper. He was filled with the Spirit. He had the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.

3. Once more, there must be the Lamp of Beauty. He will present it to Himself a glorious Church, for if the Church is to be fair with the beauty of the Lord, love and joy must go into the building. ‘We are not sent into the world to do anything into which we cannot put our hearts.’ Unless we put our hearts into our building we cannot put our intellects. And it may be true, as the great critic has said, that ‘objects are noble and ignoble in proportion to the amount of the energy of the mind which has visibly been employed upon them’. We know what heart Christ put into the building of His Church. The zeal of God’s House consumed Him. It was His meat to do the will of the Father, and to finish His work. In the old days men and women put their souls into church building. A French writer describes the rebuilding of Chartres Cathedral after its destruction by fire. All the country over, every one grieved and wept. Whole populations stopped their regular work, left their homes to help, the rich bringing money and jewels, and the poor putting in their barrows everything that could serve to feed labour and men, or help in the work. It was a constant stream of emigration, the spontaneous exodus of a people. Every road was crowded with pilgrims, all, men and women alike, dragging whole trees, pushing loads of sawn beams. What seems more incredible and is nevertheless attested by every chronicle of the time, is that this horde of old folks and children, of men and women, was at once amenable to discipline. And yet they belonged to every class of society, for there were among them knights and ladies of high degree. But Divine love was so powerful that it annihilated distinctions and abolished caste. The nobles harnessed themselves with the labourers to drag the trucks. Patrician dames helped the peasant woman to stir the mortar and to cook the food. The old Durham Cathedral was completed in a similar way. The entire population of the district, from the Coquet to the Tees, headed by the Earl of the Northumbrians, readily rendered all the help they could. Christ has built His Church with joy unspeakable, and we can build it worthily with Him. He does not need us for the building. He said Himself, ‘I will build My Church’. He will carry His banner on to victory, though the hands of all of us relax their hold. Perhaps our work may be nothing more than a discipline for our souls, and in itself useless. But, as Ruskin nobly says, ‘Since our life must at the best be but a vapour that appeal’s for a little time and then vanishes away, let it at least appear as a cloud in the height of heaven, not as the thick darkness that broods over the blast of the furnace, and rolling of the wheel’. It needs all sacrifice, power, joy.

W. Robertson Nicoll, The Lamp of Sacrifice, p. 113.

Mat 16:17

Any acknowledgment of Him that rests on merely outward evidence must necessarily fall far short of that good confession for the utterance of which St. Peter’s Master pronounced him blessed. This, on that Master’s own testimony, was the expression of a deep, inward conviction wrought by God Himself upon the soul; and it was not because Christ had been manifested to St. Peter in the flesh, but because He had been revealed to him in the spirit, that he was able to answer our Lord’s question, ‘Whom sayest thou that I am?’ in the words which drew forth this comment.

Dora Greenwell.

References. XVI. 17. C. Gore, Church Times, vol. xxviii. 1890, p. 665. H. J. Martyn, For Christ and the Truth, p. 147. XVI. 17, 18. H. C. Beeching, Inns of Court Sermons, p. 155.

Mat 16:17 ; Mat 16:23

Think what change has passed on Peter’s mood before the second of these words could be addressed to him to whom the first had just been spoken. The Lord had praised him. Peter grew self-sufficient, even to the rebuking of him whose praise had so uplifted him. But it is ever so. A man will gain a great moral victory: glad first, then uplifted, he will fall before a paltry temptation.

G. Macdonald in The Seaboard Parish, chap. xviii.

The Unshakeable Church

Mat 16:18

I. What was the Rock? First, then, what was this rock on which the Saviour said He would build His Church? Was it Peter, as the word seems to imply, and even directly to state? Sometimes Protestants have vehemently denied it, because they were afraid that by admitting so much they would be conceding all the claims of Rome. I have no such fear. I think in a sense it was Peter, and the company of Apostles of whom he was the acknowledged leader; for it was indeed upon their rocklike witness, against which all the powers of the world could not prevail, that the Church of all the ages grew. It was built, as we read in another place, upon ‘the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone’. But if the rock was Peter, it was Peter made a new man by the mighty truth which he had just confessed this truth, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’. The Apostles, after all, were only the upper stratum of the rock, if we might so speak, the part which jutted above the surface, while underneath was the solid bed-layer, deeper than the earth, deep as the universe, this solid bed-layer of truth that Christ their Master was Divine, that the words which He spoke were true as heaven, and that His life and power were eternal and indestructible. And we are all rocks if we believe that, from Peter down to the humblest person of the present day. The veriest human feebleness becomes as solid and immovable as the ground under your feet as soon as there enters into it the conviction that Christ is God, that His word cannot be broken, and that you are held fast by Him and His promises in changeless power and everlasting love.

There is room in the Church for the weakest faith. We read that hay, and wood, and stubble even, get in, to be purified by fire; but the strength of the building is in its rocklike souls. Upon rock does Christ build His Church, and He wants rock for the building up of any Church rocklike members, rocklike deacons, rocklike teachers in the Bible classes and Sunday schools, rocklike preachers, men that know in whom they have believed and what they have believed, and speak out with clear, unfaltering certainty the things which they have seen and felt and heard of God.

II. Shifting Sands. I think there never was a time when that was more needed than it is Today, there never was a more urgent demand made for it. We live in an age of almost general unsettlement. You can hardly think of a department in which there are not doubtful minds, and divided opinions; all questions seem to be in a state of solution, nothing fixed and determined.

We want rock; and the real deep hearts of men everywhere, whether they know it or not, are always saying, Away from us, ye who preach negations and doubts and darkness, who come and sit upon the threshold of our hearts like some poet’s raving croaking out a dismal ‘Nevermore’; away with you; and come ye, John and Paul, and all such clear-voiced witnesses, with the glow of hope on your faces and the music of conviction in your tones. That is the message we need; that is the message which this age needs, and which Christ would have His representatives give. He builds His Church upon rock.

III. What is Christ’s Church? The Church is the company, now indeed quite innumerable, of disciple-like souls who are for ever and ever learning of Him, some of them, the greater number, beholding His face, and serving Him day and night in His temple; and the rest not seeing Him yet, but rejoicing in Him with joy unspeakable and full of glory. In a word, the Church is the faithful souls of every place and name known and unknown to whom His name is unutterably dear, His words more precious than fine gold, who love Him with a love that is more than human, who trust Him with a trust that is stronger than life or death, whose eager desire is to obey Him and serve Him, and whose fervent prayer for ever and ever is to get His truth made known, His salvation proved, and His name lifted above every name, until at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Upon all these, wherever they are, the Saviour looks down as with the joy of one who looks upon a noble possession, and He says, ‘They are My Church, My Church; and there is no other, no other’.

IV. The Church’s Indestructibility. Lastly, this Church of living and loving souls was to be and will for ever be indestructible. From the first He gave this solemn pledge about it, staking His truthfulness upon the word, and His very existence, indeed, upon the word, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell’ and He meant by that all possible forces that could come out of hell ‘shall not prevail against it’. The Church is indestructible. That which He called My Church, which was to Him as the apple of His eye, His dear and peculiar possession the Church of living souls cemented together, and bound to Him by an infinite and immortal love that will never know change or decay. There will always be upon this earth a never-diminishing and ever-increasing number of souls, men and women to whom He is more than all things else in the world, who serve Him with the perfect liberty of a joyful self-surrender, who would rather die than deny Him because He died for them, and to whom the hope of seeing His face and enjoying Him for ever is the main strength, consolation, and ecstasy of living.

J. G. Greenhough, The Cross in Modern Life, p. 105.

St. Peter’s Confession

Mat 16:18

The story of St. Peter’s confession is a story of the utmost significance in the life of our Lord. As He scanned the faces of the disciples He seems to have hesitated to put the question upon which everything turned, because He does not ask them point-blank, ‘Who do you think I am?’ but asks first, ‘Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ And in reply they tell Him of the rumours they have heard. And then we can imagine the pause, and at last the question of questions, ‘But whom say ye that I am?’ And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ‘.

I. Well, then, this is the root faith of Christendom according to its Founder the faith that He is Divine. And I would suggest to you in passing that with us, as with St. Peter, this faith must express itself in a confession. People nowadays are a little shy of creeds. They have got a habit of calling their creeds ‘dogmas’ and ‘formularies,’ which they consider bad names. But I would ask you whether this very modern and common dislike of formularies and dogmas ought to be pressed so far as to exclude an answer to our Lord’s own question, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ A Christian must be now, as always, a man who, as he reads the record of Christ’s life in the Gospels, is drawn to love and reverence and worship Him as the Messiah of the invisible God, and to accept His commandments as the guide of life; and if this is our faith, why should we hesitate to put it into words and say, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’? It is on this rock of confessed faith that the Church is built.

II. We are all what we are, and we all achieve in life what weachieve, by virtue of the religious faith that is personally ours, by what we believe; and secondly, I would say that we are what we are, and we achieve what we achieve, by the intensity of what we do believe, and not by our denials. Of these denials very likely we think more and talk more, and perhaps even teach and preach more, but the important things for us are our active positive beliefs. Let me apply a familiar instance. In an essay upon George Eliot, written by one of our most accomplished critics, the author describes a conversation between himself and that gifted novelist on the subject of religion. ‘I remember,’ he says, ‘how, at Cambridge, I walked with her once in the Fellows’ Garden of Trinity on an afternoon of rainy May, and she, stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and taking as her text the three words which have been used so often as inspiring trumpet-calls to men the words “God,” “Immortality,” “Duty,” pronounced with terrible earnestness how inconceivable was the first, “God”; how unbelievable was the second, “Immortality”; and yet how peremptory and how absolute the third, “Duty “.’

Every Christian must regret that George Eliot’s faith in God and immortality should have given way, but her power in the world was given her by what she did believe, and not by her denials of what other people believed. What gave her her great force over men’s consciences was her strong faith in duty. Let us take account of our faith; let us ask ourselves what article of our creed is so solid, is such a rock as this; what religious conviction have we so firm and sure, because based upon evidence so convincing to us that we would hold it if need be against the world?

You can see how different it would have been with George Eliot if she had held the Christian faith with the same intensity as she held her own. It does matter what we believe, but it also matters how we believe whether we believe with our heart and mind and soul and strength; because right belief is not, in itself, faith. And this is, perhaps what people sometimes have in mind when they protest against dogmas or call themselves Christians without dogma, as though dogmas were antagonistic to faith. They cannot be antagonistic to faith, because the faith of a rational being must be capable of expression in rational speech, and that is dogma. But it is true that assent to a dogma about Christ is not necessarily unclouded faith in Him. Assent to a doctrine implies the action of only a part of a man’s being; and it does not follow that, because the mind assents to the Divinity of Christ, the heart must, as a consequence, admire and trust and worship Him, and the will compel the action into conformity with His commandments. Right opinions are most valuable, but we may hold right opinions without the personal relation of love and trust between the soul and God, which is faith and the essence of religion.

‘Lord, to Whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life,’ and we believe that’ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’. To be able to say that to Christ is to have faith in Him; and that is the faith that saves the soul.

Mat 16:18

We understand ourselves to be risking no new assertion, but simply reporting what is already the conviction of the greatest of our age, when we say that cheerfully recognizing, gratefully appropriating whatever Voltaire has proved, or any other man has proved, or shall prove, the Christian religion, once here, cannot again pass away; that in one or the other form, it will endure through all time; that as in Scripture, so also in the heart of man, is written, ‘The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it’.

Carlyle on Voltaire.

‘Tis said with ease, but never can be proved,

The Church her old foundations has removed,

And built new doctrines on unstable sands:

Judge that, ye winds and rains! you proved her, yet she stands.

Dryden.

Man against Hell, without the help of God, is as a rabbit against the Russian Empire.

Coventry Patmore.

References. XVI. 18. T. Hanley Ball, Persuasions, p. 314. G. Tyrrell, Oil and Wine, p. 139. D. Fraser, Metaphors in The Gospels, p. 144. C. J. Ridgeway, Is Not This the Christ, p. 76. J. G. Greenhough, The Cross in Modern Life, p. 105; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. 1896, p. 237. R. F. Horton, ibid. vol. 1. 1896, p. 33. J. A. Brink-water, ibid. vol. lviii. 1900, p. 243. G. Gladstone, ibid. vol. lxiv. 1903, p. 53. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. v. p. 148. R. E. Hutton, The Crown of Christ, vol. ii. p. 195. XVI. 18, 19. S. Chadwick, Humanity and God, p. 269. J. Fraser, Parochial and Other Sermons, p. 302. XVI. 19. C. S. Robinson, Simon Peter, p. 253. D. Fraser, Metaphors in the Gospels, p. 152.

The Love of the Trinity in the Resurrection

Mat 16:21

The words used by our Lord in the text clearly seem the solemn rehearsal of a previous plan made long before by the Holy Trinity; ‘The Son of man must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day’.

The Atonement, again, was clearly another wonderful conception of the Holy Three in One. But what we have to face is what would have been the position of the human race if the Love of the Trinity had stopped at the Atonement, for to do so will enable us to appreciate more fully the joy of Easter Day.

I. We should have had no certainty that death was not the end. We might have guessed that it was not; we should, no doubt, have made the best of the instinct of immortality which we all possess; we should have got what comfort we could from the teachings of science about the persistence of force, but how should we have looked the dying or the mourner in the face unless Jesus had said, ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life; though he were dead yet shall he live, and he that believeth in Me shall never die,’ and unless He had proved the truth of that promise by being raised Himself on the third day. With misty aspirations, and vague hopes, and stumbling guesses we should have followed our dear ones to the grave; and it was because the Trinity in Their love knew this that They planned to Themselves, ‘Not only must the Son of Man be knit to the human race, “closer than breathing and nearer than hands and feet,” not only must He suffer many things of the elders, the chief priests and scribes, but He must be raised up the third day’.

II. The sinner would have been left ‘unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled’. The Atonement must not only be made, but it must be ministered; the Blood must not only be shed, but it must be sprinkled on the sinner; the Sacrifice must not only be offered, it must be pleaded; and for this the death must not only be endured, but be transfigured.

III. We can scarcely realize the blow to every effort for the uplifting of the human race if the Love of the Trinity had stopped short of the Resurrection.

It makes no difference whether we say, ‘God raised Him from the dead,’ or ‘the Spirit raised Him from the dead,’ or ‘He rose Himself from the dead’ all expressions are used the fact was that the Holy Trinity were at work, and when the Holy Trinity are at work nothing can stop that work.

Bishop A. F. Winnington Ingram, The Guardian, 22 April, 1908, p. 649.

Sympathy and Sacrifice

Mat 16:21-24

Simon Peter had discerned and declared the great secret that his Master was the Messiah, the Christ of God. No sooner had the confession been made than the Master set Himself to prepare His disciples for the consequences, the hardships which loyalty to that discovered truth would involve. For such a sudden reversal of their expectations the disciples were not prepared. Peter’s impulsive kind-heartedness broke out in protest. ‘This be far from Thee.’ The rebuke that fell from the Master’s lips sounds even now as we read it in the pages of the New Testament startling and unexpected, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan: for thou art an offence unto Me’. The refusal to accept stress, struggle, and hardship as the conditions of loyalty to truth the Master saw to be the very mind of the world, the very spirit of its prince. The disciples from the first must be taught to steed their hearts and minds against it. Then saith Jesus unto His disciples, ‘If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me’.

I. The Cross of Jesus Christ. To the Christian the Cross of Jesus Christ is the centre of his deepest hopes, memories, associations. It speaks to him of the revelation of the deepest truth, the love of God manifested in fullness of self-sacrifice. It speaks to him of the satisfaction of his deepest need, the forgiveness of his sins. It speaks to him of strength and stay in the midst of his sufferings and trials. But more simply, and, alas! less acceptably, it is meant to speak to him of the inevitable fate of all high ideals in the world. They are crucified; they are realized only through struggle and suffering. It is sometimes worth while to remember that there was nothing, so to say, supernatural in the circumstances of the Passion of the Saviour. They were the mere consequences of the antagonism of the spirit of the world to truth; and our Lord accepted them with loyal obedience. The disciple is not above his Master, and the Cross remains the symbol of combat quite as truly as the symbol of consolation.

II. The Gospel of Comfort. Is there not need at this present time of reasserting these first principles of the Christian life? It is of all things the most futile to rail at the times in which we are called to live. For us, because they are ours, they are the best; they are the times in which the Providence of God has seen that we individually have the best chance of fulfilling the purpose for which we exist, and of rendering Him the service which is His due. Yet the true spirit of service in our own day and generation is to see in its characteristic dangers the appointed opportunities of Christian witness. I think we should all agree that one of the characteristics of the present day is its shrinking from the Cross, from the truth that high ideals mean exacting demands, that loyalty to them does not bring ease but struggle, and that their consequence is hardship rather than comfort. This danger comes indeed from one of the very merits of the time. It is the result of the excess of one of its special virtues. There never was a time when kindness of heart was more real, eager, and widespread. There is scarcely any class or any individual who is not filled with the desire to remove hardships, who is not sensitive to hard cases of human suffering, perplexity, and difficulty. Everywhere the one point upon which all sorts and conditions of men are united is in the ambition to spread around us the comforts of life. This diffusion of kindness of heart is indeed a thing for which to thank God and take courage. It is full of hope; it is a most cheering indication of the soundness of the heart of the people. Yet it brings its dangers with it It is apt to spread around us a certain softness and weakness, to loosen the moral fibre, to sap the foundations of resolute endurance and strenuous effort. Instead of speaking of the right to be comfortable, the Christian has rather to dwell upon the duty to be noble, to be self-respecting, strenuous, and ready to accept the law of stress and struggle in the moral life. The gospel of comfort which is being so sedulously preached at the present time becomes a danger unless it is checked, disciplined, and deepened by the Gospel of the Cross.

Men shrink, like St. Peter, from the approach of the Cross. It is just here that the Church of Jesus Christ must restore the balance. It must, in St. Paul’s vigorous metaphor, openly placard the Cross before the eyes of men. Assuredly let it make wide its appeal, and attract men to itself and its cause by popular services and social recreation. Even more assuredly let it take its proper place in the van of all movements of charity, of all efforts to alleviate the lot of the poor, or increase and spread the opportunities of worthy human life. But when it has gained a hearing and won a place in the world let it never hesitate to set forth the Cross, to make it plain that Christianity means still a moral demand, stern and exciting. No greater service can be rendered at the present time to the nation by the Church than the service of strengthening its moral force by giving witness in its midst to the reality of moral discipline and by spreading through it the saving salt of sacrifice.

Archbishop Gordon Lang, The Guardian, 10 June, 1910.

References. XVI. 21. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Matthew IX.-XVII. p. 333. Newman Smyth, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. 1896, p. 221. XVI. 21-23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2733. XVI. 21-24. S. Chadwick, Humanity and God, p. 113. XVI. 21-26. J. Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 61. XVI. 23. F. E. Paget, Sermons for the Saints, p. 239. C. B. Jefferson, The Character of Jesus, p. 189. W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 346.

The Mark of the Disciple

Mat 16:24

The mark of the disciple, the characteristic which Jesus Himself looks for, is that we, like Him, deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.

I. In the Scripture there are three words which express, with perfect insight, the darker and the more difficult experiences of a religious life. The three words are ‘burden,’ ‘thorn,’ and ‘cross’.

1. By the word burden both the Old Testament and the New means all the inevitable care and strain of earthly life.

2. By the thorn we mean the experience of a keener anguish. It always points to some one singular trial. It describes some humbling infirmity, some mortifying disability, some weakness which makes us miserable, because it unfits us for our task.

3. The cross. Every man must bear his own burden. Every man has his thorn in the flesh. But the cross is not universal, and the cross can be escaped. Many men and women never bear a cross at all. Many can refuse if they will, and many do refuse. The whole spiritual tragedy of many who are not disciples of Christ will be found to lie here, that when the cross lay before them they refused it.

II. This truth is clear in the experience of Christ.

1. Jesus had His burden. The Gospels tell us a part of the story. His subjection to His parents, the toil of the carpenter’s shop, the poverty of the home, His weariness and pain, the hunger and thirst, His enduring of the scorn and contempt of the rich and well-placed and successful these were the burdens He shared with men.

2. Jesus had His thorn. I do not know, and no one knows, what Christ’s thorn was. The thorn that Jesus could not escape, until released by death, may have been the hunger and the thirst of a heart famished for the sight of God’s face.

3. But Jesus had His cross. He took it up. He might have laid it down. He faced His cross all through His ministry. At His baptism He laid it on His shoulders. In His temptation He bound it to Him with cords. As He passed on through life it was the invisible weight He carried. In the garden of Gethsemane He might have flung it down and gone out to make His peace with Caiaphas, to sit at Herod’s table and talk enchantingly to him, and to find Himself an honoured guest in the house of Pilate. His cross was that life and death for sin which came to its consummation in His dying hour.

III. When we follow the suggestion of our text, we find

1. That cross-bearing begins with a definite act. It begins in the hour when, in the depths of our will, we resolve to follow Christ.

2. Cross-bearing continues in a daily experience. There are two reasons for this. The first is that life does not stand still. We are continually passing into new circumstances, facing changed situations, meeting new problems and fresh temptations. And the second reason is that we ourselves change in character and in ideal. We grow into the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

3. Our cross can be borne only as we follow Christ. ‘Let him deny himself,’ said Jesus, declaring the first definite act. ‘Take up his cross,’ He adds, indicating the daily experience. ‘Follow me,’ He continues with a deeper note of appeal, giving us the secret of continuance.

What is the issue of this bearing of the cross? The issue of our cross is in our measure the same as the issue of Christ’s cross. He bore His cross that He might save men, and we bear our cross that we may also be the saviours of our fellows. Whenever in the simplest and humblest way we bear our cross after Him, we save some life from sorrow and pain, some tempted one from his fall, some soul from death. And it is the men who have borne the burden and accepted the thorn who have also carried the cross.

W. M. Clow, The Cross in Christian Experience, p. 231.

Illustrations. 1. Woe to him who seeks his own ease! Woe to him who shuns the Cross! because he will find others so weighty that they will overwhelm him.

S. Vincent de Paul. 2.

Life is a burden; bear it.

Life is a duty; dare it.

Life is a thorn crown; wear it.

Though it break your heart in twain,

Though the burden crush you down;

Close your lips, and hide your pain:

First the cross, and then the crown. 3. Let us go on full of cheerfulness, and be sure that all our crosses will bear Christ with them, and that His help, which will never be wanting, will be more powerful than the combined efforts of all our enemies.

S. Ignatius de Loyola.

Why a Young Man Is Not a Christian ( Because He Does Not Understand What Christianity Is )

Mat 16:24

It may be a bold thing to say, but it is perfectly true, that a great many men are not Christians because they do not know the conditions of Christianity. The Christian Church is such an elaborate institution, with her buildings and her services, her sacraments and her ministers; and the Christian theology is so profound and complicated, with its doctrines about God and man, sin and salvation; and the Christian life has become so conventional, with its rules and customs, that not one man out of twenty has ever got through the forms to the spirit or has ever looked at Christ in the Gospels with his own eyes and heard Him speak with his own ears. It does not matter that Christ spoke with the utmost clearness upon all occasions and was never plainer than in laying down the conditions of discipleship. If a hundred were placed at a table with a pencil and a sheet of paper before them, one wonders how many could write down what Christ demanded of His followers. One hazards the guess that there would be twenty different answers, and half of them at least would be beside the mark. This is a misfortune. Many more men would be Christians if they distinctly grasped the necessary elements of Christianity, but they have heard so much about Christianity that they really do not know what it is. In fact they cannot see the wood for the trees.

For instance, there is the man and that is my point now who is unable to call himself by the name of our Master upon intellectual grounds, either because he thinks he understands the doctrines of Christianity and cannot accept them, or because he thinks he is not fit to understand them, and so of course gives them up in despair. One is too honest, and the other is too modest to be a Christian; and the barrier in both cases is, say the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ, or Election, or Future Punishment. This religion they feel is too theoretical and too learned, too much taken up with things which cannot be proved and which have no bearing on our present life. If Christianity were only stripped of her doctrines, and there never had been such a thing as the Nicene Creed; if Christianity had been only simply a practical principle of life, they also might have been Christians. And they give pledges of sincerity in this desire by listening to any voice that will speak plainly to the heart and conscience, and by openly admiring any Christian who lives the Sermon on the Mount. Here they say is something intelligible, and here is something excellent.

I. The theory of Christianity has nothing whatever to do with its practice. People use the telephone every day without understanding in the slightest degree how sound is conveyed by the electric wire, and we walk beneath the light of the stars without even knowing their names. Jesus left it to others, to St. Paul and to the theologians, to argue out Christianity; but He Himself brought Christianity near and made Christianity plain. From the beginning of His ministry to the end He asked no one to accept any creed, except to believe in Him; and there must be something wrong in the man who does not believe in Jesus Christ. What ails him in regard to Christ? What is wanting in Christ? Where did he ever see one better? Can he imagine any master greater? Christ indulged in no speculations, however fascinating, and however fruitful, from the day He met His first disciples on to the night He bade them good-bye. He always called to action, and was much more concerned about what a man did and what a man was than what he thought and said. Jesus did not make His plea with arguments about the origin of things and the nature of things, but with invitations to abandon that which was evil and to cleave to that which was good. A New Testament has been published in which our Lord’s words throughout the whole book are printed in red, and it were worth while that a man should purchase that red-letter Testament in order to see what Christ really said. He will find that the words of the Lord are flung into relief not merely by the coloured type, but by their simplicity and beauty, by their reality and attractiveness.

II. What then does Jesus lay upon His disciples as the condition of Christianity if He does not lay doctrine? Two things; and both of them are most reasonable. He must be prepared to deny himself. And that does not mean that he should torture his body, or refuse the joy of life, or fetter himself by conventional habits, or be an ascetic in any shape or fashion; but it does mean that he should watch and curb his lower self. There are the remains of the beast in every one of us; and Christ expects a man to keep his passions in order, to live cleanly, to regulate his temper, to beat down envy, to overcome avarice. And the other demand is that he cultivate his higher self, for there is the prophecy of a saint in every one of us as well as the trace of a beast. Most of us indeed are half-way, and neither one nor the other. ‘You must carry the Cross,’ said Christ; and by this He meant that we must live for other people and not for ourselves, that we must make sacrifices to fulfil great ends, that we must accept heavy burdens to lighten weak shoulders, and that we must not be afraid of a little suffering. ‘If any man would be My disciple,’ Christ says, ‘he must pledge himself to a great effort in his soul and life to kill the bad and feed the good.’ Is not this intelligible, is not this reasonable, is not this admirable? Well, the man who is doing this with purpose of heart is a Christian.

John Watson, Respectable Sins, p. 83.

References. XVI. 24. R. Winterbotham, Sermons and Expositions, p. 360. R. Higinbotham, Sermons, p. 162. H. P. Liddon, Sermons on Some Words of Christ, p. 78. C. Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. 1900, p. 219. J. H. Odell, ibid. vol. lviii. 1900, p. 324. S. D. McConnell, A Year’s Sermons, p. 239.

Sacrifice

Mat 16:24-25

I. Woven into the very texture of life, giving to it its sternness and its pathos, making it ofttimes a marvel or a tragedy, fixed by a mysterious law as the condition of fuller life of fruitful work and of assured glory, is the principle of sacrifice.

II. Sacrifice is the highest and the noblest act of a loving soul. There is a royalty in it that wins our instinctive homage. In it a man’s or woman’s true self the Godlike regenerate self that is so generally hidden and cramped by selfishness and conventionality is shown in its beauty and majesty: too loving to be selfish, too great to be conventional, splendid in its scorn of falsehood and wrong, it is a power of God which accomplishes an eternal work.

But we look away from this idealized manhood and womanhood, and we learn the secret of this transfiguring power of sacrifice.

Upon a Cross, uplifted between earth and heaven, pouring out His life in shame and agony, in darkness and dereliction, hangs the Son of Man, conquering the world and the devil, sin and death, by the uttermost sacrifice, and winning the victory and glory and crown of sacrifice for all humanity, consecrating pain and sorrow, and throwing upon the dread mystery of evil the light of the eternal purpose there fulfilled in love. ‘It is finished.’

III. The disciples of the Crucified should be as their Master. Sharers of His life, they must follow Him in sacrifice.

Consider first some of the things that concern chiefly the outward life:

1. Time is to be offered as a perpetual offering. First, by withdrawing, saving it from selfish uses. Secondly, by the watchful seizure and use of opportunities.

2. Work is an acceptible offering as we do it for God, and not as only for man.

3. Speech is a faculty to be used in God’s service. So, too, in the things that belong to the inward life, sacrifice should find scope and material, as the human will is merged in the Divine will.

1. Thought should be so directed in prayer and watchfulness, so taught by meditation on holy things, that it may be won from the folly and evil, the malice and the passion, the foolish imaginations and the sentimentality that so often hold it, and that it may be surrendered, held as a little kingdom in which God only shall reign, a place in which He shall ever speak and be always heard, the voice of eternal Truth.

2. The affections, too, must be sincerely offered, ruled in the spirit of sacrifice that they may be both centred and satisfied in God.

Our inclinations, too, often conflict with the call of God, with the duties and claims of life, with Christian principles as we have been made to understand them. These also must be yielded lovingly and patiently.

IV. And there is another form of sacrifice. What is the particular sorrow, suffering, loss, that is the trial of life? It is a matter in which the will may be offered to God. As Christ completed the offering of His life upon the cross, so our spiritual troubles are a cross on which we, too, may truly offer ourselves as a complete and consummated sacrifice, which will effect to the full all that love can ask or desire.

G. Brett, Fellowship With God, p. 33.

References. XVI. 24, 25. J. Vickery, Ideals of Life, p. 295. XVI. 24-26. W. Hay M. H. Aitken, Mission Sermons (2nd Series), p. 125. XVI. 24-28. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, p. 127; see also Lincoln’s Inn Sermons, vol. iv. p. 110. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2729.

Losing the Soul to Save It

Mat 16:25

I. The sense of the passage turns upon one prominent word what is meant by the soul or the life of man? The soul is the living principle.

And obviously the health or the sickness, the saving or the losing, the life or the death of this soul must be a matter of infinite moment to a man, both in time and in eternity, for it guides his actions, it regulates his affections, it influences his feeling; it is to his whole being what the mainspring is to a watch. It is in health when it works in harmony with purity and truth, and righteousness and love, which are the expression of God’s own will, and when in the language of Scripture it is guided by the mind of the Spirit. It is diseased, it is dying, and is lost when it abandons itself to the jarring, jangling, lacerating, corrupting forces of a lower world, whose order is disorder when, in fact it is given over to the mind of the flesh.

II. But how save the soul? The text gives the response: ‘Save your soul by losing it, for you will never lose it by saving it’. So far as concerns the primary application of the words to the contrast between the earthly life and the heavenly, between God and the world, the meaning is obvious and easy. Whosoever prefers self, where truth, or honour, or love, or purity, or reverence, demands self-abegnation, self-abandonment, that man loses his soul, loses his life by saving it. But though the man who saves his soul is sure to lose it, yet it does not follow conversely that he who loses his soul will as certainly save it. In this latter case an important proviso is added, ‘for My sake’.

‘For My sake.’ We dare not limit the words as if they applied only to sacrifices made consciously and directly in the cause of Christianity. If Christ be the very eternal word of God, the very expression of the Father’s truth, of the Father’s righteousness, of the Father’s purity, of the Father’s love, then the sacrifice of self to any one of these things is a saving of the soul by losing it.

III. Within the sphere of religion itself the same contrast and the same alternative may exist. It is possible to be anxious about saving the soul, to be extremely religious in a certain sense, but yet to risk the losing of it in the very desire of saving it. There are two ways of pursuing salvation, the true and the false. The false view takes a valetudinarian view of the soul and the functions of the spiritual being; it confines the soul to the sick chamber, withholding it from all healthy and vigorous exercise, and the soul pines and sickens and dies under the treatment. It is ruined by inconsiderate care; it is lost by being saved. The true method treats the soul as an active, healthy, living vitality, exposes it, adventures it, abandons it The soul must brace itself by vigorous exercise; and that it may drink in the free air and genial sunshine it must commit itself to the struggles and vicissitudes of life, must spend and be spent, must lose itself that it may be saved. The true method of salvation is a great venture of self, a forgetfulness of self, a going out of self.

J. B. Lightfoot, Penny Pulpit vol. xii. No. 672, p. 43.

Reference. XVI. 25. A. H. Moncur Sime, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. 1898, p. 388.

The Soul: Its Meaning and Value

Mat 16:26

The word ‘soul’ is a great word; it is a religious word; it is made sometimes too narrowly a religious word.

I. Put the word ‘soul’ out until we need it. Let us read, ‘What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his sight?’ That is a term you can comprehend. ‘Soul’ is metaphysical, spiritual, transcendental; but you know what you mean by your own eyes. What is a man profited, if he shall gain the world, and lose his eyes? What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his hearing? Not a man amongst you would give his sight for the world, would give his hearing for the world, and yet the man will give his soul for nothing. Such fools are men. You would not expect it to be so, but this is the miracle that is performed every day, that a man who would not give his sight for a mountain of gold, will sell his soul for one hour’s forbidden pleasure Where is the wisdom? Here is impudent prudence, here the sagacity that quickly turns in upon itself and slays the soul that is proud of it.

II. Now we come back to the other point, and say that when you have given your soul you have given your sight. It is the soul that sees. For you have no pictures if you cannot see them; and you cannot see them if you have no soul. You can have acres of canvas, but no pictures. When you have paid your soul for your pleasures you have paid your hearing. It is the soul that hears. Oh, see the great master there, the one musician out of whom all other musicians seem to have been cut; you say, ‘He is deaf,’ but not in the soul, only in the flesh: it is his soul that hears; it is the soul that was Beethoven.

Take care of your soul yourself. He that would save his life shall lose it. You will save your soul yourself best by giving yourself away in the spirit of Christ, under the inspiration and benediction of His Cross.

The soul is the secret and value of all things that are called practical.

The one thing that men forget, who boast of their being practical at the expense of their being religious, is the soul being required of them; they omit the element of responsibility, they omit the element of having to face God; their very calculation is absurd in its first line, and vicious in its mocking result. He is practical who works from the soul-centre.

III. Jesus came to save the soul. He did not come to save the body only. There was nothing so easy as healing sick bodies; Christ’s difficulty was in saving the soul. He said, ‘Nothing is worth doing but saving men’; and when He said men He meant souls, spirits, immortalities, the entity within that outlives the wreck of matter and the crash of worlds; that mysterious thing that will not die, that upper fruit that death’s black hand cannot wrench from the living tree.

Joseph Parker, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 172.

The Nothingness of This World

Mat 16:26

We still crave for something, we do not well know what; but we are sure it is something which the world has not given us. And then its changes are so many, so sudden, so silent, so continual. It never leaves changing; it goes on to change, till we are quite sick at heart: then it is that our reliance on it is broken. It is plain we cannot continue to depend upon it, unless we keep pace with it, and go on changing too; but this we cannot do. We feel that, while it changes, we are one and the same; and thus, under God’s blessing, we come to have some glimpse of the meaning of our independence of things temporal, and our immortality. And should it so happen that misfortunes come upon us (as they often do), then still more are we led to understand the nothingness of this world; then still more are we led to distrust it, and are weaned from the love of it, till at length it floats before our eyes merely as some idle veil, which, notwithstanding its many tints, cannot hide the view of what is beyond it; and we begin, by degrees, to perceive that there are but two beings in the whole universe, our own soul, and the God who made it.

J. H. Newman.

References. XVI. 26. S. D. McConnell, A Year’s Sermons, p. 24. R. W. Dale, Fellowship with Christ, p. 147. W. J. Knox-Little, The Journey of Life, p. 41. J. L. Muir-head, Pulpit Discourses, Berwick Presbytery, p. 50. J. W. King, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xli. 1892, p. 161. D. M. Ross, ibid. vol. li. 1897, p. 122. H. P. Liddon, Sermons Preached on Special Occasions, p. 75. M. R. Vincent, God and Bread, p. 21. J. Fraser, Parochial and other Sermons, p. 23. J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, p. 15.

From Thence He Shall Come to Judge the Quick and the Dead

Mat 16:27

I. Consider exactly what we mean and what we do not mean by judgement Most of us admit that there is need of some readjustment of things if the Ruler of the world is to deserve the name of just. Apart from revelation there would seem a probability amounting to a certainty that a day of rectification must be in store for a world now such a confusion and chance medley. Our holy Faith meets the human craving, and the Church presents a picture none can see unmoved of a last great and terrible day, with the Judge standing between the saved and the lost, and bidding one company enter heaven and the other depart to hell.

Men rehearsed the solemn words in which Christ describes the last judgment all through the ages of faith. The grandest music described the bliss of the saved, and the terrors of the lost. Painters like Michael Angelo and Tintoretto painted both in colours glowing with splendour.

II. How is it now? The reality which these images represented has been clouded and sicklied over by doubt owing to two mistakes. (1) Men have vulgarized the judgment side of the picture; (2) men have made free with the attributes of pardon and grace.

So we require the final judgment to confirm some verdicts and to reverse others. The question of the method of the Advent Assize of the universe is left in darkness. But that a process like that which the Bible represents must conclude the world drama we may confidently believe.

III. Do not think of the final judgment as a grand pageant invented by theologians and embodied in colour and music by painters and musicians. It will be as real as life itself. And if you ask, what shall I do now? this minute I say, ‘Judge therefore yourselves that ye be not judged of the Lord’. There is a saying of Christ which shows very clearly how we are being judged now, and by what we are judged. ‘He that rejecteth Me and receiveth not My words hath One that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day.’ We shall be judged by the standard Christ set up.

At that last judgment there will be not only a scrutiny but a readjustment. After the scrutiny there will be a reversal of man’s judgments in many cases. Those who are now considered saints and heroes may prove to be pretenders; the humble and neglected will meet recognition and reward. In the great day the judge will be our Lord, who is all-knowing, so we may be as sure of His charity as of His wisdom, for charity is the daughter of knowledge.

C. H. Butcher, The Sound of a Voice that is Still, p. 87.

References. XVI. 27. W. Garrett Horder, The Other World, p. 71. B. F. Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 87. George Salmon, Gnosticism and Agnosticism, p. 272. XVI. 28. H. C. Mabie, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxviii. 1905, p. 374. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x. No. 594. XVII. 1. J. D. Jones, The Gospel of Grace, p. 189. XVII. 1, 2. Reuen Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. 1898, p. 182. H. Scott Holland, ibid, vol. lv. 1899, p. 33. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. iii. p. 223. XVII. 1-5. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvi. No. 2658. XVII. 1-7. R. Bickerdike, Penny Pulpit, vol. xiv. No. 820, p. 241. XVII. 1-8. A. B. Davidson, Waiting upon God, p. 139. W. A. Gray, The Shadow of the Hand, p. 217. XVII. 1-13. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2729. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Matthew IX.-XVII. p. 343. XVII. 2. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. 1901, p. 364. W. G. Davies, ibid. vol. lxiv. 1903, p. 411. W. Alexander, The Great Question, p. 213. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2729. XVII. 3. W. Howell Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 163.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Chapter 66

Readers of the Outside

Mat 16:1-12

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had looked upon the whole demonstration of evidence applied by Jesus Christ in the course of his varied and exciting ministry, and were exactly in the same condition of unbelief and disguised or avowed hostility as before. No impression had been made upon them of a vital kind. They had been dazed and stunned by a succession of miracles, but had not been convinced. Allowing that great and wonderful cures had been performed, they were piously anxious that now some sign should be shown to them from heaven. You can understand the unctuousness with which they pronounced that sacred word. They would now change the field of proof: a token from heaven would be exactly after the temper of their pious and noble mind. They had observed the wonderful deeds which had been done, which were of a material and sensational kind, and which were adapted in a kind of broad manner to a certain low type of mind but they desired a sign from heaven. The earth had been enough, and now they, wrapping their religious cloaks closely around them, desired a sign from heaven. Pious, sweet-souled, godly men, who were alive on the heavenly side of their nature, and who would accept any hint or claim that came from the sky, in infinite preference to the cures of the leprous, the dumb, the deaf, the blind, and the maimed.

This is a common and holy trick in all corrupt Churches. Give them what you may, they always want miracles of another kind. Their hearts are determined in unbelief, therefore do their minds affect to find fault with the evidence, or if not to find direct fault with it, to suggest supplementary demonstration of a totally different kind, and the corrupt Church is never so near its total damnation as when it affects its most unctuous piety and’ wants a sign from heaven.

We want sermons of another kind, when the devil is twisting his fingers further and further round us. We admire the sermons that are delivered, but we would see a sermon from heaven. Such people grant the intellect but they affect to pine for the feeling. They do not deny the genius but they desire more spirituality. They do not doubt that good has been done in certain cases and to a certain class of minds, but they desire to see good of another kind done. This is a stock temptation of the old serpent. He says, “What you have to eat is all very good, but you ought to ask for something if not better, yet different. You cannot deny that notable miracles have been done, and that wonderful doctrine has been propounded. Admit all that: appear ever to be generous in your concessions, but ask for something different, play the pious trick.” Old serpent, cunning and yet his cunning ought now to be so transparent that we should mock it and reject it with bitter scorn.

How did Jesus Christ treat this pious inquiry, this high spiritualism of desire? The answer which he returned was itself a sign from heaven had they who received it but have understood its scope and its purport. It was a two edged sword no other man in all human history could have made that reply. Observe its moral discernment. “O ye hypocrites.” Unhappily we have only the cold ink to represent that word: we miss the atmosphere of its utterance, the emphasis which carried it straight into the guilty heart. “O ye hypocrites.” Was not their pious speech about heaven, was not their question simple and direct, is there any one word in it that could give reasonable offence did they not belong to the spiritual section of the Church, the sighing, crying and sky-desiring section of the great family of human students and religious inquirers? “O ye hypocrites,” that was a sign from heaven, to know them through their disguises, to accost the devil when he wore an angel’s livery, to take him with mocking familiarity by the face and call him devil, notwithstanding his clothes that was a sign from heaven.

In the case of Jesus Christ we must always judge the question by the answer which he returns. We do not say everything in words: the big lie is in the heart and not in the speech. Christ answers the question we want to ask, and not merely the inquiry which we actually put in words. Was not this penetration of character a sign from heaven? Was he ever much grander and nobler than when he faced the Pharisees and Sadducees and answered the question about heaven by a charge of personal and unmixed hypocrisy? Did this Man palter with his age, did this Man pay a high price for popularity? Was this the way to increase his fame and his comfort? Would it not have been better for him to have taken the Pharisees and Sadducees into some quiet and sacred place and shown them tricks from heaven? Mark the stern and invincible consistency of this Man: he will have no compromise with hypocrisy. He will not enter into partnership on forbidden terms and with forbidden people. This is the eternal miracle of truth: it pierces us, being sharper than any two-edged sword. This is the proof of its inspiration which the Bible always gives. Do not find its inspiration in its literary conscientiousness, in its mechanical consistency, in its artistic finish find whether it is inspired or not by its moral penetration, moral omniscience, moral authority. In any right reading of this Book we stand in a holy place, cut off from everything else, made solemn by an unspeakable quietness, so quiet that a whisper is as thunder, so holy that a sigh may pollute the awful sanctity. So come to the question of the inspiration of Christ, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. Understand what the Bible is in its moral tone and moral claim, and as it warns off all generations of vipers and broods of serpents, and will have nothing to do with hypocrites and masked men and visored faces, learn that it is the very judgment of God amongst men, no more to be trifled with than is fire.

The moral discernment of Christ’s answer justified the judicial tone by which he mocked the hypocritical inquirers. “When it is evening, ye say it will be fair weather, for the sky is red, and in the morning it will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and lowering.” They were weather-wise, and nothing more, they mistook the sky for heaven, and the weather for a revelation. This is the perpetual mistake of men who have no inward and spiritual life. The temptation of today is that men should study the barometer. Such study has attained almost the dignity of a science the barometer is now a Bible. Jesus Christ does not condemn this study of the weather, he says it makes a man foolish if he can only do so much and do no more. A man’s knowledge may itself be an argument against him if it stops short of wisdom; if the light that is in a man be darkness, how great is that darkness! Jesus allows that they who questioned him could read the face of the sky, but he charges them with inability to discern the signs of the times.

What would you say about a man who knew all the letters of the alphabet, but could not put them into words? How would you estimate the claim of any man to wisdom who knew every word in the English language, and yet never could arrange those words into sentences? It looks as if a man were certainly learned when he knows instantly every letter of the alphabet what more can any man know? He can repeat the alphabet backwards, forwards, onwards from any given letter what more can be desired? Yet as there are those who know the letters but cannot shape them into words, so are there men who can count upon their fingers the great dogmas of Christianity but cannot run them into musical utterance, or mass them into grand practical argument, or translate them into noble and beneficent life. They are weather-wise, letter-wise, and nothing more. Herein is the great difficulty of all-expanding revelation, and all-broadening and ever-enlarging and enlightening ministries amongst men. We cannot get them to understand that it is one thing to know the letters of the alphabet and a totally different thing to run those letters into words and those words into ample and eloquent sentences.

Jesus allows a certain amount of knowledge on the part of his interrogators, and then he mocks them as being only learned in the weather, skilled in the clouds, but having no eye to read the writing of the heavens. When you look upon the clouds you do not look upon the sky, when you look upon the sky you do not see into heaven, when you read letters you do not form words, when you pick out individual words you do not construct tuneful and inspiring sentences. Stop not short in your education, but get away from the letter to the word, from the word to the sentence, from the sentence to the meaning, from the meaning to the music, from the music to the Musician God.

Jesus Christ’s answer was more than a mockery, it was also a revelation of the great fact that we are surrounded by legible and visible providences in human affairs. “Can ye not discern the signs of the times?” We should not need miracles if we could rightly read events that seems to be the spiritual doctrine of Jesus Christ: he teaches us that we have a sign from heaven every day, and that we only need the seeing eye to behold its lustre and beauty. It is thus that the Son of God lays his claim upon our attention and confidence by the breadth and more nobleness of his teaching. Whilst we with blatant curiosity and affected piety are wanting new signs and new tokens from heaven, he says, “God is revealing himself in all the processes of the age. in all the developments of civilization: you should read these things more carefully, and you would not be pining and sighing for other proofs and demonstrations of the divine finger.”

Facts are lamps by which we should see God. The rapid and startling combination of events surprising the crafty by new conjectures and appalling the strong by unreckoned energies, are signs of a power as beneficent as it is unlimited. Ye can discern the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the signs of the times? The little that we can do is mocked by the great which we cannot do or a more cheering view is that the little we can do should be the stimulus to our attempts to still loftier and nobler discoveries. Can ye not discern the signs of the times? is a challenge and not a rebuke. Christianity always calls us to an interpretation of the events that make up the history of our own day. Daily journalism should be daily preaching: men who keep diaries should know that they are writing revelations from heaven. John Wesley was wont to say that he read the newspapers to see how God was governing the world. When journalism is honest without being pious, real and healthy without being sentimental, it will show us every day in its broad sheet a thousand signs from heaven.

Christianity therefore is a call to present day thinking. Venerable as it is with the colours of old time, it is yet modern in it? sympathy with human aspiration and its control over human motive and purpose. Not ancient history but modern activity comes within the claim and sovereignty of Christian faith. The Church must modernize itself, and for ever be the youngest as well as the oldest of human institutions.

Jesus Christ in closing, which he today practically does, the great series of miracles with which we have now become familiar, and in pointing to the signs of the times as God’s revelations and tokens amongst us, takes his stand upon the broadest and most indestructible ground. This is a noble finish to the miracles. Again and again we shall see in further reading, a wonderful work here and there, but practically as to their massiveness and consecutiveness, the miracles are closed in this reading. Jesus Christ in retiring from a series of mighty works says, “If you want more miracles, more signs from heaven, look at events, study the history of your own time, from a religious standpoint survey the great march of civilization, the conflict of interests, the battle of truth against error, light against darkness, and he who reads the signs of the times aright will want no more miracles of the kind now closed, for his own life will be a wonder, every event upon earth will be an interposition from heaven.”

This is healthy teaching, this is robust, masculine talk. The man who took this attitude was not afraid of his religion suffering from contact with material civilization and with public conflicts of all kinds. He was not only a God distant, infinite, impalpable and unnameable, but a Father in the household, watching all the family life, interposing in its succession of daily events and asserting himself with all the processes and developments of individual, social, and national life. This is a grand farewell. He is now about to be taken up from us into a loftier region of teaching, and before this intermediate ascension he says to us in broad noble speech, “Read the signs of the times, consider the events that are passing round about you, and you will have no further need for miracles and wonders of a kind to which you have now been long accustomed.”

Let us learn then from Christ’s answer that the events of the day are signs. The sign is always more than itself: the sign points to the thing signified. And let us also learn that these signs were meant to be studied. Jesus Christ would never refer us to unauthorized sources of thought and expression. God means his providences to be searched into, compared one with another, set in proper relation and succession. Have we the seeing eye? There is a shape in events; circumstances, occurrences, transactions are not unrelated stories, but they were meant to be put together to grow up into a holy temple unto the Lord, from the foundation to the loftiest pinnacle. Do not suppose that time is chaotic, look for the shape when you cannot see the shape, look for the shadow. Your affliction means something, your disappointments have a purpose, your successes have a divine meaning, your opportunities are doors opened by divine fingers. Fool is he who thinks that every event is but a laden vehicle that turns out its contents every night, and passes on to bring other contents and to throw them into the same shapeless heap.

Read the signs of your own life. Throw the memory of the heart back to the time when you were young, little, poor, unknown, misunderstood, misjudged, assailed, nearly ruined, often sick, sometimes friendless. How doors opened, how friends came, how unexpected voices broke in upon the solitude of your despair, how little gleams and glints of light stirred in upon the darkness of your dejection let the whole scene pass before your inner vision, and you will want no miracles of a sensational, external, and striking kind. You yourself will be the miracle, and unless a man feels himself to be a miracle, all written and historical miracles will be but so many stumbling-blocks to his faith. If we preach the miracles only along the line of merely intellectual enquiry, all nature will seem to be against us, great laws of continuity will assail our faith in every approach it makes towards the conclusion; but if we ourselves, being miracles, preach the consideration of Christ’s wonderful works, they will seem to be part of himself, almost parts of ourselves, and we will know them by a masonry of the heart which has no words which can adequately express the subtlety of its penetration or the grasp of its power.

Though the written revelation has closed and no more ink can be added to God’s Bible, living revelation is continual. Woe unto that man who takes his ink-horn and dips his pen, with the hope of adding anything to the Book to which God himself has added the grand Amen; but joy to that heart, a Sabbath every day, light upon light till the whole life burns with a sacred lustre, who sees God in Providence, reads him in daily events, hears his going in every click of the telegraph, sees him walking upon the waters, and watches him bringing chaos into order, tumult into peace and music.

A small event occurred afterward, a scene of blundering stupidity on the part of men who were nearest to him, and who ought to have heard the beating of his heart more clearly than others, but as we ourselves are making the same blunder every day, mistaking the letter for the spirit, the loaf for the doctrine, mixing up sacred and secular, and not able to distinguish the one from the other we had better not rebuke in terms too severe their stupidity, lest we inflict fatal wounds upon our own sagacity.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

I

SEASON OF RETIREMENT

PART I

Harmony, pages 76-89 and Mat 14:13-16:12 ; Mar 6:30-8:26 ; Luk 9:10-17 ; Joh 6:1-7:1 .

We now take up Part V of the Harmony, the general theme of which is “Season of Retirement into Districts Around Galilee.” The time is six months, i.e., from just before the Passover (Joh 6:4 ) to the Feast of Tabernacles. There are four of these retirements, found in sections 57, 61, 62, 63-67, respectively. The occasion of the first was twofold, (1) the hearing of the death of John the Baptist, and (2) the return of the twelve apostles for rest. The place of this retirement was Bethsaida Julias, which is referred to by Luke, as over against the Bethsaida mentioned by Mark, which was near Capernaum. The occasion of the second retirement was also twofold, (1) the fanaticism of the disciples in trying to make him king (Joh 6:15 ), and (2) the hostility of the Jewish rulers (Mat 15:1 ). The place of the second retirement was Phoenicia, about Tyre and Sidon. The occasion of the third retirement was the suspicion of Herod Antipas, who was a very wicked man and had much fear respecting Jesus and his great works. The place of this retirement was Decapolis. The occasion of the fourth retirement was continued Jewish hostilities, and the place was Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part of Palestine on the east side of the Jordan. In every case he avoided Herod’s jurisdiction.

The first outstanding event of these retirements is the feeding of the five thousand, the account of which is prefaced by the report of the twelve apostles, who had just returned from their first missionary tour. This is a glowing account of their work and their teaching. The latter item of this report is unusual in a missionary report. Matthew says that Jesus withdrew to a desert place apart when he heard of the death of John the Baptist. In this desert place the multitudes thronged from the cities, and this excited the tender compassion of Jesus because they were like sheep without a shepherd. Mark says that he taught them many things. His work here continued until the day was far spent, upon which the disciples besought him to send the multitudes away to buy food. Here begins the beautiful story of “Feeding the Five Thousand,” which is told by all four of the evangelists and does not need to be repeated in this expression, but there are certain facts and lessons here that need to be emphasized. First, there is the test of his disciples as to what they were willing to undertake. Second, this furnished the occasion for the great discourse of Joh 6 on the Bread of Life. Third, it was the occasion of sloughing off unworthy disciples. Fourth, it supplied the physical wants of the people. Fifth, there is here a most excellent lesson on order in doing things. Sixth, Christ is presented here as the great wonder-worker in supplying the needs of his people.

Following this miracle is the incident of Jesus walking on the sea. After feeding the five thousand Jesus retired to the mountain to pray and sent the disciples back across the sea in a boat. A storm arose and they were distressed, but on the troubled sea they saw Jesus walking and they were afraid. Out from the storm of their distress came the voice of Jesus: “It is I; be not afraid.” What a lesson for us! Jesus walks on the troubled sea. But Peter, impulsive Peter, must put the matter to a test and he receives the command to try his strength in walking on the sea, but the wind and the waves disturb his faith and he sinks, only to be rescued by the hand divine. Our Lord rebukes his “little faith,” as he does the “little faith” of others in two other instances in this division of the Harmony, (viz., on pp. 88, 95).

This incident made a profound impression on the disciples. Matthew says, “They that were in the boat worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” Mark says, “They were sore amazed in themselves; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.” John says, “They were willing therefore to receive him into the boat.” There seems, at first sight, to be some discrepancy here, but these evangelists are speaking from different standpoints. Matthew seems to look at it from the standpoint of the effect in strengthening their faith in his divinity; John, from the standpoint of their scare when they first saw him, and Mark, from the standpoint of the preceding incident of “Feeding the Five Thousand.” Broadus says, “Mark (Mar 6:52 ) censures their astonishment at this miracle, for which the miracle of the loaves would have prepared them if their minds had not been stupid and dull. This language of Mark does not necessarily forbid the supposition that they were now convinced Jesus was divine; but it best falls in with the idea that they were at a lower standpoint.” They straightway landed at Gennesaret, according to Matthew and John, where the people came in great numbers to touch his garment that they might be healed. Mark’s description of this healing work of our Lord is most vivid, closing with the words, “as many as touched him were made whole.”

All this prepared the way for the great discourse of our Lord on the Bread of Life in Joh 6 (Harmony, pp. 81-82). This is a marvelously strong discourse on the spirituality of his kingdom. The introduction (Joh 6:22-25 ) explains the connection of this discourse with the miracle of the loaves and how the multitudes found Jesus after that event in Capernaum. In Joh 6:26-40 we have the first dialogue between them and Jesus in which Jesus reveals their purposes and exhorts them to seek the Bread of Life. Then they ask, “How?” and he explains that it is by accepting him whom the Father sent. Then they demand a sign, referring to the sign of the manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, upon which Jesus showed them the typical and spiritual import of the manna, explaining that it referred to him. In Joh 6:41-51 we have the second dialogue arising from their murmuring at his teaching, that he came down from heaven. Here he announced the great doctrine of God’s drawing in order to salvation, his relation to the Father and the nature of the salvation he brought as eternal, over against the perishable manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness. In Joh 6:52-59 we have the third dialogue arising from their strife among themselves about his teaching, in which Jesus shows them their utter hopelessness apart from him and his sacrifice. In Joh 6:60-65 we have the fourth dialogue, which was between Jesus and his disciples, growing out of their murmuring at his hard doctrine. Here he explains that the words which he had spoken were spiritual and life-giving, and then revealed the fact that one among them was an unbeliever. This he knew, says John, from the beginning. In Joh 6:66-71 we have the final effect of his discourse upon them, driving many of his disciples back, but confirming his immediate disciples in his divine mission as voiced by this first great confession of Peter: “We believe and know that thou art the Holy One of God.” But Jesus let them know that one of them was a devil. Note that this revelation of the betrayer was nearly a year before the revelation of Judas at the Passover supper (Joh 13 ), and shows that Jesus knew all the time that Judas would betray him. Note also that this discourse is progressive. Each dialogue brings a new revelation and the effect of this progress upon his audience is marked, finally driving them away from our Lord to walk with him no more, while the severity of the test brought forth from his disciples their strongest expression of faith in his divinity up to this time.

In section 60 (Mat 15:1-20 ; Mar 7:1-23 ; Joh 7:1 ) we have the account of another issue between Christ and the Pharisees at Capernaum. They sent an embassy to him from Jerusalem and asked why his disciples did not keep the tradition of the elders with regard to the washing of their hands, the full explanation of which is given by Mark and needs only a careful reading to be understood. To this Jesus responded with a charge of hypocrisy and quotes a prophecy of Isaiah which he applies to them. This prophecy has in it a double charge, (1) of emptiness, of heartlessness, in their service and (2) that they taught the doctrines and precepts of men. This applied to all their traditions, what a comment on the whole of the Jewish Talmud! Then he goes further and charges them with transgressing the commandment of God because of their tradition in respect to honoring parents. If they should say that their property was “Corban,” i.e., given to God, that exempted them, according to the Jewish tradition, which made void the word of God. Then he explained the fallacy of their tradition by showing that it was not what goes into a man that defiles him, but that defilement was an issue of the heart. But this offended the Pharisees, to which he replied to his disciples with the parable of the blind guides, which the disciples did not understand, as it applied to the matter under consideration. This called for a more elaborate explanation, that the heart and stomach of a man were vastly different and that sin issuing from the heart was the only true defilement of the man. Mark gives thirteen items in his list of sins coming out of the heart, and Matthew seven, but these are but illustrations of the principle that all sin issues from the heart.

Immediately following this issue with the authorities at Jerusalem, Jesus retired to the region of Tyre and Sidon, in the territory of Phoenicia, which is outside of the land of Israel. This retirement, as already explained, was caused by the fanaticism of his disciples in trying to make him king, and the hostility of the Jewish rulers. Phoenicia (see map) was located northwest of Palestine and contained two cities of importance Tyre and Sidon. It was in this territory and while on this retirement that Jesus healed the Syrophoenician, or Canaanitish woman’s daughter. The term “Canaanitish,” as used by Matthew, refers back to the time when the inhabitants of this section were called Canaanites. It is probable that the Jews continued to apply this name to the inhabitants of Phoenicia, though the after inhabitants may have been of later origin. To Matthew’s Jewish readers this word would show that she was a Gentile. (Broadus’ Commentary). But Mark says that she was a Greek, meaning a Gentile, and a Syrophoenician, meaning an inhabitant of the united countries of Syria and Phoenicia, a term used to distinguish this country from Libyphoenicia, or the Carthaginians. To Mark’s Gentile readers this name also would mean a Gentile. This country of Syria extended from the northern part of Palestine all the way up the Mediterranean coast to the headwaters of the Euphrates, following that river east to the great Syrian Desert, and thence south to the headwaters of the Jordan, including Antioch and Damascus, two cities well known to Bible history. This country has a vital connection with the Greeks. It was conquered by Alexander the Great, allotted to the Seleucids after his death, who built Antioch and ruled this country till it was taken by the Romans. This was in the fourth, third, and second centuries before Christ.

It was in this country Jesus sought retirement and rest for himself and disciples, but this rest was broken by the coming of the Syrophoenician woman to Jesus in behalf of her daughter. Jesus could not be hid because of his fame and his approachableness by those who were in distress. We find that, in every effort which he made at retirement, the people found him. So, this Canaanitish, Greek, Syrophoenician woman found him when he came into those parts. The facts of this case are as follows: This Syrophoenician woman had a little daughter who was grievsouly demonized. She heard of the presence of Jesus in those parts, came and besought him to cast forth the demon out of her. He made no answer. Then the disciples intervened and asked him to send her away, but he answered that he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The woman personally renews her petition and begs for help, but Jesus tells her that it is not meet to give the children’s bread to the dogs. She answered that she would be satisfied with the crumbs, and this brought forth from the Saviour the highest commendation of her faith.

Now let us look at this picture again and see if we can find in it the lessons intended for us. First, let us look for the proofs of this woman’s faith. There are four of these: (1) Her address in which she calls him the Son of David; (2) she worshiped him; (3) she recognized Jewish priority; (4) her humility and importunity.

This scene was, perhaps, on the road and not in the house, which helps us to understand better some of the points in the story. The seeming indifference of Jesus was only to test and develop her faith. The intervention of the disciples was not to ask that she be dismissed without help, but, rather, to give her the blessing and let her go. Evidently the woman did not hear Christ’s reply to the disciples. Being in advance of the woman on the road, this conversation was not understood by her, which explains the next statement that “she came and worshiped him.” The statement of Jesus to the disciples that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel meant that he was unwilling to carry on a general ministry in Phoenicia, because his mission was to the Jews. The “crumb” idea here introduced by the woman and acted upon by Christ does not conflict with this idea of avoiding a general ministry in Phoenicia. This referred to the smaller blessing to a Gentile dog which would not take any of the children’s bread. She seems here to argue that Jesus is now away from the Jews and not feeding them. So a blessing in this isolated case would not interfere with the blessings for the Jews. The dogs here referred to were little dogs. The word in the Greek is diminutive and means the little house dogs allowed to run around in the house and under their master’s table. The woman was willing not only to be called a dog, but to be called a little dog and to have a little dog’s share of food. This incident is also an illustration of the scriptural teaching that we should pray for the salvation of others who are not even interested.

After the incident of the Syrophoenician woman Jesus hastened to return to the land of Israel. Going from the borders of Tyre and Sidon he passed through Sidon, thence across to the east side of the Jordan and down on the east side of the Sea of Galilee through the borders of Decapolis. This was intentional, to avoid the territory of Herod, who was suspicious of Jesus. As soon as he arrived they brought him a deaf and dumb man whom he healed, and charged not to tell it, but he published it the more, which resulted in their bringing the multitudes of the unfortunate to him for a blessing. He healed all of these and then fed four thousand, the circumstances and particulars of which are similar to the feeding of the five thousand.

Then, sending away the multitudes, he crossed over the Sea of Galilee to the borders of Magadan, where he was met again by the Pharisees demanding a sign, but sighing deeply in his spirit he rebuked them and left them, never to return to this part again to teach. This text illustrates the grieving of the Holy Spirit. On leaving here he went across the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida, where he tarried a short time on his way to Caesarea Philippi. When they arrived at Bethsaida the disciples were reminded by a little parable of Jesus that they had forgotten to take bread with them. This parable referred to the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which was their doctrine, but the disciples did not understand it and thought that he referred to their forgetting the bread. Then he issued a sharp rebuke to his disciples as follows: (1) for hardness of heart; (2) for dimness of perception; (3) for a torpid memory; (4) for lack of faith. Then they understood that he referred to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Does teaching, or doctrine, leaven? It seems to have leavened them. Does it make any difference what we believe? Certainly there is a moral quality of belief.

At Bethsaida was brought to him a blind man whom he carried out of the village. He healed him by the use of means; at least apparently, and gradually, thus illustrating the gradual perception of conversion. Then he sent him away and would not even permit him to go into the village. This case is very similar to the case of the deaf and dumb whom he healed in the borders of Decapolis. In each case he took the person out and healed him privately. In each case he also used means, apparently. Why this method in these two cases particularly? On the point of the “why” here we cannot be dogmatic. Perhaps it was to prevent excitement as far as possible by making it appear that he used means; that he was healing more in the natural way and thus avoid the excitement that usually followed his regular method.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the theme of Part V of the Harmony?

2. What was the time and what the time limits of this division?

3. How many retirements in this period and where are they found in the Harmony?

4. What was the occasion and place of each?

5. What was the first outstanding event of this period of retirements and how is it prefaced?

6. What, in order, are the events which led up to the feeding of the five thousand?

7. Tell the story of the feeding of the five thousand.

8. What are the lessons of this incident?

9. Give the story of Jesus walking on the sea and its lessons.

10. How do you harmonize Matthew, Mark, and John on this incident?

11. Where did they land and what incidents there?

12. What was the occasion and nature of the great discourse in Joh 6 ?

13. Give an analysis of this discourse, showing its introduction, its dialogues, the progress of the thought in these parts of the discourse, the progress of its effect on the enemy and its effect on the disciples of Jesus.

14. What issue raised between Christ and the Pharisees at Capernaum and how did Christ meet it?

13. Give an account of the progress of this issue and show the final outcome of it.

16. Bid Jesus ever leave the land of Israel? If so, why?

17. In what country were Tyre and Sidon?

18. State the geographical position of Phoenicia.

19. Explain the terms “Ganaanitiah,” “Greek,” and “Syrophoenician” as applied to the woman who approached Christ in these parts.

20. What is the extent of Syria?

21. What, briefly, was Syria’s connection with the Greeks, and how long since to this incident?

22. Why should Jesus desire to remain incognito here?

23. How was the rest broken?

24. Why could not Jesus be hid?

25. What are the facts of this case in their order?

26. What was the proofs of this woman’s faith?

27. Was this scene in the house or out doors?

28. Why did Jesus so act in this case?

29. Did his disciples ask that she be dismissed without help?

30. Why should Jesus avoid a general ministry in Phoenicia?

31. Explain how “crumbs” did not conflict with this idea.

32. What kind of dogs here referred to and what the import?

33. What is the lesson here on praying for others not interested?

34. Trace on the map the journey of Jesus from Tyre to the neighborhood of the Sea of Galilee. Why this course?

35. What were the events of his stay in this section?

36. Where did he go from there and what were the events at the next place?

37. Where then did he go, and what important lesson did he there teach his disciples and how?

38. What are the items of his rebuke here and what the importance of doctrine as here indicated?

39. Give the incident of the healing of the blind man here and its lessons.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

Ver. 1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came ] Came forth, saith St Mark, to wit, out of the coasts of Magdala, as soon as ever our Saviour arrived there, to quarrel him, and keep him from doing good. So active are the devil’s instruments to hinder the kingdom of God and the good of souls. Truth never wants an adversary; she goes seldom without a scratched face, as the proverb is. The Pharisees and Sadducees, though at deadly difference between themselves, yet can easily combine against Christ. So to this day the priests disparage the Jesuits, the Jesuits the priests, the priests again the monks, the monks the friars, but they can all conspire against Protestants, whom they jointly persecute. Dogs, though they fight never so fierce, and mutually intertear one another, yet if a hare run by they give over, and run after her. Martial makes mention of a hare on the Sicilian shore, that having hardly escaped the hounds that hunted her, was devoured by a sea dog; whereupon he brings her in thus complaining:

” In me omnis terraeque aviumque marisque rapina est:

Forsitan et coeli, si canis astra tenet. “

Tempting desired him ] Or questioned him to and fro, sifted him by interrogatories, pretending to be his friends, and to seek satisfaction only. a All this savour strongly of putrid hypocrisy, quae ipsis domestica erat virtus, as Aretius. Socinus did in like sort set upon Zanchius. “He was,” saith Zanchius, “a learned man, and of unblamable conversation, but full of heresies, which yet he never propounded to me otherwise than by way of question, as seeming desirous to be better informed.” b By this subtle means he drew away many, and sought to work upon Zanchius, as did also Matthaeus Gribaldus, and some such others. But when they could not prevail, they brake friendship with him, and he with them, for the which he praiseth God from the bottom of his heart.

Show them a sign ] Them, c by all means, as more worshipful men than the multitude, such as might merit an extraordinary sign. See here their satanical arrogance. So Herod would see our Saviour, that he might see a sign from him. He looked upon him no otherwise than upon some common magician, that would sure show him his best tricks. Thus these hypocrites here would gladly be gratified, but they were deceived.

a , vicissim interrogabant.

b Homo fuit p1enus diversarum haereseon, quas tamen mihi nunquam proponebat nisi disputandi causa, et semper interrogans quasi cuperet doceri. Zaneh.

c , ipsis, i. q. solis.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 4. ] REQUEST FOR A SIGN FROM HEAVEN. Mar 8:11-13 , but much abridged. See also Luk 12:54 and notes.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1. ] see notes at ch. Mat 12:38 . There is no ground for supposing that this narrative refers to the same event as that. What can be more natural than that the adversaries of our Lord should have met His miracles again and again with this demand of a sign from heaven? For in the Jewish superstition it was held that dmons and false gods could give signs on earth , but only the true God signs from heaven . In the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah, 16:67, we read of the gods of the heathen, . And for such a notion they alleged the bread from heaven given by Moses (see Joh 6:31 ), the staying of the sun by Joshua ( Jos 10:12 ), the thunder and rain by Samuel (1Sa 12:17 , compare Jer 14:22 ), and Elijah ( Jam 5:17-18 ). And thus we find that immediately after the first miraculous feeding the same demand was made, Joh 6:30 , and answered by the declaration of our Lord that He was the true bread from heaven. And what more natural likewise, than that our Lord should have uniformly met the demand by the same answer, the sign of Jonas , one so calculated to baffle his enemies and hereafter to fix the attention of His disciples? Here however that answer is accompanied by other rebukes sufficiently distinctive.

It was now probably the evening (see Mar 8:10 , ) and our Lord was looking on the glow in the west which suggested the remark in Mat 16:2 . On the practice of the Jews to demand a sign , see 1Co 1:22 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 16:1-12 . Demand for a sign (Mar 8:11-21 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 16:1 . : one of Mt.’s oft-recurring descriptive words. . .: a new combination, with sinister purpose, of classes of the community not accustomed to act together; wide apart, indeed, in social position and religious tendency, but made allies pro tem , by common dislike to the movement identified with Jesus. Already scribes by themselves had asked a sign (Mat 12:38 ). Now they are joined by a party representing the priestly and governing classes among whom the “Sadducees” were to be found (Wellhausen, Die Phariser und die Sadducer ). Mk. mentions only the Pharisees (Mat 16:11 ), but he makes Jesus refer to the leaven of Herod in the subsequent conversation with the disciples, whence might legitimately be inferred the presence of representatives of that leaven. These Mt. calls “Sadducees,” probably the better-known name, and practically identical with the Herod leaven. The “Herodians” were, I imagine, people for whom Herod the Great was a hero, a kind of Messiah, all the Messiah they cared for or believed in, one who could help worldly-minded Israelites to be proud of their country ( vide Grotius on Mat 16:6 ). It was among Sadducees that such hero-worshippers were likely to be found. : here like the simple verb (Mat 25:23 ) = requested, with infinitive, , completing the object of desire. : before (Mat 12:38 ) only a sign . Now a sign from heaven . What might that be? Chrys. (Hom. liii.) suggests: to stop the course of the sun, to bridle the moon, to produce thunder, or to change the air, or something of that sort. These suggestions will do as well as any. Probably the interrogators had no definite idea what they wanted, beyond desiring to embarrass or nonplus Christ.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Matthew Chapter 16

In the last chapter, which introduces a new part of the subject in Matthew, we saw two great pictures: first, the hypocritical disobedience of those who boasted of the law completely exposed out of their own prophets, as well as by the touchstone of the Lord Himself; and, secondly, the true nature of grace shown to one whose circumstances demanded nothing but sovereign mercy if she were to be blessed at all. At the close, the Lord’s patient and perfect grace towards Israel is manifested, spite of the condition of the Jewish leaders. If He compassionated the Gentiles, His heart still yearned over His people, and He showed it by repeating the great miracle of feeding thousands in their needy condition; with no figure here of retirement from earth, which we saw in chapter 14, following the first miracle of feeding the multitudes – the type of our Lord’s occupation at the right hand of God.

Now we have another picture, quite distinct from the previous one, though akin to it. It is not the flagrant disobedience of the law through human tradition, but unbelief – the source of all disobedience. Hence, in the language employed by the Holy Ghost, there is only a shade of difference between the words unbelief and disobedience. The former is the root of which the latter is the fruit. Having shown us the gross systematic violation of God’s law, even by those who were religious leaders in Israel, and having convicted them of it, a deeper principle is now brought out, All that disobedience Godward flowed from unbelief of Himself, and, consequently, misapprehension of their own moral condition. These two things always go together. Ignorance of self flows from ignorance of God; and ignorance of both ourselves and God is proved by despising Jesus. And what is true in full of the unbeliever, partially applies to the Christian who in any measure slights the will and person of the Lord. All these are only the workings of that heart of unbelief of which the apostle warns even believers. The grand provision against this, the operation of the Holy Ghost, in contrast with the working of the natural mind of man, comes out here plainly.

“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting, desired that He would show them a sign from heaven.” They were beginning the same story over again; but now it is higher up the source, and, of course, therefore, worse in principle. It is an awful thing to find opposed parties with one only thing uniting them – dislike of Jesus; persons who could have torn each other to pieces at another time, but this is their gathering point – tempting Jesus. “The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting,” etc. There was no conflict between the scribes and Pharisees, but a wide chasm separated the Sadducees and Pharisees. Those were the freethinkers of the day; these the champions who stood up for ordinances and the authority of the law. But both joined to tempt Jesus. They desired a sign from heaven. The most significant token that God ever gave man was before them in the person of His Son, who eclipsed all other signs. But such is unbelief, that it can go into the presence of the full manifestation of God, can gaze at a light brighter than the sun at noonday, and there and then ask God to give a farthing candle.

But Jesus “answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” (vers. 2, 3). Their own moral condition was the sign and proof that judgment was imminent. For those who could see, there was the fair weather, the Day-spring from on high that had visited them in Jesus. They saw it not! But could they not discern the foul weather! They were in the presence of the Messiah, and were asking for a sign from heaven! The God that made heaven and earth was there, but the darkness comprehended it not. “He came to His own and His own received Him not.” They were utterly blind. They could discern physical changes, but had no perception of moral and spiritual glories actually before them. How truly – “A wicked and adulterous generation seek after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And He left them and departed.”

Men constantly err as to the character of Jesus. They imagine that He could use no strong language and feel no anger; yet there it is in the Word, written in the light. Unbelief is always blind, and betrays its blindness most against Jesus. The same unbelief that could not then discern who and what Jesus was, sees not now Jesus coming, and discerns not the signs of their own impending ruin. It is the moral condition of men, no matter where they are, only the more remarkably manifested where the light of God is.

Our Lord does not hesitate to touch the evil with unsparing hand. He was the perfect manifestation of love: but let men remember He is the one who said, “wicked and adulterous generation,” “generation of vipers,” etc.”? It flows from true love – if men would but bow to the truth that convicts them. To submit to God’s word, to the truth now, in this world, is to be saved; to be convicted of the truth only in the next world is to be lost for ever. Christ was the faithful and true Witness; He brought God face to face with man, and caused His perfect light to shine upon them. Jesus can meet a soul in its ruin; He may eat with publicans to show that He is able to receive sinners – yea, came to seek and to save the lost, and to forgive sins to the uttermost; but He will never give any sign to satisfy the unbelief that rejects Him. These Pharisees and Sadducees would not hear His voice of grace, and they had to hear their own sentence from the judge of all the earth: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” Had Jesus not been there, to ask for a sign would not have been so wicked; but His presence made it audacious unbelief and frightful hypocrisy. And what was this sign? The sign of one that disappeared from the earth; that, through the figure of death, passed away from the Jewish people, and after a while was given back to them. It was the symbol of death and resurrection, and our Lord immediately acted upon it. He “left them and departed.” He would pass under the power of death; He would rise again, and the message which Israel had despised, He would carry to the Gentiles.

But there are other forms of unbelief; and the next scene (ver. 5) is with His disciples: so true is it that what you find working in its grossest shape in an unconverted man may be traced, in another way perhaps, in believers. “Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” They did not understand Him; they reasoned among themselves; and whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything. “They reasoned among themselves saying, It is because we have taken no bread.”

There is such a thing, of course, as sound and solid deduction. The difference is that wrong reasoning always starts from man and tries to rise to God, while right reasoning starts from God towards man. The natural mind can only infer from his experience, and thus forms his ideas of what God must be. This is the basis of human speculation in divine things; whereas, God is the source, strength and guide of the thoughts of faith. How do I know God? In the Bible, which is the revelation of Christ from the first of Genesis to the end of Revelation. I see Him there, the key-stone of the arch, the centre of all Scripture speaks of; and unless the connection of Christ with everything is seen, nothing is understood aright. There is the first grand fallacy, the leaving out of God’s revealing Himself in His Son. It is not the light behind the veil as under the Jewish system, but infinite blessing now that God has come to man, and man is brought to God. In the life of Christ I see God drawing nigh to man, and in His death man brought nigh to God. The veil is rent; all is out, of man on the one hand, and of God on the other, as far as God is pleased to reveal Himself to man in this world. All stands in the boldest relief in the life and death of Christ. But disciples are apt to be very dull about these things now as ever; and so when He warned them about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, they thought that He was merely speaking of something for daily life – very much like what we see at the present time. But our Lord “said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread” (ver. 8). Why did they not think of Christ? Would they have troubled themselves about loaves if they had thought rightly of Him? Impossible! They were anxious, or thought Him so, about bread! “Do ye not yet understand,” says the Lord, “neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (vers. 9-12). And this is what disciples even now often misapprehend. They do not understand the hatefulness of unsound doctrine. They are alive to moral evils. If a person gets drunk or falls into any other gross scandal, they know, of course, it is very wicked; but if the leaven of evil doctrine work, they do not feel it. Why is it that disciples are more careful of that which mere natural conscience can judge, than of doctrine which destroys the foundation of everything both for this world and for that which is to come? What a serious thing that disciples should need to be warned of this by the Lord, and even then not understand! He had to explain it to them. There was the darkening influence of unbelief among the disciples, making the body the great aim, and not seeing the all-importance of these corrupt doctrines, which menaced souls in so many insidious forms around them.

But there is another way and scene in which unbelief works. This chapter is the dissection of the root of many a form of unbelief. “By faith we understand,” says the apostle to the Hebrews. The worldly man tries to understand first and then to believe; the Christian begins with the feeblest understanding, perhaps, but he believes God: his confidence is in One above himself; and thus, out of the stone there is raised up a child unto Abraham. The Lord now questions the disciples as to the real gist of all the matter, whether among Pharisees, Sadducees, or disciples themselves. “He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” It is now Christ’s person which comes out; and this, I need hardly say, is deeper than all other doctrine. “Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets” (vers. 13, 14). There are so many opinions among men, unbelief argues, that certainty is impossible. Some say one thing and some another: you talk of truth and Scripture; yet, after all, it is only your view. But what says faith? Certainty, from God, is our portion, the moment that we see who Jesus is. He is the only remedy that banishes difficulty and doubt from the mind of man. “Whom say ye that I am?” (ver. 15). This was for the purpose of bringing out now what is the pivot of man’s blessing and God’s glory, and becomes the turning point of the chapter. Among these very disciples we are to have a blessed confession from one of them – the power of God working in a man who had been rebuked for his want of faith before, as he was indeed just after. When we are really broken down before God about our little faith, the Lord can reveal some deeper higher view of Himself than we ever had before. The disciples had mentioned the various opinions of men: one said He was Elias; another, John the Baptist, etc. “But whom say ye that lam? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Glorious confession! In the Psalms He is spoken of as the Son of God, but very differently. There He is dealing with the kings of the earth, who are called upon to take care how they behave themselves. But the Holy Ghost now lifts up the veil to show that the “Son of the living God” involves depths far beyond an earthly dominion, howsoever glorious. He is the Son of that living God who can communicate life even to those dead in sin. “Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”

First, the Father is revealing; and the moment Christ hears Himself confessed as the Son of the living God, He also sets His own seal and honours the confessor. It is the assertion of one who at once rises up to His own intrinsic dignity: “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He gives Simon a new name. As God had given to Abraham, Sarah, etc., because of some fresh manifestation of Himself, so does the Son of God. It had been prophetically announced before; but now comes out for the first time the reason why it was affixed to him. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” What rock? The confession Peter had made that Jesus was the Son of the living God. On this the Church is built. Israel was governed by a law; the Church is raised on a solid and imperishable and divine foundation – on the person of the Son of the living God. And when this fuller confession breaks from the lips of Peter, the answer comes, Thou art Peter – thou art a stone: a man that derivest thy name from this Rock on which the Church is built.

In the early chapters of the Acts, Peter always speaks of Jesus as God’s holy Servant. He speaks of Him as a man who went about doing good; as the Messiah. slain by the wicked hands of men, whom God raised up from the dead. Whatever Peter might know Jesus to be, yet when preaching to the Jews, he presents Him to them simply as the Christ, as the predicted Son of David, who had walked here below, whom they had crucified and God had raised again. Then, at Stephen’s martyrdom, a new term is used about the Lord. That blessed witness looks up and says, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” It is not now merely Jesus as the Messiah, but “the Son of Man,” which implies His rejection. When He was refused as the Messiah, Stephen, finding that this testimony was rejected, is led of God to testify of Jesus as the exalted Son of Man at God’s right hand. When Paul is converted, which is given in the next chapter but one, he straightway preaches “Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.” He did not merely confess Him, but preached Him as such. And to Paul was entrusted the great work of bringing out the truth about “the Church of God.”

So here, upon Peter’s confession, the Lord says, “Upon this rock I will build My Church.” You understand the glory of My Person; I will show you the work I am going to accomplish. Mark the expression. It is not, I have been building; but I will build My Church. He had not built it yet, nor begun to build it: it was altogether new. I do not mean there had not been souls believing in Him before, and regenerate of the Spirit; but. the aggregate of saints from the beginning to the end of time it is an error to call “the Church.” It is a common notion which has not one shred of Scripture for it. The expression in Act 7:38 , “The church in the wilderness,” means the whole congregation – the mass of Israel – the greater part of whose carcasses fell in the wilderness. Can you call that “the Church of God?” There were but few believers among them. People are deceived in this by the sound. The word, “church in the wilderness,” merely means the congregation there. The very same word is applied to the confused assembly in Act 19 , which would have torn Paul to pieces. If it were translated like Act 7 , it would be the “church in the theatre,” and the blunder is obvious. The word that is translated “church” simply means assembly. To find out what is the nature of the assembly, we must examine the scriptural usage and the object of the Holy Ghost. For you might have a good or bad assembly: an assembly of Jews, of Gentiles, or of God’s assembly distinct from either and contrasted with both, as can be readily and undeniably seen in 1Co 10:32 . Now it is this last which we mean, i.e., God’s assembly, when we speak of “the Church.”

What then, to return, does our Lord intimate when He says, “Upon this rock I will build My Church”? Clearly something that He was going to erect upon the confession that He was the Son of the living God, whom death could not conquer, but only give occasion to the shining forth of His glory by resurrection. “Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hades” – the power of death – “shall not prevail against it.” This last does not mean the place of the lost, but the condition of separate spirits. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

The Church and the kingdom of heaven are not the same thing. It is never said that Christ gave the keys of the Church to Peter. Had the keys of the Church or of heaven been given to him, I do not wonder that the people should have imagined a pope. But “the kingdom of heaven” means the new dispensation about to begin on earth. God. was going to open a new economy, free to Jews and Gentiles, the keys of which He committed to Peter. One of these keys was used, if I may so say, at Pentecost when he preached to the Jews; and the other, when he preached to the Gentiles.* It was the opening of the kingdom to people, whether Jews or Gentiles. “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (ver. 19). The eternal forgiveness of sins has to do with God only, though there is a sense in which forgiving was committed to Peter and the other apostles, which remains true now. Whenever the Church acts in the name of the Lord, and really does His will, the stamp of God is upon their deeds. “My Church,” built upon this rock, is His body – the temple of believers built upon Himself. But “the kingdom of heaven” embraces every one that confesses the name of Christ. This was begun by preaching and baptizing. When a man is baptized, he enters “the kingdom of heaven,” even if he should turn out a hypocrite. He will never be in heaven, of course, if he is an unbeliever; but he is in “the kingdom of heaven.” He may either be a tare or real wheat in the kingdom of heaven; an evil or a faithful servant; a foolish virgin or a wise one. The kingdom of heaven takes in the whole scene of Christian profession.

*It has been thought that the “baptizing” and “teaching,” which the risen Lord commanded in sending the disciples to all nations Mat 28:18-20 are really the “keys” of the kingdom. – [Ed.

But, as we have seen, when Christ speaks of “My Church,” it is another thing. It is what is built upon the recognition and confession of His person – “the Son of the living God.” We know that “he that believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” And, again, “He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God overcometh the world.” But there is a deeper power of the Holy Ghost in acknowledging Him as the Son of God; and the higher the acknowledgment of Christ, the more spiritual energy in going through this world and overcoming it. If one believer is more spiritual than another, it is because he knows and values the person of Christ better. All power for Christian walk and testimony depends upon the appreciation of Christ.

Mark also the order of our Lord’s words. First, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” Christ must be found outside the Church, and before it; Christ must be discerned first and foremost by the individual soul; Christ and what He is must, before and above all, be revealed to the heart by the Father. He may employ persons who belong to the Church as instruments, or may directly use His own word. But whatever the means employed, it is the Father revealing the glory of the Son to a poor sinful man; and when this is settled with the individual, Christ says, “Upon this rock I will build My Church.” Faith in Christ is essentially God’s order and way before the question of the Church comes in. This is one great controversy between God and the mystery of iniquity which is now working in this world. The aim of the Holy Ghost is to glorify Christ; whereas that of the other is to glorify self. The Holy Ghost is carrying on this blessed revelation that the Father has made of the Son; and when the individual question is settled, then comes the corporate privilege and responsibility – the Church.

If I have got Christ, it is infinitely blessed. But I ought to believe, also, that He is building His Church. Do I know my place there? Am I found walking in the light of Christ – a living stone in that which He is building – in healthy action as a member of His body? Salvation was wrought here upon earth, and here it is that the Church is being built upon this rock; and the gates of hades – the invisible state, or separate condition – shall not prevail against it. Death may come in, but the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord says in Revelation that He has the keys of death and hades. The death of the Christian is in the hands of Christ. By the cross He has annulled the power of Satan, and He is the Lord both of the dead and of the living; death is not our Lord, but Christ. “Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether, therefore, we live or die, we are the Lord’s.” The Lord has absolute right over us; and therefore death is robbed of all that makes it so terrible. In Revelation you have the Lord with the keys of death and hades. The keys of the kingdom of heaven He gives to Peter because he it was who was to preach to Jews and Gentiles. The door was flung open on the day of Pentecost first, and afterward yet more widely when the Gentiles were brought in.

Administration is also committed to Peter, both in binding and loosing; it is authority to act publicly here below, with the promise of ratification above: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” That is first said to Peter; and doubtless, from what we have in Mat 18:18 : “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” the binding and the loosing applies also to the other disciples; not to the apostles only, but, I believe, to the disciples as such. Compare also the charge in Joh 20:19-23 . On that principle people are received into the Christian Church, and on that principle wicked persons are put away till repentance justifies their restoration. Apostles or disciples do not forgive sins as a matter of eternal judgment, of course, which God alone has the power to do. But God requires of us to judge a person’s state for reception into or exclusion from the circle which confesses the name of Christ here below. In Act 5 Peter bound their sin on Ananias and Sapphira. This does not prove that they were lost; but the sin was bound upon them, and brought present judgment. Neither Peter nor Paul was at Corinth; and there the Lord Himself laid His hand upon the guilty: some were weak and sickly, and some had fallen asleep. This does not decide against their final salvation – rather, indeed, the contrary. When they were judged of the Lord they were chastened, that they should not be condemned with the world (that is, that they should not be lost). They might be taken away by death, and yet be saved in the day of the Lord. The Church puts away a wicked person. The man at Corinth, whom they were told to excommunicate, was guilty of heinous sin, but was not lost. He was delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be “saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” In the next epistle we find this person so overwhelmed with sorrow on account of his sin that they were charged to confirm their love to him. Simple indeed is the binding and loosing which people often make so mysterious. The only sins that the Church ought to judge are those that come out so palpably as to demand public repudiation according to the word of God. The Church is not to be a petty tribunal of judgment for everything. We ought never to claim the assembly’s intervention except about the evil that is so plain as to be entitled to carry the consciences of all along with it. This I take to be the meaning of binding and loosing.

“Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ.” A remarkable change comes here. Peter had confessed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God: now the Lord charges them to tell no one that He was the Christ. It was as good as saying, It is too late; I am rejected as the Christ – the Messiah, the Anointed of Jehovah. He is refused by Israel, and He accepts the fact. But mark another thing: “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day” (ver. 2 1). In Luk 9:20 , we are told, “He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.” “The Son of the living God” is not mentioned in Luke: consequently, nothing is said about the building of the Church. How perfect is Scripture! In Luke the Lord goes on to say, “The Son of Man must suffer many things,” etc. There is a great distinction between “the Christ” and “the Son of Man.” The latter is His title as rejected, then as exalted in heaven.

Forbidding the disciples to tell that He was the Christ is the turning-point in Christ’s ministry. The meaning is that Christ drops His Jewish title, and He speaks of His Church. Before it comes, He says, “Upon this rock I will build My Church.” From that time He began to show unto them how that He must “go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Luke adds that “He must first suffer,” etc. All this is connected with the building of the Church, which began to be built after Christ rose from the dead and took His place in heaven. In Ephesians the Church is spoken of only after Christ’s resurrection and His taking a new place in heaven have been brought out. We had God choosing the saints in Christ Jesus, but, not the Church. Election is an individual thing. He chose us – you and me, and all the other saints – that “we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” But when Paul has introduced Christ’s death and resurrection, he says that God “gave Him to, be the head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.”

But mark a solemn fact. Immediately after Simon had made this glorious confession of the Lord Jesus, he is called, not Peter, but Satan! He had not said one improper word, according to human judgment. He had not even indulged in haste, as was often his wont. The Lord never called mere excitement “Satan”; but He so called Peter. because he sought to turn Him away from suffering and death. The secret was this: Peter had his mind on an earthly kingdom, and neither fully felt what sin was nor what the grace of God was. He stood in the way of the Lord’s going to the cross. Was it not for Peter that He was going there? Had Peter thought of this, would he have said, “Be it far from Thee, Lord?” It was man thwarting Christ, and He pronounces it Satan. “He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (ver. 23). Peter thus feeling and acting connects with the mystery of iniquity; not with what was taught by the Father.

Our Lord turns to the disciples and puts before them that not merely is He going to the cross, but they must be prepared to follow Him there. If I am to be in the true path of Jesus, I must deny myself and take up the cross and follow – not the disciples – not this church or that church, but – Jesus Himself. I must turn from what is pleasing to my heart naturally. I must meet with shame and rejection in this present evil world. If not, depend upon it, I am not following Jesus; and remember, it is a dangerous thing to believe in Jesus without following Him. Following Jesus maybe like losing one’s life. At the present time much confession of Christ is, comparatively, an easy matter. There is little opposition, or persecution. People imagine that the world is changed; they talk of progress and enlightenment. The truth is, Christians are changed. Let us ask ourselves whether we desire to be found taking up our cross and following Jesus. “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it” (vers. 24, 25).

What lessons for our souls! The flesh easily arrogates superiority over the spirit; and indulgence to the path of ease comes in (though of Satan) under the specious plea of love and kindness. Is the cross of Christ our glory? Are we willing to suffer in doing His will? What a delusion is present honour and enjoyment!

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 16:1-4

1The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2But He answered and said to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’3And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away.

Mat 16:1 “the Pharisees and Sadducees” Matthew links these two groups together as the collective leadership of rabbinical Judaism (cf. Mat 3:7; Mat 10:1; Mat 10:6; Mat 10:11-12; Mat 22:34). For a full discussion of the origin and theology of the Pharisees, see note at Mat 22:15 and for the Sadducees see Special Topic at Mat 22:23.

“testing” This word (peirasmos) was used with the connotation of “test with a view toward destruction” (cf. Mat 6:13; Jas 1:13).

See Special Topic at Mat 4:1.

“a sign from heaven” “From heaven” is a circumlocution for “God.” They had seen His miracles but they wanted more (cf. Mat 12:38-42). This was the same temptation offered by Satan in Mat 4:5-6 about winning mankind’s allegiance by the use of the miraculous.

Apparently these Jewish religionists wanted evidence that Jesus was empowered by YHWH. They were calling the healings “Satan’s work,” so they wanted a sign that was indisputably from God (i.e., “heaven”). Exactly what that would be is not clearly stated. Jesus gives them that sign, but in a veiled and future way (i.e., His resurrection).

Mat 16:2-3 These sentences are not in the most ancient uncial Greek manuscripts , B, X, and the Greek text used by Origen, the Greek manuscripts known to Jerome, nor in some Peshitta or Coptic versions, but they are found in the uncial manuscripts C, D, L and W. A similar passage is found in Luk 12:54-56. The textual critics behind the fourth edition of the Greek NT put out by the United Bible Societies could not make a decision about the originality of these verses (cf. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger, p. 41.)

Mat 16:3 “the signs of the times” Notice the PLURAL ” times.” This refers to the two ages (see Special Topic at Mat 12:31). These Jewish religionists could predict and understand some weather phenomena, but they could not/would not understand the coming of the new age of the Spirit in Jesus. He chides them for their lack of spiritual perception (cf. Isa 6:9-10). Another sign/prophecy was fulfilled in them!

Mat 16:4 “adulterous generation” This phrase is used in the metaphorical sense of “unfaithful.” The metaphor (cf. Mat 12:39; Jas 4:4) goes back to the OT usage related to idolatry and fertility worship (i.e., Jer 3:8; Jer 9:2; Jer 23:10; Jer 29:23; Ezekiel 23; Hos 4:2-3; Mal 3:5).

“the sign of Jonah” They would have had no clue what He was talking about! This was an analogy of three days Jonah was in the great fish and Jesus would be in Hades (cf. 1Pe 3:19). Remember Jesus was in the tomb only about thirty-six to forty hours, but it was reckoned as three days in the Jewish counting system of Jesus’ day. Part of a day was counted as a whole day and a day began and ended at twilight (cf. Genesis 1). See notes at Mat 12:39 and Mat 16:21.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Pharisees . . . Sadducees. See App-120.

came = having come to [Him].

a sign. Compare Mat 12:38.

from = out of. Greek. ek.

heaven = the heaven, or sky (singular), same as in verses: Mat 2:3.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-4.] REQUEST FOR A SIGN FROM HEAVEN. Mar 8:11-13, but much abridged. See also Luk 12:54 and notes.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came [And now they are seeking to trap Him], and they desire that he would show them a sign from heaven. And he answered and said unto them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, you say, It’s gonna be foul weather today: for the sky is red, and lowering. O you hypocrites, you can discern the face of the sky; but you can not discern the signs of the times? ( Mat 16:1-3 )

Now the Lord is rebuking them for their inability to discern the signs of the times. They said, “show us a sign from heaven”. And He said you’re able to look at the sky in the evening when it’s all red. You say, oh it’s gonna be a good day tomorrow. Where, when you get up in the morning and the sky is all red, you say, oh, oh, we’re gonna have a windy one today. It’s gonna be a bad day. He said you have enough sense to be able to tell the weather from looking at the sky, but you don’t have enough sense to know the signs of the times.

They should have known, had they been up in their scriptures. They would have known that this was the time for the coming of their Messiah. For in the book of Daniel, he promised that 483 years after the commandment had gone forth, to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, the Messiah, the prince would be coming. And they did not know the signs and the times because they weren’t really up in the scriptures.

And I wonder how many times Jesus might say to people today who are so blind to the fact that He is returning soon. You fools. You know how to give weather reports by studying the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressures, the direction of the wind and so forth, but you don’t know the time of the coming.

And then he said,

A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah ( Mat 16:4 ).

And again He repeats this as He did before.

And he left them, and he departed ( Mat 16:4 ).

You’ve asked for a sign before. I’ve told you, the sign of the Prophet Jonah, that’s the only sign you’re gonna get.

And when His disciples were come together on the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. And Jesus said unto them, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees ( Mat 16:5-6 ).

Now we told you that whenever leaven was referred to, it was referred to in an evil sense. It was the starter that they would use to leaven their loaves of bread. It caused the rising by deterioration and decay, and so it’s been a type of sin, or hypocrisy. In this case He said, “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”, which is hypocrisy, according to another gospel.

And they reasoned among themselves, saying, Oh, he knows we forgot to bring the bread. And when Jesus perceived what they were thinking, he said unto them, O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves, because you forgot to bring the bread? Don’t you yet understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves and the five thousand, how many baskets did you take up? Don’t you remember the seven loaves and the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? ( Mat 16:7-10 )

Do you think that I am worried because you don’t have bread? Don’t you realize that we’re able to provide the bread? I am not talking about you forgetting to bring bread.

How is it that you do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees? Then they understood how that he was bidding them not to beware of the leaven that is in bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees ( Mat 16:11-12 ).

And now they leave the Sea of Galilee and they come to the upper part of what is known as upper Galilee. The area that is today called Banias. In those days it was Cesarea Philippi. There are the headwaters of the Jordan Rivers, springing out from the base of Mount Herman.

And when Jesus came into the area of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the son of men am? And they said unto him, Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, say that you’re Elijah, others think you’re Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets. And he said unto them, Who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona [or Simon Bar is son, the son of Jonah]: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ( Mat 16:13-18 ).

Now we have one of two choices. The church is built upon Peter, or the church is build upon Peter’s confession, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God.

Now the Catholics assert that the church was built on Peter. There are problems with this. Number one, Jesus said unto him, “Thou art Petros”, which in the Greek is a little stone. And then He declared, “upon this Petras”, which is a giant stone, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The church was not build upon the little stone, but upon the giant rock; “Thou art Petros”, a little stone, “upon this Petras”.

Paul the apostle in 1Co 3:11 ,tells us: “For other foundation can no man lay, then that is laid, which is”, not Simon Peter, but Jesus Christ. “No other foundation can man lay, but that which is”.

I know men have tried to lay another foundation, Peter. But it seems quite obvious that Peter is not the foundation of the church. And it’s not build upon him, but it is build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and Peter’s declaration that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the son of the living God. And that is the true foundation of the church. The church is build upon Jesus Christ. He is the foundation upon which the church stands.

Now the interesting thing to me is that Peter had here, and I am sure he did not realize it, he had here a spiritual revelation. When he said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God!” Jesus said, “All right Peter, flesh and blood it not reveal this unto you, but my father which is in heaven.” Peter you’ve had a spiritual revelation. This didn’t come out of your own chemical juices that flash the little electronic impulse across your brain, this came from God. And I am certain that Peter didn’t realize this that had come from God, because it just came to him, I am sure, as just a flash. Peter as we said was impulsive, and I am sure that when Jesus said, “Who do you say that I am?” He just said impulsively, “You’re the Christ the Son of the living God.” He said all right, blessed are you; you’ve had a revelation from God. “Flesh and blood didn’t reveal this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven”.

God speaks to us in such natural ways, that usually we are not aware that God is speaking to us. We expect God to speak in some supernatural way. We expect to go into a trance and hear the prelude of the angelic choir, and feel all of these tingling sensation, and our hair is standing out, and then we hear, “My child”, God is talking to me. But God speaks to us in such natural ways, and God leads us in such natural ways, there is the beautiful supernatural within the natural. But because we are so dull in our spiritual sensibilities, we are usually not even attune or aware to the fact that it is God speaking to us or God leading us. And that’s just put down to our spiritual dullness.

And there are a lot of times, when you say, “Well, God has never spoken to me, “or, “I never heard the voice of God, never had an experience. “And it’s because you are looking for some kind of super kind of hocus-pocus, the vibrations to come and everything else. But God works in such beautiful, natural ways. And the real ability is discovering the supernatural in the natural. And more important than that, and more difficult than that is to be able to discern the supernatural from the natural.

Now that’s the hardest part. Did this come from God, or did this come from me? God are you speaking to me or is this just something I am dreaming up? And that is difficult. There is no easy way. That is extremely difficult because the supernatural comes in such a natural way. If the supernatural came in a supernatural way, I would have no problem with discernment. But because God, you see, is a superior Trinity, Father, Son and Spirit, I am an inferior trinity, spirit, soul and body. I meet God in the realm of the spirit.

And so God’s Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a son of God. Now my spirit has to bear witness to my consciousness, and when my spirit bears witness to my consciousness, it comes just like a thought from within, an awareness, an inspiration from within. Now I have my own inspirations too at times. Now how do I know if this inspiration is coming from God, or coming from me? Because they flash into my consciousness from the same level as the spirit comes from the area of the subconscious, so does my imagination come from the area of the subconscious. And because it comes to me consciously, the difficulty is to discern. Did this come from my own imagination or did this originate, did this thought actually come from God? Is He the one planning the thought in my mind?

And so here is Peter, he just expresses the thought that flashes in his head, and Jesus said, hey, all right, spiritual revelation Peter. My Father revealed that to you. So Peter has got a role going.

Jesus said,

And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven ( Mat 16:19 ).

We have power as the children of God to bind the forces of darkness, and to loose the work of God. God has given us that authority over these spirit forces, these spiritual entities, that as children of God, we do have authority over them. We can bind these spirit forces and we can loose the work of God.

Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Messiah ( Mat 16:20 ).

The reason being He did not want a premature attempt to acclaim Him. There was a day in which the Messiah was to be revealed. That day came when Jesus made His triumphed entry. At this point He is saying now look, don’t tell anybody. This is a revelation that came from you from God, but don’t tell anybody. Now later on He set the stage, he said “go unto the city and you will find the donkey, bring him to me” ( Mat 21:2 ). And He sat on the donkey, fulfilling the prophesy of Zechariah; “behold thy king cometh unto thee, but he is lowly, he is sitting upon a donkey”( Zec 9:9 ). But now was not the time for the revelation. The perfect time of God had not yet come. So He is saying look, don’t tell anybody yet. No premature kind of forcing of the people, or the people trying to set up the kingdom prematurely.

Now from that time on Jesus began to show to his disciples ( Mat 16:21 ),

At this point, now He reveals Himself. “I am the Messiah.” Peter you are right.

Now the Jewish people had been looking for the Messiah to come and establish the kingdom of God and overthrow the Roman yoke and bondage. And when Jesus acknowledged, “Yes, I am the Messiah, but don’t tell anybody”. He then began to tell them,

now look, I must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and the chief priests and the Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again on the third day. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord [or, Lord, spare yourself] this shall not happen to you. [Peter the rock] And Jesus turned, and said unto Peter, Get thou behind me, Satan: you are an offence unto me: because you can not tell the difference between those things that are of God, and those things that are of men ( Mat 16:21-23 ).

Move over Peter I want to sit down. A problem that I have, the inability to always be able to tell what is of God, and what is of my own heart.

Notice that Peter in one moment has a divine revelation, and in the next moment is expressing Satan’s philosophy. The philosophy of Hell. Spare yourself. “Be that far from thee,” literally, spare thyself, it shall not be to you. The philosophy of Hell, take the easy way. Take the easy path. Escape the cross. The philosophy of Hell is to encourage you to escape the cross, but the cross was important for our Salvation. Without the cross we could not be redeemed and the cross is also important for us, for our spiritual development.

And Satan is saying to us escape the cross, live the easy path, indulge yourself, escape the cross, you don’t want the cross. But it is important that I recognize that I was crucified with Christ, and that old man, the old nature, was there crucified with Him, that I should no longer live unto the flesh, but now live unto the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. But Satan is still saying spare yourself. You don’t want to come to the cross in your own life. Live after your flesh, go ahead, indulge yourself. And Jesus is just pointing to the cross and saying there is no answer except the cross. You must reckon your old nature to be dead, crucified with Christ. You can’t live after the flesh anymore. Paul the apostle said, “how can we, who are dead to the flesh, how can we then be living any longer therein?” ( Rom 8:12 )

So Peter having a divine revelation, then the inspiration of his own heart inspired by Satan, as he expresses the philosophy of Hell, shows what is a common problem with us, the ability to know the difference between when God is speaking and my own heart is speaking to me.

And God help me, I don’t have any easy answers for you. This is a question that I am faced with so many times. People say, “How can I tell if it’s God or me?” And God help me, I don’t know. In my own life I seek to measure it by the scripture. Does it keep with the word of God? If it doesn’t keep with the word of God, then I know it’s not of God, because God is consistent, always consistent, in whatever He says will be in perfect harmony and in keeping with what He has said.

Then said Jesus ( Mat 16:24 ),

You see, Peter had just said, “spare thyself,” and Jesus is saying, Peter that’s a philosophy of Hell.

If any man is gonna come after me [he can’t spare himself], he must deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me ( Mat 16:24 ).

The path of discipleship is the path of self-denial. The path of discipleship is the path of the cross. I must come to the cross in my own life. I must come to the end of my own ambitions, my own goals, my own desires, my own self way, and I must just reckon that old life of the flesh to be dead, crucified with Christ, that I might live a new life after the Spirit in Christ Jesus.

I cannot live the life that Christ would have me to live apart from the power of His Holy Spirit. And I cannot be living after the flesh, and living after the Spirit at the same time. I’ve got to reckon that old man to be dead, and that is a process that I have to do day after day, because the old man is still trying to get on the throne.

Paul said that there is a war that is going on within us. The flesh is lusting against the spirit, and the spirit is against the flesh, and these two are contrary. And we don’t always do even the things we want to do. And Paul expressing his own conflict in Romans seven, said, “and that which I do, I would not, and that which I would not, I do. O, wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death”( Rom 7:24 ).

And all of us having seen the divine ideal and consenting to it, and saying, yes Lord, that is the right life, and that’s the life I want to live, and that’s the life I am going to live, have experienced that weakness of our own flesh. And those things that we promise we would do, we are not doing. And those things we said, ” I never do again,” we are still doing them. Oh, wretched man that I am.

Notice at the end of chapter seven in Romans, Paul has thrown off now any self help formulas. “How can I change?” No longer is that his cry. And as long as you are crying, how can I change, how can I do better? I am looking for another formula. Doesn’t anybody have any dietary aids to help me? Nothing has worked; I’ve tried them all.

He is not looking for another formula. He is not saying, how can I help myself? Doesn’t anybody else have any more ideas? Self-help program, how to be a better me. But he is calling for outside help. He has come to the end. Who shall deliver me? I can’t do it myself. I’ve tried. I’ve failed. Who shall deliver me? And therein is the answer, when we come to the end of ourselves, and we begin to cry out for that outside help. Paul responds to his own question. “Thanks be unto God, that through Jesus Christ we have the victory.” I don’t have to be a defeated Christian. I don’t have to be in bondage to my flesh.

And in chapter seven, you find the I, I, I, all the way through, but in chapter eight, it disappears as he begins to talk about the Spirit, and the glorious, victorious life, that he is now living by the power of the Spirit. There is a cross. If any man is gonna come after me, he is gonna have to deny himself, the self-governed life. He’s got to bring it to the cross, and reckon the old nature, and the old man to be dead, yes, crucified with Christ.

And then Jesus said, “follow me.”

And then He gives a rational, first of all an explanation, then the rational. The explanation is, amplifying,

For whosoever will save his life will lose it ( Mat 16:25 ):

If you’re trying to find life apart from Jesus Christ, you’re gonna end up losing your life eternally.

But whosoever will lose his life for my sake he’ll find it ( Mat 16:25 ).

He’ll find what real life is.

Then the rationale.

For what should it profit a man, if he would gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ( Mat 16:26 )

Now if you can have anything. Here we are now; the genie has popped out of the bottle, and you have three wishes. If you could have anything that you wanted. If there were the magic genie, and you could have anything you desired, anything you wanted, what would it be? What would it be? Now if you were able to achieve or to attain that wish, that desire, but it cost you your soul, what would it then really profit you? What would it profit you if you gained the whole world, but you lost your own soul?

So you see, Jesus is saying, “look, you’ve got to deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me. For what profit is it, if you would gain the whole world, and yet lose your soul?

Secondly,

what will a man give in exchange for his soul? ( Mat 16:26 )

Now as far as God is concerned, your soul is worth more than the whole world. As far as God is concerned, if you were offered the whole world in trade for your soul, and you took the whole world in exchange for your soul, you’d be making a bad deal, a stupid deal. For your soul is eternal. The world is gonna pass away. The world and the lust thereof, he said, is gonna pass away. Your soul is eternal. You’re trading your eternal soul for something that’s just gonna pass away. And as far as the Lord is concerned, you’ve made a bad deal.

Then the question, “what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” What would you take for your soul?

Now every once in a while these plots are developed by the movies of Satan coming and offering a guy to sell out. And the guy names his price. What would you exchange your soul for? You know I am always shocked at what men often give for their souls. I am shocked at how cheap man often values himself, or his eternal life. I see people exchanging their soul for such foolish things, such as pride or pleasure for a moment, or fame, or glory. They sell out so cheap. And it always amazes me that people value their soul so lightly when God places such a tremendous value upon it.

For Jesus said,

The son of man shall come in the glory of his Father [Jesus is going to come again, in the glory of His Father,] with his angels ( Mat 16:27 );

Now He says this time I am gonna be crucified, I am gonna be turned over unto the elders, they’re gonna crucify me, they are gonna kill me. On the third day I am gonna rise, but I am gonna come in the glory of my father, which His angels,

and then he shall reward every man according to their works. Verily I say unto you, There are some who are standing here, which will not taste of death, until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom ( Mat 16:27-28 ).

What does He mean by that? Well it’s unfortunate that there is a chapter break there, because what He meant by that is explained as we go right into chapter seventeen. But with the chapter break there, really they should have made the chapter break at the end of verse Mat 16:27 . So we start our lesson next Sunday night with verse Mat 16:28 . Really it belongs to chapter seventeen of the book of Matthew.

May the Spirit of God take the word of God tonight and continue to minister it to your heart, and to your life, as you deal with those issues of your own soul, and of your own relationship with God, and of your own life, the flesh life verses the spiritual life.

And I pray that God might work in your heart. And if you have not been brought by the Spirit of God to the cross, our place of victory in Jesus Christ, I pray that the Spirit will lead you to the cross this week, that you might come to the end of self, and the self-governed life, and put it there on the cross. Recognize that the old man was crucified, that the body of sin might not rule over you anymore, but that you might be ruled now by the Spirit of God, that new life, that life of victory in Christ.

And some of you, who have been wandering in the wilderness in your Christian experience, has been a wilderness, barren experience, that you might pass over Jordan, and come into the promised land, the life of the Spirit and begin to know the victory and the power of the Spirit in your life, in those areas where your flesh has kept you in defeat before. And so may this be a week of spiritual development in growth, as you continue your walk with Jesus Christ. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Mat 16:1. , the Pharisees and Sadducees) The common people were mostly addicted to the Pharisees, men of rank to the Sadducees (see Act 5:17; Act 23:6); as at present the crowd is more inclined to superstition, the educated to atheism, the two opposite extremes. The Evangelists describe only two attempts of the Sadducees against our Lord (the first of which occurs in the present passage), for they cared less than the Pharisees about religion.- , from heaven) Miracles had been performed from heaven in the times of Moses, Joshua, and Elijah. The reason why the Pharisees were unwilling to accept as Divine the miracles hitherto performed by our Lord, seems to have been this: that since He had not yet produced any sign from heaven, they thought that the others might proceed even from Satan (cf. ch. Mat 12:24; Mat 12:38); and that they considered that a sign from heaven affecting the whole creation, would be greater than any signs performed on the microcosm[707] of man. [Perhaps, also, they were relying on the prophecy of Joel; see Act 2:19.-V. g.] The Sadducees, who disbelieved the existence of any Spirit, and therefore of Satan himself, were of opinion that our Lords power extended only to hunger, and the diseases of the body, not to all greater matters. Both were influenced also by another motive, namely, the desire to witness a variety of miracles, considered merely as sights. Their lust[708] (libido) is indicated by the word , we wish, in ch. Mat 12:38.

[707] Signa in microcosmo, signs performed in the little world, the limited horizon, of which man is the centre.-ED.

[708] The word is, of course, not to be taken in the literal force of its ordinary signification, but rather in the wider sense which it has in English writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (cf. 1Jn 2:16, and Gal 5:17), though there is a special allusion to the epithet adulterous in Mat 12:38, and infra Mat 16:5, and to the common source of the various manifestations of the .-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 16:1-12

18. PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES

UNITE AGAINST JESUS

Mat 16:1-12

1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came.-These two sects were hostile to each other; there were no points in which their doctrines agreed. Enemies to each other as they were, yet they could be friends in order to oppose Jesus; they could unite against Jesus as did Herod and Pilate. (Luk 23:12.) These two religious sects among the Jews combined their hate and opposition to Jesus and henceforth they seek to destroy him. At this time they came “trying him” by asking “him to show them a sign from heaven.” They attempted to seduce him with evil motives into sin they did not really wish to see a sign from heaven, that they might believe in him, or that others might believe in him; but either they wished him to fail to show the sign, or they hoped to prove to the multitude that, by his not producing a sign, he was not the Messiah, and if not the Messiah, he was an impostor and should be put to death. They asked for the “sign from heaven”; they implied that such a sign would prove him to be a prophet. Prophets of old had shown signs; Moses, manna (Exo 16:4; John 6 31);Samuel, thunder (1Sa 12:16-18); Isaiah, a change of the dial (Isa 38:8). Jesus had more than equaled those prophets, so these Pharisees and Sadducees had already sufficient signs. The heavens were opened at his baptism; miraculous bread had been eaten by the multitudes after he had blessed it; these were sufficient and it was presumption on their part to ask him to do more.

[The Pharisees and Sadducees with full knowledge of all the miracles wrought by Jesus, came to him, tempting him, and asked that he would show them a sign from heaven. Jesus refused to be put on trial by men; he refused to work a miracle for them, but pointed them forward to his death, burial, and resurrection, the sign of all signs, prefigured in the case of Jonah. This is quoted by the pretenders who have never wrought a sign and point forward to no sign in the future as excuse for their failure to do what they claim.]

2-4 But he answered and said unto them.-Jesus in replying to the Pharisees and Sadducees revealed to them and others that their motives were impure. They could foretell the weather by the clouds and indications peculiar to their climate, and by the very same sign of redness in the sky, at one time say it would be fair weather, again foul weather. The condition of the weather, as they claimed, could be determined at different times of the day by the appearances in the heaven. Whether their interpretations were correct and a true forecast of weather conditions is not affirmed nor denied by Jesus he simply takes them on their own claims and shows their inconsistency. The Jews even at that time published almanacs, prognosticating the rains of the coming year; they did not have the scientific knowledge that “weather forecasters” have today; yet they claimed with equal positiveness to give correct iinterpretations. Jesus simply said to them that they were men of average sagacity in judging the weather signs in the sky, hence they should judge with equal sagacity the signs in the moral heavens-the sign which appeared with respect to his coming. When men ignore such signs as they had done, it was of no use to give them other signs.

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.- They were “evil” because they were seeking to destroy him; they were “adulterous” because they had left Jehovah and his prophets and were guided by the traditions of men-they simply had given their love and affection to their own doctrines rather than to the law of God; this made them “adulterous.” “There shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah.” (Mat 12:38-40.) Mark says, “He sighed deeply in his spirit.” (Mar 8:12.) He was grieved by their hardness of heart and the certainty of their condemnation. Jesus left them to themselves without further reproof or remonstration. He had briefly referred them to his previous illustration of Jonah.

They came to the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee to the town of Bethsaida. The following conversation occurred in the ship as they were sailing, for they had only “one loaf” of bread with them. (Mar 8:14-21.) They could not get other supply of bread now until they landed; this gave Jesus the opportunity to teach the following lesson: “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducess.” His disciples did not understand to what he referreed; so “they reasoned among themselves, saying, We took no bread.” His disciples were often brought into contact with the influence and conversations of the Pharisees and the Sadducees when Jesus was not present. (Mat 15:12-20.) The disciples were somewhat disconcerted because of their oversight in not taking bread. The Pharisees forbade their disciples buying bread of heathens and Samaritans; Jesus’ disciples had not planned to buy bread of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, hence they were confused as to what Jesus meant. Jesus knew their confusion and reasoning in their hearts, and said, “0 ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have no bread?” He did not refer to literal bread as they had understood him; he asked them if they did not remember “the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets” were taken up; again he called their attention to his feeding the four thousand with “the seven loaves.” He then declared that they should have understood him when he said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Then understood they that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.—The evil principle of the Pharisees had changed and corrupted the law of God. The spirit of their teaching is the point warned against. (Luk 12:1.) “Teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” means the body of instruction and discipline of these sects. The system of instruction taught by Jesus is called “his doctrine” and that taught by his apostles is called “the apostles’ teaching.” (Act 2:42.) “Doctrines” (Mat 15:9) are the opinions of men taught on special subjects; “doctrines” is the whole system and body of the teaching. The system of the Pharisees was corrupt in the mass, like leaven, it puffed up the heart. The Pharisees and Sadducees had rejected the miracles of Jesus; they had ascribed his mighty power to Satan; their cavilling in demanding a sign from heaven; all these furnished Jesus with the occasion to warn his disciples against “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” With all Jews, leaven was the symbol of hypocrisy, vanity, and pride; hence, Jesus warns his disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

What a very wonderful fact in the life and ministry of Jesus is His power of suppressing the marvelous powers He possessed. He never used them save in divine wisdom and love. How easily He could have given a sign which would have startled and overwhelmed. It would have been wasted so far as the purpose of His life and ministry, the establishment of the Kingdom of heaven, were concerned. This accounts for the solemn word to the disciples which they were so slow to comprehend, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Here again notice the blindness of these disciples. It really looks as though the two miracles of feeding had impressed them with the importance of taking “loaves,” rather than with being with Christ. Thus do men put the emphasis in the wrong place.

Now the King is rejected! Here is the first hint of a new departure. All the principles and privileges of the Kingdom are to be embodied in a new society among men, the Church. The creation of the new society is the outcome of the refusal of men to accept the King. That refusal will presently be culminated in the Cross. That Cross, then, is to be the way of the creation of the Church. So the King begins to speak of His coming passion (verse Mat 16:21). From this His loyal subjects shrink. They are as yet subjects of the King only. The wisdom and love of God are beyond their present comprehension, and they tremble and protest. Therefore came the searching word to them. Members of the Church, those who will follow Him henceforth during the period of His rejection, must in the necessity of the case do so by the way of the Cross. The best and only preparation is that they should deny self, and themselves go to the place of crucifixion. From this time these men were amazed, and estranged, and followed afar, until at Pentecost they were baptized into a vital union with their Lord.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

(M) 16:1. And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, tempting Him, and asked Him to show them a sign out of heaven.] Mk. has: And the Pharisees went out, and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, tempting Him. For the request for a sign, see 12:38. = to beseech, cf. on 15:23. The editor substitutes his favourite for Mk.s , of which the precise reference is obscure. Whence did they go out?

2. And He answered and said to them.] Mk. has: And having groaned in His spirit, He saith. For the omission of , see on 15:29. The editor here inserts two verses (but see critical note) which are not in Mk.

(E ?) When it is evening, you say, (It will be) fair weather: for the heaven is red.]

(E) 3. And in the morning (you say), To-day (will be) stormy: for the heaven is red and angry. The face of the heaven you know how to discern; but the sign of the times ye are unable.] For similar ideas differently worded, cf. Luk 12:54-56.

(M) 4. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; and a sign shall not be given to it, save the sign of Jonah.] Mk. has: Why does this generation seek () a sign? Verily I say to you, A sign shall not be given to this generation. Mt. assimilates to 12:39.

4. And leaving them, He went away.] Mk. has: And leaving () them, again having embarked, He went away to the other side. Mt. transfers to the next verse.

1-4. Mt. and Luk 11:16, Luk 11:29 agree against Mk. in the following:-

, Mat_1 = , Luk_16.

, Mat_4, Lk 29.

, Mat_4, Lk 29.

2. – ] C D al. Om. B V X S1 S2. The clause can hardly be genuine here. It seems to be a gloss modelled on Luk 12:54-56.-] is used of the dulness of the sky in Polyb. iv. 21. 1. occurs in the LXX = Eze 27:35, Eze 28:19 A, 32:10. seems to occur only in Byzantine writers. occurs in the LXX, Lev 13:19, Lev 13:42, Lev 13:43, Lev 13:49, Lev 13:14:37, B2 R.

(M) 5. And the disciples came to the other side, and forgot to take bread.] Mk. has: And they forgot to take bread, and had not with them in the boat save one loaf. In Mk. the dialogue which follows presumably took place in the boat during the crossing of the lake. Mt. by inserting before in Mk v. 13 seems to wish to make it clear that the subject of did not include Christ. The disciples forgot, not the Lord. His insertion has the further effect that the whole of what follows took place, not during the crossing, but when they had reached the other side. It is necessary, therefore, to omit Mk 14b.

(M) 6. And Jesus said to them, Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.] Mk. has: And He was charging them, saying, Take heed, beware () of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.- ] see on 10:17. Luk 12:1 also has in this connection.- ] Mk. has . It is doubtful what Mk. intended his readers to understand by the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod. Possibly the plots of the Pharisees and the Herodians to kill Christ, cf. Mar 3:6. Mt. has understood to mean false teaching, and therefore substitutes for .

(M) 7. And they were reasoning in (or amongst) themselves, saying, (He says it) because we took no bread.] Mk. has: And they were reasoning with one another because they have no bread.1 The disciples suppose that the Lords warning against the leaven of the Pharisees had some reference to the fact that they were without sufficient provision, as though He were advising them to be on their guard against purchasing poisoned loaves.- ] for Mk.s , as often.- ] occurs again in 21:25.

(M) 8. And Jesus, perceiving it, said, Why do you reason in (or amongst) yourselves, O ye of little faith, because you have no bread?] Mk. has: And perceiving it, He saith to them, Why do you reason because you have no bread?- ] for Mk.s , as often.-] for Mk.s , as often. Mk. omits and . is also inserted by Mt. in 8:26, where, as in the next verse, He is softening a rebuke administered to the disciples. It occurs also in 6:30, 14:31. Here seems to be trust, confidence, assurance in the power of Christ to provide food as He had done before.

(M) 9, 10. Do you not understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?] The editor rewrites Mk vv. 17-20 in such a way as to avoid the questions in Christs mouth (see notes on 8:28, 14:17, 15:29, 16:9-10, 17:11, 14, 17, 18:1, 19:7, 26:7, 8), and to soften the rebuke of the disciples; cf. 8:26, note. Mk. has: Do you not yet understand nor perceive? Have ye your heart hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? And having ears, hear ye not? And do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves to the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say to Him, Twelve. When the seven to the four thousand, of how many baskets took ye up (their) fulness of fragments? And they say to Him, Seven. Mt. three times omits references to the hardness of the hearts of the disciples; Mar 3:5, Mar 6:52, Mar 8:17.

(M) 11. How do ye not understand?] Mk. has: And He was saying to them, Do ye not yet understand?

(E) The editor here adds the explanatory that not about bread I spake to you, but beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(M) 12. Then understand they that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees]. This explanation, which is connected with the substitution of in v. 6 for , has little to commend it. Whatever may originally have been meant by the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod, it can hardly have been teaching. The connection of the Pharisees with Herod suggests rather that the leaven symbolised the hostility and enmity of the Pharisees and of Herod; cf. Mar 3:6. For a similar note in favour of the disciples, see 17:13.

12. ] Om. , D S1 S2 a b ff2. This is probably right. S2 assimilates to the preceding verse by adding of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. c B L add ; C E al .

13. The editor here omits Mar 8:22-26. For this omission, see on 15:29. See also Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 93.

(M) And Jesus having come into the districts of Csarea Philippi, asked His disciples, saying, Whom say men that (I) Son of Man am?] Mk. has: And Jesus and His disciples went out into the villages of Csarea Philippi, and on the road He asked () His disciples, saying to them, Whom do men say that I am?- ] for Mk.s , as often. Mt. substitutes for Mk.s to form an antithesis to v. 16 .

(M) 14. And they said, Some (say) John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.] Mk. has: And they spake to Him, saying that John the Baptist, and others Elijah, but others that one of the prophets. Mt., as usual, omits Mk.s , and corrects into to harmonise with the other accusatives. The insertion of Jeremiah shows acquaintance with Jewish belief in the possibility of the appearance of the illustrious dead; cf. 2 Mac 15:13ff. where Onias and Jeremiah appear to Judas Maccabee; 2 Est 2:18: For thy help I will send My servants, Isaiah and Jeremiah. For the expectation of Elijah, see on 11:14. Mt.s is intended to ease the Greek. For in the third clause, see Blass, p. 179; Win.-Schm. p. 244.

(M) 15. He saith to them, But you, whom say ye that I am?] Mk. has: And He asked them, But you, whom say ye that I am?

(M) 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.] Mk. has: Peter answered and saith to Him, Thou art the Christ. Mt.s is explanatory. It has caused the substitution of for in v. 13 to form an antithesis.

13-16. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in the following:

, Mat_14, Luk_19. Mk. has .

-, Mat_16, Luk_20. Mk. has .

, Mat_16 = , Luk_20.

17-19. The editor here inserts three verses which are not in Mk. For the prominence given to S. Peter, cf. 10:2, 14:28-31, 15:15.

(L) 17. And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal (it) to thee, but My Father who is in the heavens.]-] for the form, see on 4:18. is the Aramaic son, and (cf. Joh 1:43) = = Jouah as a shortened form of = John, is not found elsewhere. See Dalm. Gram. p. 179, Anm. 5.- ] is very common in the Talmud and Midrashim as an expression for humanity as contrasted with God; cf. B. Berakhoth 28b a king of flesh and blood, contrasted with the King of kings, the fear of flesh and blood contrasted with the fear of heaven.- ] see on 5:16.

(L) 18. And I also say to thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.] The is equivalent to the object of in v. 17 Flesh and blood did not reveal it, i.e. the Messiahship and divine Sonship of Christ. Upon this rock of revealed truth I will build my Church. The play upon and means, You have given expression to a revealed truth, and your name suggests a metaphorical name for it. It shall be the or rock upon which the Church shall stand. In other words, it shall be the central doctrine of the Churchs teaching. The idea that the divine Christ is the keystone of the new edifice of the Christian Church, finds expression elsewhere in the parallel metaphor of the corner-stone in 1 P 2:4-8, Eph 2:20.-] As the Evangelist wrote the word, he, no doubt, had in mind the Christian society for which had long been a current title (Acts, S. Paul, Hebrews, S. James, S. Johns Epp., and Rev.). There is no difficulty at all in supposing that Christ used some Aramaic phrase or word which would signify the community or society of His disciples, knit together by their belief in His divine Sonship, and pledged to the work of propagating His teaching.

] Against the Church the powers of evil shall not prevail. But just as the Church has been compared to a building, so, too, the powers of evil. These have their metropolis in the fortress of Hades. For Hades symbolised as a strong fort with barred gates, cf: Isa 38:10 the gates of Sheol ( ), Job 17:16 the bars of Sheol, Job 38:17 the gates of death, Psa 9:18, Psa 107:18, Wis 16:13, 3 Mac 5:51, Ps.-Sol. 16:2. The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church is a pictorial way of saying, The organised powers of evil shall not prevail against the organised society which represents My teaching.

(L) 19. I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in the heavens, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens.]

] The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1, 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, the kingdom of the heavens can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself: He that hath the key of David, that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none shall open. The words are modelled on Isa 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none. Just so in B. Sanh. 113a it is said that the keys of birth, of rain, and of the resurrection of the dead are in the hand of God, and are delegated to no one.

It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter. We must, however, be careful not to identify the with the kingdom. There is nothing here to suggest such identification. The Church was to be built on the rock of the revealed truth that Jesus was the Messiah, the Divine Son. To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank: Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 18:28: The , on the other hand, was the society of Christs disciples, who were to announce the coming of the kingdom, who were to wait for it, and who would enter into it when it came. The Church was built upon the truth of the divine Sonship. It was to proclaim the coming kingdom. In that kingdom Peter should hold the keys which conferred authority. In the next clause this authority is described under a different metaphor. To bind and to loose, in Jewish legal terminology, are equivalent to forbid and to allow, to declare forbidden and to declare allowed; see Lightfoot, Her. Heb. in loc. The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character. In the coming kingdom Peter was to exercise this two-sided authority.- ] The idiom on earth, in heaven, is simply an emphatic way of stating that the action referred to would be permanent in its results: Whatsoever thou bindest shall remain bound, shall never be loosed. Cf. B. Joma 39a: If a man sanctifies himself a little, he will be sanctified much; if (he sanctifies himself) below, he will be sanctified above; if (he sanctifies himself) in this world, he will be sanctified in the world to come. The contrast, therefore, between earth and heaven is merely literary. The words throw no light upon the earthly or heavenly position of the future kingdom. But nothing in this Gospel suggests any other locality for it than the renewed (cf. 19:28) earth.

17-19. The whole passage, therefore, might be paraphrased thus: Happy are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because the truth to which you have given utterance was revealed to you by God Himself. Your name is Petros, and this truth is a rock () upon which I will build My Church. It will be the foundation truth of the belief of My disciples, i.e. of those who await the kingdom of heaven. In that kingdom you shall hold an exalted position, having the keys of administrative power, and the right to legislate for the needs of its citizens.

As an alternative, we might interpret with special reference to the function of a key in opening shut doors. Cf. Mat 23:13 You shut the kingdom of the heavens before men: for you enter not, nor suffer those who are entering to go in; Luk 11:52 You took away the key of knowledge, i.e. refused to open the doors of the kingdom of knowledge to others. woe will then mean: I will give to you the right of admitting others to the kingdom. The Evangelist may very possibly have had in mind the part taken by S. Peter in the early days of the Church in admitting Gentiles to its privileges, just as in the binding and loosing he may have had in mind the prominent part taken by S. Peter in regulating the affairs of the infant Church.

It is possible that originally the keys described the effect of S. Peters insight into divine truth. His perception that Jesus was the Divine Son, was a key which admitted him into the kingdom. By bringing others to the same faith, he would open for them, too, the kingdom, in contrast to the scribes and Pharisees, who locked it in the face of those who wished to enter, 23:13. But, if so, the Evangelist by inserting v. 18 before v. 19, and by combining the saying about the keys with the saying about binding and loosing, has obscured the original meaning. In his connection the keys are not equivalent to S. Peters faith, but represent a privilege promised to the Apostle as a reward for it. Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggests irresistibly that the keys of the kingdom mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the binding and loosing which immediately follow. The latter saying occurs again with the verbs in the plural in 18:18. This may be its more original form. If so, the Evangelist is here, as elsewhere, compiling detached sayings, fitting them into contexts which seemed to him to be suited to them. If we remove, therefore, 19b as alien to the context, we are justified in asking whether the remaining three verses originally formed part of this incident. V. 17 is in every respect suitable to the context. V. 18 might seem to betray the hand of the Evangelist in the phrase , which certainly seems to reflect ideas which presuppose the history and growth of Christianity in the early Apostolic age. But if Christ, wishing to commend S. Peters faith, drew from his name a metaphor, the rock, to symbolise the value and importance of the revealed truth to which S. Peter had given utterance, this metaphor of the rock would suggest the phrase to build rather than any such expression as My disciples shall stand. may well be the equivalent of some Aramaic expression for community, society, school, band of disciples. Further, the idea thus gained of the Christian body as a building firmly founded, would suggest the use of the common phrase gates of Hades to describe the forces of evil which would attack it. And it is possible that this latter phrase would suggest the keys of the kingdom of the heavens as a term expressing some privilege to be given to S. Peter. The real difficulty in supposing that vv. 17-19a were spoken on this occasion, lies in the vagueness of the idea thus expressed. What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one. S. Paul bore the burden of it. Of course we might, without identifying Church and Kingdom, give the words some such meaning as this. The truth of the divine Sonship shall be the keynote of the doctrine of My disciples in their work of preaching the coming kingdom. All to whom this truth is revealed will have in it a key to the kingdom, and will be able to admit others to it, i.e. make them members of the society which waits for the kingdom. In this case S. Peter would be mentioned on the ground that it was he who had given utterance to the divinely revealed truth, with the implication that all to whom it should be revealed would have the same privileges. But in view of the fact that v. 19b is almost certainly added to this context and modified by the Evangelist so as to apply specially to S. Peter, it is difficult not to be drawn to the conclusion that the whole of the passage, vv. 17-19, inserted in S. Mark, is the work of the Evangelist. The motive must have been to emphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christian body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself. Throughout the Gospel the twelve Apostles are everywhere represented in a more favourable light than in Mk. Rebukes addressed to them by Christ are softened, see on 8:26, 16:9. Statements that they did not understand, or did not know what to say, or disputed, are passed over, cf. Mar 6:52, Mar 6:9:5, Mar 6:10, Mar 6:32, Mar 6:33, Mar 6:34, Mar 6:14:40. On the other hand, it is expressly said that they did understand, Mat 16:12, Mat 17:13. They had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:28. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was , 10:2. He had shown remarkable ventures of faith, 14:29-31. To him Christ had given the keys, and the power of binding and loosing. It is, therefore, possible that 16:17-19 are in their present order and connection the work of the Evangelist compiling detached sayings in honour of the great Apostle. The Jewish colouring in these sayings is very remarkable; , , , , , the binding and loosing, the literary contrast of earth and heaven, were probably all commonplaces of Jewish theological thought. The single word alone lies open to the suspicion of betraying Christian influence, and it may easily be explained as representing a more specifically Jewish or less Christian word.

(M) 20. Then He charged the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.] Mk. has: And He charge d them that they should speak to no man about Him.-] see on 2:7.-] Mk. here has , but in 5:48, 7:36, 9:9. The verb occurs only here in Mt. B.* D S1 S2 have .- ] Mk. has , but the insertion of vv. 17-19 makes the explicit reference to the disciples necessary.- ] for Mk.s . For similar explanatory glosses, see v. 22, 26:67, 73.

(M) 21. From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and sufer much from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again on the third day.]- ] Mk. has . Cf. 4:17. The Galilean mission to the common people is over. Henceforth the Lord devotes Himself mainly to instructing His disciples. The for Mk.s assists the emphasis.-] Mk. has , which Mt. has anticipated in v. 13. The editor inserts , or rather substitutes it for Mk.s , which is involved in . This carries with it the alteration of into . D has .- ] for Mk.s . The resurrection took place, according to tradition, on the Sunday after the Friday of the Crucifixion. The after three days of the Lords prediction was, therefore, interpreted as equivalent to on the third day, counting the day of Crucifixion as the first. So S. Paul (1Co 15:4), the writer of the Acts (10:40), and the first and third Evangelists. Mar 8:31, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34 and Mat 12:40, Mat 27:63 retain the three days. The order is striking, because it is an unusual order. The editor has borrowed it from Mk. (so Lk.) Mk. adds here (or , k S1 Tat.), which Mt. omits as being of doubtful meaning.

(ME) 22. And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, (God) be gracious to Thee, Lord: that shall not happen to Thee.] Mk. has: And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him. The words from are an explanatory gloss of the editor to explain Mk.s ; see on v. 20.- ] Cf. = 1Ch 11:19, 1Ch 11:2 S 20:20; Letronne, Recueitl des Inscripts grecques et latines de lEgypte, ii. p. 286, , : (Sarapis) help thee, Alypius; or with the subject inserted, ib. 221, , quoted by Moulton, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 436.- ] For the fut. ind. after , see Blass, p. 209; Moulton, p. 190.-] occurs only here in Mt. and Mk. Its presence in Mt. is due to Mk.

(M) 23. And He turned, and said to Peter, Go behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block to Me: because thou thinkest not the things of God, but the things of men.] So Mk., without , which is inserted by the editor to explain the use of the harsh with reference to the Apostle. Mk. also has for (for , which Mk. never uses, cf. 9:22), and adds , which seems to emphasise the publicity of the rebuke. The editor omitted it for this reason, or because he missed the point of it here. , see on 3:11.- , …] seems to mean: Your ideas of the Messiah and His destiny are superficial. You can imagine a career of splendour for Him, but fail to understand that suffering and death are a part of the career planned out for Him by God.

] So * B. 13; , c C; , D latt; , E F al Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2566 c, suggests that the original may have been = I am a stumbling-block [it seems], to Thee! But suggests that the following is used of S. Peter, not of the Lord. In trying to set aside thoughts of the coming Passion, Peter was at once Christs adversary and His stumbling-block. And this interpretation alone explains the following .

21-23. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in the following: – , Mat_21, Luk_22.

21. ] So c b C al S2; , * B.*. The latter can hardly be original. It is the work of a scribe who wished to emphasise the fact that this was a turning-point in Christs ministry and teaching.

(M) 24. Then Jesus said to His disciples, If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.] Mk. has: And having called the multitude, with His disciples, He said to them, etc. For the saying about the cross, see note on 10:38, where another form of the saying has been inserted. Here the meaning clearly is that the disciples must be ready to face death in allegiance to their Master, and after His example. The cross need mean no more than violent death; see on 10:38.

(M) 25. For whosoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it.] See on 10:39.–] See on 11:27.- ] Mk. adds . For Mt.s omission of one of two synonymous clauses, see on 8:16; and cf. 19:29 for Mk.s .-] Mk. . Mt. assimilates to 10:39 in order to form an antithesis to . For antithesis in Mt., see on 15:2, 3, 4, 5, 19:8, 9.

(M) 26. For what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world, but be deprived of his life? or what will a man give as exchange for his life?] Mk. has: For what will it profit a man to gain the whole world and to be deprived of his life? For what would a man give as exchange for his life? The meaning seems to be: Suppose a man to shrink from martyrdom, he will, indeed, save his physical life. But he will lose the higher life of the soul. To gain the whole world, and to lose this higher life, is a profitless proceeding; because this higher life cannot be purchased. No money can buy it.-] For Mt.s preference for passives, see on 4:1.-] is to fine or confiscate; so in the passive, to suffer confiscation or loss of; cf. Php 3:8 .-] is the price paid for anything; cf. Ecclus 6:15 , 26:14 , there is nothing worth so much as, nothing which can be paid in exchange for, a well-instructed soul. in Mk. is the aor. conj.; cf. Blass, p. 49; Moulton, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 37; Gram. p. 55. Mt. substitutes the easier fut. ind.

Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in this verse in the following -, Mt. = -, Lk. Mk. has -.

(M) 27. For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels. And then He shall give to each man according to his work.] Mk. has: For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man shall be ashamed of him when He shall come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels. Mt. has already inserted words parallel to the first clause of Mk. in 10:33. He therefore omits them here, and makes of a main clause, -. , which here emphasises the nearness of the coming, is characteristic of Mat 17:12; Mat 17:22 – for Mk.s , 20:17, 22, 24:6. He then adds, by way of compensation for the omitted clause of Mk., .- ] For the glory of the Messiah; cf. Enoch 61:8 The Lord of Spirits placed the Elect One on the throne of glory, 62:2 The Lord of Spirits seated Him on the throne of His glory; and Test. Lev_18Lev_18.

, …] For the conception of the Messiah in glory judging men after their works, cf. Enoch 45:3 On that day Mine Elect One will sit on the throne of glory, and make choice amongst their deeds, 69:27 And He sat on the throne of His glory, and the sum of judgement was committed to Him, the Son of Man. The terms seem to be borrowed from Ps 61:13 ; cf. Pro 24:12, Ecclus 32:24.

(M) 28. Verily I say to you, That there are some of those who stand here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.] Mk. has: And He was saying to them, Verily I say to you, that there are some here of the bystanders who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God come with power. The of Mk. may be a hint that this saying was not spoken on the same occasion as the preceding. However that may be, Mt. Omits , and connects the words closely with the foregoing. By substituting for , he makes it clear that what the some of those who stand here will see is the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of His Father, or in His kingdom. That is to say, he believed that that coming would take place in the lifetime of some of Christs contemporaries. The same belief finds expression in 10:23 and 24:34, and has an important bearing on the date of the Gospel.-] see on 5:18.- ] was a Jewish phrase; cf. Schlatter, Die Sprache and Heimat des Vierten Evangelisten, p. 35. It occurs in Joh 8:52, Heb 2:9.

M the Second Gospel.

E editorial passages.

al i.e. with other uncial MSS.

X passages in which Mt. and Lk. agree closely, borrowed from an unknown source or sources.

S Syriac version: Sinaitic MS.

S Syriac version: Curetonian.

Polyb. Polybius.

1 . So B. D has , and a b i q haberent. S1 has there is no bread. A C al assimilate to Mt. by substituting and inserting . But Mk.s is ambiguous. The clause might be rendered, They were disputing (cf. 9:34) because they have no bread, without any apparent reference to the leaven of the preceding verse, which does not appear again in Mk.s narrative. Mt. by inserting and changing into , connects the reasoning with the preceding saying, and so prepares for his insertion of vv. 11, 12.

O quotations from the Old Testament borrowed from a collection of Messianic prophecies. See pp.61 f.

L the Matthan Logia.

Win.-Schm. Winer-Schmiedel.

Dalm. Dalman.

B. Babylonian Talmud.

Ps.-Sol. The Psalms of Solomon.

Tat. Tatian.

Class. Rev. Classical Review.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Beware of Evil Influences

Mat 16:1-12

The signs of the times in our own day are much as they were in that. Still men are lovers of pleasure rather than of God. Still they who will live a godly life must be prepared to suffer persecution. The forms of hatred and dislike of the gospel change, but the hatred of the Cross is as inveterate as ever. The sign of Jonah was his resurrection to take up his cry against Nineveh; the resurrection of Jesus is the Fathers seal of endorsement. See to it that He shall rise, not only in Josephs garden, but in thy heart! That is the best evidence of the truth of our holy faith.

There is abroad today much teaching which may be compared to leaven. The germs of hurtful and false doctrine are as thick as microbes. Propagated by the agencies of the spoken address and the written page, they produce fermentation and unrest in the young and unstable. We must judge these pernicious teachings, not by their pleasant and innocent appearance, but by their effect on heart and character.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

We now come to another great turning point in Matthews gospel. Hitherto the Lord has been dealing entirely with matters relating to the kingdom of heaven. Now for the first time He speaks of the church, though not entirely as dissociated from the kingdom, but rather as connected with it in the new phase it is to assume after His rejection and His ascension to heaven. In Peters great confession we have the sure foundation upon which the church was to be built. The earthly kingdom, or, rather, the heavenly kingdom to be built on the earth, is to be founded upon the truth that Christ is the Son of David (2Sa 7:12-13). The nations of the world are to share in the blessings of that kingdom because Christ is the Son of Abraham, the Seed in whom all peoples shall be blessed (Gen 22:18). But the church of our Lord Jesus Christ is built upon the precious truth that He is the Son of the living God.

To say that Peter is in any sense the rock upon which this divine edifice, built of living stones, rests, is to deny what he himself teaches in the second chapter of his first epistle (vv. 4-7). Paul, too, adds his testimony that there can be no other foundation save Jesus Christ Himself (1Co 3:11). This is that foundation of the apostles and prophets to which he refers in Eph 2:20.

Before we come to consider the revelation given in regard to these things there are two sections of the chapter that demand our attention. First, our Lords rebuke of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came asking for a sign from heaven.

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired Him that He would show them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them. When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And He left them, and departed, (vv. 1-4)

These Pharisees and Sadducees were violently opposed to one another in regard to almost every doctrine of Scripture, but they were united in their deliberate rejection of the Lord Jesus, Gods promised King. Being familiar with the prophets, they knew that certain signs had been indicated therein which were to take place before the manifestation of the Messiah; so they came to Jesus, without any desire to know the truth, but simply as tempting or testing Him, asking that He show them a sign from heaven. They meant a sign indicating that the messianic age was close at hand. Jesus rebuked them for their unbelief. They were quite able to read the signs of the heavens in regard to matters of weather or climatic conditions, but they were absolutely unable to discern the signs of the times. Had their eyes been opened, they would have realized that all the miraculous works of Jesus were in themselves the signs of the age to come and told of the presence of the King. Messiah was in their midst. No other sign would be given to them until the sign of the prophet Jonas. He does not explain here what was meant by that sign, but He tells us in 12:40, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. So that the sign of the prophet Jonas would be the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Alas, when that day came, even that miraculous sign failed to convince these legalistic, hypocritical gainsayers; they were shut up to unbelief and hardness of heart.

And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, He said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (vv. 5-12)

After the Lords colloquy with these religious leaders, the disciples came to Jesus, indicating that they had forgotten to take bread. In His answer to them He brought in a warning which is not only important in itself, but also helps to serve as a key as to the meaning of leaven in Scripture, as we have seen in our study of chapter 13.

When the disciples acknowledged that they had forgotten to bring bread with them, Jesus said to them, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. His followers did not understand what He meant by this and thought He was warning them against accepting bread from these false teachers. They said among themselves, It is because we have taken no bread. When Jesus perceived how they were reasoning He rebuked them, saying, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Then He reminded them how readily He had provided bread for the five thousand and also for the four thousand, and how much had been left over in each instance. In view of this, they should have realized that He was not speaking of material bread which He could supply so abundantly, but He was warning them to beware of the leaven, which is explained in verse 12, as the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. The leaven of the Pharisees is explained in Luk 12:1 as hypocrisy. With this was coupled self-righteousness. The leaven of the Sadducees was false doctrine: they denied the authority of all the Old Testament except the books of Moses, and they did not believe in spiritual realities. Such evil teachings work like leaven, spreading throughout any company beginning to tolerate them; hence, the warning of the Lord to beware of them.

Now we come to Peters great confession of Christ as the Son of the living God.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ, (vv. 13-20)

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Speculation was rife as to the actual identity of Jesus, and whether He was only what He seemed to be or possibly a reincarnation of another. The Lord wished to put His disciples on record as to their apprehension of the mystery of His person (1Ti 3:16). The question was not asked for His own enlightenment but because He desired to elicit a clear, definite confession from His followers, as He was soon to go with them to Jerusalem, where He was to be crucified. It was all-important that they should know Him in the reality of His divine-human personality.

Some say that thou art They at once began to tell how various ones supposed Him to be John the Baptist, risen from the dead, as Herod had thought, or Elijah, who was to herald the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD (Mai. 4:5-6); or Jeremiah, who many supposed was to reappear and was to fulfill the great prophecy of Isaiah 53, basing this on Jer 11:19 as explaining Isa 53:7; or one of the prophets, possibly that prophet whose coming Moses had predicted in Deu 18:18.

But whom say ye that I am? Had they learned, through observation and the Spirits illumination, who He really was? This definite question called for a clear, positive confession, and it was this He desired to obtain from them.

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter spoke for them all, though no one of the rest seems to have had the boldness to declare his faith openly. Christ and Messiah are synonymous. Both mean the Anointed. It was the title given prophetically to the coming Deliverer (Isa 61:1). Of old, prophets, priests, and kings were all anointed. Jesus holds the three offices, for all of which He was anointed by the Spirit of God (Act 10:38). In His human nature, He is the Son of David, the Messiah, the Christ. As to His divine nature He is the Son of the living God.

It is all-important that men have a right understanding of the nature and person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Only as He is recognized by faith as the Son of the living God, coequal with the Eternal Father, do we dare trust our souls to Him as our Savior. There is an unbridgeable gulf between the highest of all created beings and the Creator Himself. The church of Christ is not founded on any mere man, no matter how holy, enlightened, or devoted he may be. It rests securely upon the revelation of the truth so clearly declared by Simon Peter. And just as the church is built upon this blessed reality, so does the salvation of each individual soul depend upon the fact that God became Man in order to give Himself a ransom for our sins.

Flesh and blood hath not revealed it. Not by mere intuition, or by logical reasoning had Simon Peter come to this conclusion. It was God the Father who had enlightened his understanding and revealed to him the truth as to the person of the Lord and His divine sonship (Mat 11:27).

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. This rock is Christ (1Co 10:4). He it is on whom the church is built. Peter means a stone, or a piece of a rock. He was to be built into the church. The church was not to be built on him. Against the true church, built upon Christ as the Son of the living God, the gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail. No effort of Satan and his hosts can avail to destroy the church or to stay the progress of its testimony. The only real hindrance comes from within the church itself as other Scripture passages show. Note, He does not say, I have been building or I am building, but I will build. The assembly, that which He calls my church, was still in the future. The building of this spiritual temple did not begin until after He had ascended to heaven, and the Spirit of God came as the promised Comforter. In this house Peter was to be a living stone. The name given him by Jesus means a stone, a piece of rock. But on this rock, that is, this great truth just enunciated, His church was to be built. Christ, not Peter, is the Foundation-Rock on which the church is built.

The keys of the kingdom of heaven. Having spoken of the church, Jesus reverts to the kingdom, whose course He had previously outlined in the parables of chapter 13. The keys of this kingdom were entrusted to Peter. Note, He did not give Peter the keys to heaven. Such a notion is the grossest superstition. A key is designed to open a door. On Pentecost Peter opened the door of the kingdom to the Jews; in Corneliuss house he opened the door to the Gentiles.

Tell no man. This may seem strange. But as it was now evident that Israel had rejected Him, it was not the time to proclaim His messiahship and declare that He was the Christ. When He was raised from the dead, Peter declared this truth with power (Act 2:36).

From this time on, the Lord began to speak more and more concerning His ultimate rejection by the Jews, His sufferings and death, and His subsequent resurrection. But His disciples were very slow to comprehend what He meant; their minds were still set upon the coming kingdom, and they could not imagine the King being put to death.

From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many thing of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works, (vv. 21-27)

From that time forth. A new period of our Lords ministry had begun. Henceforth, He stressed His rejection and approaching death, to be followed by His resurrection.

Be it far from thee, Lord. Now we have a solemn example of how easily one who has been divinely illuminated may fall into serious error if acting on merely human principles.

Get thee behind me, Satan. What a poor rock Peter would have been on which to build the church! He became unwittingly the mouthpiece of Satan when he advised Jesus against going to the cross. It is strange that anyone could teach in one breath that Peter was the first pope and in the next that the pope is infallible. For, while he was a most devoted and earnest man, Peter blundered perhaps as badly as any of his brother-apostles, not only during the days of our Lords humiliation, but also after His resurrection and ascension to heaven. Paul tells us how he had to withstand him to the face because he was to be blamed for dissimulation and the fear of man, thereby compromising the liberty of grace (Gal 2:11-16).

Let him deny himself. The path of discipleship is one of constant self-abnegation. The Lord was preparing His followers for the responsibilities that would be theirs when His prophetic words concerning Himself were fulfilled. They would be called upon to ignore fleshly claims and to take up the cross, which meant accepting the place of rejection with Him, and thus they were to follow in His steps.

He who would think to better his condition by avoiding persecution for Christs sake and so to save his life would really lose it, but he who was ready even to lay down his life for Christs sake would keep it unto life eternal. Death in this world would be only the introduction to everlasting glory. It would be worth nothing if one were able to gain even the whole world and yet in so doing lose his soul. The soul is really the life, the self. To lose the soul, therefore, is to miss the purpose for which one has been created. Man was made, as the Shorter Catechism declares, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. He who makes it his object to accumulate wealth or the favor of a Christless world will lose out and find himself at last bereft of everything that is of any worth whatever. Note the question, What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? It does not say, as one might imagine it would, What shall a man take in exchange for his soul? but, What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mans soul is forfeited. What can a man give in order to redeem it? He has nothing to give. If he continues in his sin his soul will be lost forever, but if he turns to Christ he will find redemption in Him. When He comes the second time as the Son of Man in the glory of His Father with His angels then He will reward each one according to his works.

The closing verse should really be the first verse of chapter 17. Whoever edited the book and divided it into chapters and verses made the break in the wrong place. When Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom, He was referring to the great event that followed after six days, the Transfiguration, which we know, from the words of the apostle Peter, presented the kingdom in embryo for the confirming of the Father to the disciples.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Mat 16:13-16

I. According to the reply of Peter to Christ’s general question, the impression which Christ made upon the various classes with whom He came in contact was, with rare exceptions, that He was a Personage far surpassing, in greatness, and truth, and grace, all whom they had ever seen or known. His contemporaries, dull, and selfish, and worldly as many of them were, felt instinctively that He was one for whom they could find no just comparison. (1) His miracles declared His power, and fanned the widespread enthusiasm into an intense flame. (2) His teaching was new, original, and authoritative. With astonishment and delight the multitudes confessed, “He teaches with authority, and not as the scribes.” (3) On down-trodden, guilty outcasts Christ looked with Divine compassion, and declared that He had come to seek and to save that which was lost. He drew them to Him, and spake words to them the like of which they had never heard before. Thus He became the centre of almost universal wonder, and trust, and worship.

II. The popular conception concerning Christ was a very exalted one; nevertheless, He put it aside as incomplete, as short of the truth. “The people say of Me that I am John the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the prophets; but whom say ye that I am?” “Thou art Christ, Son of the living God.” To that belief in Him Christ gave His sanction and approval. To that He set His seal that it was true. This is an important consideration. There are those who think of Him as the Prophet, the tender, loving Brother, the purest and loftiest Soul that has ever lived in our world-but no more. Christ everywhere claimed to be more than simply a good man. A hearty belief in Christ as the Son of God is, in my judgment, a matter of supreme importance to any one who aims at the full mastery of his sins, and who aspires to complete vigour and fulness of religious life and character.

III. The great confession, “Thou art the Son of God,” came from the lips of a disciple. It is ever so. The knowledge of Christ-His saving might, His inspiring energy, the riches of His love-can only be possessed by him who has entered into close and loving fellowship.

T. Hammond, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 33.

References: Mat 16:13.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 132. Mat 16:13-16.-J. C. Jones, Studies in St. Matthew, p. 235. Mat 16:13-19.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 457; J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 30; Expositor, 2nd series, vol. vi., p. 430. Mat 16:13-20.-A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 164. Mat 16:13-23.-Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 2. Mat 16:15.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 112; H. Wace, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 200.

Mat 16:15-17, Mat 16:21

Peter’s Confession of Faith, and Christ’s Prediction of His Passion.

I. At the end of the second year of His ministry, Christ wrought the astounding miracle of multiplying the loaves for the five thousand persons. That miracle led to the no less wonderful discourse which St. John relates in his sixth chapter, and to the withdrawal of many of our Lord’s followers. The crisis had arrived, and naturally, while His enemies drew their bands of union more closely together against Him, He turned to test the fidelity of His friends, and to develop His views more explicitly to them. From the time of Peter’s confession He began to prepare them for His cross and passion.

II. Consider what practical effect the faith in Christ’s Divinity has upon us, and what is its connection in our own minds with His passion and with His death upon the cross for us. (1) It sets the seal on the deep foundation of God’s immutable will; it gives us a rock of everlasting strength to rest on; it spreads those everlasting arms beneath us, which hold us up in deep assurance that His love is most patient and His endurance eternal. (2) There is another feeling set deep in your heart-the desire to be known of those you love, without secrets, without dissimulation, without error or defect. Where will you look for this but in the presence of Him who is invisible and comprehendeth all things? No knowledge of the heart is so searching as His omniscience; no hatred of evil is so pure as His, who is perfect goodness; and while He knows, while He hates all, then His love is most consoling. We can fling ourselves at His feet, because He knows us thoroughly and already. (3) As our Lord’s Divinity gives infinite worth to all His human sufferings which are past, so does it ensure the endurance of His human sympathy for all our needs in the present and in the future.

C. W. Furse, Sermons at Richmond, p. 22.

References: Mat 16:15-18.-W. Spensley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 268. Mat 16:16.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvi., p. 333. Mat 16:17.-G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 108. Mat 16:17-23.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 344.

Mat 16:18

The Unity of the Church.

I. That all Christians are, in some sense or other, one, in our Lord’s eyes, is plain, from various parts of the New Testament. It is to this one body, regarded as one, that the special privileges of the Gospel are given. It is not that this man receives the blessing, and that man, but one and all; the whole body as one man, one new spiritual man, with one accord, seeks and gains it.

II. When asked why we Christians must unite into a visible body or society, I answer (1) that the very earnestness with which Scripture insists upon a spiritual unseen unity at present, and a future unity in heaven, of itself directs a pious mind to the imitation of that unity visible on earth; for why should it be so continually mentioned in Scripture, unless the thought of it were intended to sink deep into our minds and direct our conduct here? (2) But again, our Saviour prays that we may be one in affection and in action; yet what possible way is there of many men acting together, except that of forming themselves into a visible body or society, regulated by certain laws and officers? and how can they act on a large scale and consistently, unless it be a permanent body? (3) I might rest the necessity of Christian unity upon one single institution of our Lord’s, the sacrament of baptism. Baptism is a visible rite, confessedly; and St. Paul tells us that by it individuals are incorporated into an already existing body. But if every one who wishes to become a Christian must come to an existing visible body for the gift, it is plain that no number of men can ever, consistently with Christ’s intention, set up a Church for themselves. All must receive their baptism from Christians already baptized; and thus we trace back a visible body or society even to the very time of the Apostles themselves. (4) One other guarantee, which is especially suggested by our Lord’s words in the text, for the visible unity and permanence of His Church, is the appointment of rulers and ministers, entrusted with the gifts of grace, and these in succession. The ministerial orders are the ties which bind together the whole body of Christians in one; they are its organs, and they are, moreover, its moving principle.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. vii., p. 230.

References: Mat 16:18.-S. G. Green, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 49; L. Abbott, Ibid., vol. xxxii., p. 362; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 103; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 2nd series, p. 58; E. W. Shalders, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 152; J. C. Jones, Studies in St. Matthew, p. 255; W. Anderson, Discourses, p. 66; C. Kingsley, Village Sermons, p. 309. Mat 16:18, Mat 16:19.-Expositor, 3rd series, vol. iv., p. 1.

Mat 16:21-26

Great Purposes and Interruptive Voices. “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go.” Special emphasis should be laid upon the word “must,” in order to discover the depth and range of the idea which the speaker seeks to convey. The emphasis, so placed, gives us the utterance of a great purpose. “Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him.” This is an interruptive voice. Christ and Peter set before us the broadest contrasts in human development.

I. The majesty of a purpose imparts to its possessor tranquillity in anticipation of the severest trials. What are the constituent elements of heroism? I answer, a great purpose, and faith in it. Given the purpose and the faith, and you have strength, and patience, and hope, and surest victory.

II. Superficial natures cannot interpret the majesty of a great purpose. Did ever a great idea realize its “must go” without having to encounter interruptive Peters? Little ideas, respectable enterprises, decent actions have passed along the world’s highway without much incommodation; but the ideas that have given love to the heart and direction to the understanding, of an age or an empire, have had to fight their way to Jerusalem step by step.

III. Great purposes are necessarily associated with self-sacrifice. (1) Whoso follows a great leader must expect great sacrifices. (2) The spirit and example of a great moral leader must ever be reproduced.

IV. Great purposes always correctly estimate the value of material possessions.

V. Superficial natures always proceed on a self-defeating policy. Christ’s testimony is clear: “For whosoever shall save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it.”

Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 361; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 177.

References: Mat 16:21.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 271; R. Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiii., p. 376. Mat 16:21-23.-C. Morris, Preacher’s Lantern, vol. iii., p. 47. Mat 16:21-26.-Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 61. Mat 16:21-28.-A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 173. Mat 16:22.-J. Keble, Sermons from Lent to Passiontide, p. 376. Mat 16:23.-W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 345.

Mat 16:24

One of the proofs of the truth and of the Divine origin of our religion is that it gives such a distinct notice of the difficulties which its followers will have to encounter. What other religion could afford to speak like this?

I. “Deny himself.” As in the natural character selfishness and affection are two such opposite principles that the man that is selfish can never be truly affectionate, and the man that is affectionate will never be long selfish, so in the spiritual life self and the Divine love are the two great antagonists which do battle in a man’s heart. Between these two, from the moment that any one is really in earnest in religion, there is contest, severe and unceasing, even to death, till ultimately either self, being allowed, stifles grace, or grace, being cherished, gradually swallows up self, till all self loses itself in Jesus.

II. “Daily.” What is the cross? What is it that a man is to take up? Not some very great thing which is to come by-and-by. Against that idea Christ appears especially to have guarded us when He added the word “daily.” The cross must be a trial which has something humiliating in it, something which brings a sense of shame, something which lingers, something which is painful to the old nature, for that is exactly what the cross was.

III. “Follow Me.” What is it worth to deny one’s self how much soever, or to take up a cross however hard, if it be not done in reference to Christ-with an express intention towards Christ? But to do all these things with the eye only to Jesus as all our righteousness and peace; to do them because He wishes it and as He did it, that He may be magnified-this is to obey a doctrine while we fulfil a command, and therefore this is in the spirit of the requisition to deny ourselves, take up the cross, and follow Jesus.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 282.

The command which the text contains is based upon the great principle of the imitation of Christ. Unlike all other legislators, His life is the law of His people.

If we would gain the root of the matter, then we must contemplate suffering as manifested in Christ Himself.

I. The great primary fact, upon which all the essential peculiarities of our religion are founded, is that God became strangely, inconceivably connected with pain; that this Being, whose nature is inherent happiness, by some mysterious process entered the regions of suffering, crossed the whole diameter of existence, to find Himself with His own opposite; bore, though incapable of moral pollution, the dark shadow of pollution, even anguish unspeakable; and though unsubdued by the master, Sin, exhibited Himself, to the wonder of the universe, clad in the weeds of the servant, Death.

The main reason of this fact is to be found in the necessity of atonement. But the Divine Person also visited the regions of pain in such a sense as to be our Example; for so the text presents Him.

II. Must we not think that there is something in the sorrow, thus cordially and perpetually chosen by our Master, that is eminently adapted to elevate and purify our being? Must there not be something divinely excellent in that which was deliberately chosen by a Divine nature as its peculiar tabernacle out of all the world afforded, the sad but awful cloud above the mercy-seat in which, while among us, His glory was to dwell? This special excellence is not hard to discover. Humbleness of spirit, the most pervading and universal of all graces, is in the Christian code the very essence of perfection, and sorrow borne with resignation has a direct tendency to produce it. Now, because our Redeemer knew, what it is so hard to persuade even His avowed followers, that in this direction lies the true perfection of man-that a gentle, unmurmuring submission is his truest, brightest heroism-therefore did He, in His own person, adopt the way that leads to it. He daily suffered, because suffering subdues the pride of human hearts, and He would teach us to accomplish that conquest.

W. Archer Butler, Sermons Doctrinal and Practical, p. 27.

References: Mat 16:24.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 394; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 36; vol. ii., p. 44; H. G. Bird, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 151; J. M. Nelson, Ibid., vol. xxxi., p. 200.

Mat 16:24-28

The Eucharist considered as a participation in the unselfish life of Christ.

I. From the day of his temptation, when He refused to prove Himself the Son of God by doing any work to support Himself, or to make His power manifest, or to take possession of His kingdom-from that day forward to His death, He was practising self-denial, and so was revealing the Father to men. The cross was the gathering up of all that previous sacrifice. And having proved this to be the true life of man, the law of human life, He called upon men to enter into it with Him. Self-denial was not to be an occasional act; it is the ground of man’s existence, for it is the ground of His.

II. The words, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you,” remind us of the daily, hourly temptation to be seeking a life of our own, to be forgetting that we are bound by the eternal law of God, by the unchangeable conditions of our own being, to our fellows, and to their Father and ours, in the well-beloved Son. These words remind us that the selfish life is in truth no life at all, but death; that to choose it is to choose death. They remind us that we are not bound to choose it; that in doing so we are renouncing our true human state, we are trying to cast off bonds which are actually holding us, we are resisting God’s Spirit. They remind us that the common life is still with us; that the Son of man is still the same; that His flesh and His blood were really given for the life of the world; that our spirits groan for that life, groan to be delivered from the death into which they have fallen through self-pleasing, self-seeking. Christ bids my spirit partake of the flesh and blood which He shed for the world, as my body partakes of the bread and wine. It is what I need. It takes away the selfish glory which I have coveted; it invests me with the human glory which I have renounced. It bids me cast away that weight of cares about my body and soul which have become intolerable; it bids me throw myself upon that sacrificing love which provides for all and for each, which seeks to make me its minister to others, which can never bless me so much as by forming me after its own likeness.

F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 127.

References: Mat 16:24-26.-W. Hay Aitken, Mission Sermons, 2nd series, p. 125. Mat 16:24-28.-Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 10.

Mat 16:26

I. Our Lord tells us in the text that our choice of a principle and end of living involves an exchange. You get nothing in life, good or bad, without cost. No man ever leaped into a success of any kind without cost to himself. Success is always paid for with some coin or other. Do you expect you will win moral success, spiritual victory, on any other terms?

II. Look at the nature of the exchange in this particular case. If you buy the world you pay a definite price for it, a price from which there is no discount to the most favoured buyer, and that price is your life.

Our Lord states it as a principle, a universal fact, that the man who takes the world takes it at the price of his life.

III. Suppose we go the whole length of our Lord’s words. Suppose you gain the whole world, everything the world has to give you. I submit (1) that you have gotten something perishable; (2) your interest in it will not last. “The world passeth away, and the desire of it.” (3) It will not satisfy you. (4) You have gotten something dangerous. When you buy the world you buy a master at the price of your life. (5) You come to the line at last, and pass over. Whatever price you pay for the world, you leave the world behind you when you pass the gate of death. The only thing that has any hold on the future is the Christlike self, and if you have not that, if you have parted with that for the world, what have you?

M. R. Vincent, God and Bread, p. 21.

Mat 16:26

Every one of us is able fluently to speak of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and is aware that the knowledge of it forms the fundamental difference between our state and that of the heathen. And yet, in spite of our being able to speak about it, there seems scarcely room to doubt that the greater number of those who are called Christians in no true sense realize it in their own minds at all. It is a very difficult thing to bring home to us and to feel that we have souls; and there cannot be a more fatal mistake than to suppose we see what the doctrine means as soon as we can use the words which signify it.

I. To understand that we have souls is to feel our separation from things visible, our independence of them, our distinct existence in ourselves, our individuality, our power of acting for ourselves this way or that way, our accountableness for what we do. We feel that while the world changes, we are one and the same; we are led to distrust it, and are weaned from the love of it, till at length it floats before our eyes merely as some idle veil, which, notwithstanding its many tints, cannot hide the view of what is beyond it; and we begin, by degrees, to perceive that there are but two beings in the whole universe-our own soul, and the God who made it.

II. We never in this life can fully understand what is meant by our living for ever, but we can understand what is meant by this world’s not living for ever, by its dying never to rise again. And learning this, we learn that we owe it no service, no allegiance; it has no claim over us, and can do us no material good or harm. On the other hand, the law of God, written in our hearts, bids us serve Him, and partly tells us how to serve Him, and Scripture completes the precepts which nature began. And both Scripture and conscience tell us we are answerable for what we do, and that God is a righteous Judge; and above all, our Saviour, as our visible Lord God, takes the place of the world as the only-begotten of the Father, having shown Himself openly, that we may not say God is hidden. And thus a man is drawn by all manner of powerful influences to turn from things temporal to things eternal, to deny himself, to take up his cross and follow Christ.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. i., p. 15.

I. Man has a soul. You may call it mind, or spirit, or will, or affection, or reason, even as the sea washing different continents has various names. It includes all these. Scripture reveals to us its independent creation and existence. The great difference between the soul of man and the soul and being or substance of all other creatures is that they are made out of the kingdom of nature. The soul is not created; it is derived, and its derivation is Divine.

II. Consider the value of the soul. (1) Its power. It can sin; it can suffer; it can think. (2) Its duration. For ever; no cessation. “I am, and I can never cease to be.”

III. A soul may be lost. Man’s greatest danger is his perverted will. But I may mention four causes of the loss of the soul: (1) ignorance; (2) error; (3) passion; (4) a perverted will, which underlies the whole. Thy soul is not truly thine till it is given to God. If you look beneath you, behold your life lying there, it is not your own; it is Satan’s.

IV. The soul may be saved. “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”

E. Paxton Hood, Sermons, p. 291.

Mat 16:26

Let us consider why the saying of our Lord in the text, while generally admitted to be true, is yet so little laid to heart.

I. Because we are accustomed to admit freely the incomparable worth of the soul, but without a clear perception of that in which its worth consists. We feel the unique dignity of our own position in creation. We can compare ourselves with the world around us; and it and all that it can offer of possession and power, of enjoyment and honour, is beneath the soul. But in what does this incomparable worth of the soul consist? The only true answer is this: The incomparable value of the soul consists in its being capable of and destined for communion with God in the direct meaning of the word. How few have any definite conception of this. There is but one way in which we can learn it, in the contemplation of Christ.

II. Because we have usually no clear idea of the injury which may happen to our souls. It is not sufficiently clear that there really do exist permanent consequences of a single sinful deed, even of a sinful disposition of mind. That such consequences do exist, we can plainly see in such frightful developments of sin as we find in the hardened criminal. But we do not sufficiently grasp the truth of the words, “He that committeth sin is the servant of sin.”

III. Because we so often fail to perceive clearly how we can and ought to care for the salvation of our soul, and because the only successful mode of doing so is not usually pleasing to us. We do not like to admit that the care for our soul must begin with the care for its recovery, because by nature it is diseased. The care for our soul must be a care for our soul’s salvation. It consists simply in turning to Christ, in accepting Him by faith, in giving ourselves up to Him in love, and in obedience to the workings of His Word and of His Spirit. By such care for our souls life will not become more painful, it will only be elevated.

R. Rothe, Nachgelassene Predigten, p. 37.

References: Mat 16:26.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 269; J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, p. 78; S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 14; S. Cox, Expositions, vol. ii., p. 149. Mat 16:27.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 554; B. F. Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 87; J. Keble, Sermons from Advent to Christmas Eve, p. 108. Mat 16:28.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x., No. 594.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

4. The Great Announcements of the Rejected King Concerning Himself.

CHAPTER 16

1. Pharisees and Sadducees Asking a Sign. (Mat 16:1-4.)

2. Instructions Concerning the Leaven. (Mat 16:5-12.)

3. Peter’s Confession. (Mat 16:13-16.)

4. The Future Building of the Church Announced. (Mat 16:17-20.)

5. The Announcement of His Death and Resurrection. (Mat 16:21.)

6. Peter’s Rebuke and the Lord’s Answer. (Mat 16:22-23.)

7. The Path of the Disciple. (Mat 16:24-26.)

8. His Second Coming Announced. (Mat 16:27-28.)

After the wonderful manifestation of Jehovah among His people, in the healing of the great multitudes and the feeding of the four thousand men, besides women and children, the Pharisees appear again upon the scene, and this time with the Sadducees to tempt Him.

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came and asked Him, tempting Him, to shew them a sign out of heaven (Mat 16:1). The Pharisees were the strictest sect among the Jews. They were the religious class, the Ritualists who not alone held to the letter of the law, but who enforced the traditional teachings. They were hypocrites, and fully exposed as such by our Lord in the previous chapter. There He uncovered the hypocrisies and the wickedness of their hearts. Once before the Pharisees and the scribes had come to Him with their subtle cunning and asked to see a sign from Him (Mat 12:38). The scribes were in fullest sympathy with the Pharisees, being as religious and ritualistic as they were. These scribes had the care of the written law and studied it. They made the transcripts, expounded the law, explained difficulties, kept the records and were also called lawyers.

The Sadducees were the very opposite from the Pharisees and the scribes. The Pharisees hated the Sadducees, and the Sadducees were the sworn enemies of the Pharisees. Sadduceeism was the reaction of Phariseeism. It was a reform movement, and as such (like all reform) a big failure. The Sadducees were Freethinkers, Rationalists. They denied the supernatural. Up to this chapter they are mentioned only once before. In the third chapter we read that the Pharisees and the Sadducees came to the Baptism of John. We can well imagine how the Pharisee, when he saw a Sadducee on the road out to the wilderness, would gather his long, flowing robe around himself for fear that the hem of his garment would become defiled by brushing up against that unrighteous Sadducee, while the Sadducee had nothing but looks of scorn and hatred for his brother. John greeted them with the title which belongs to them both, Offspring of vipers!

Now, here in the beginning of the sixteenth chapter, this event happens, the Pharisees and Sadducees agree together to tempt the Lord. Both make a common cause in opposing the Lord. Most likely they came together in Conference. Well could they meet together, though outwardly separated, yet inwardly possessed by the same satanic hatred against Him, whose words had so completely unmasked Phariseeism and whose deeds and mighty miracles had so perfectly exposed the fallacy of Sadduceeism. While they could not agree in doctrine and practice in one thing they could agree and were perfectly harmonious, and this was, the hatred and rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, as before indicated in our exposition of this Gospel, these Pharisees and Sadducees, these sects among the professing earthly people of God in the past, are perfectly reproduced in the professing sphere of Christendom. The modern Christian Phariseeism is the religious, ritualistic part of Christendom, having a name to live but being dead, the form of godliness, but denying its power. Sadduceeism in its Christian aspect is the liberal current so strong in our day, the new theology which puts supernaturalism out of the way, the higher critics who deny the inspiration of the Bible, beginning with the denial of the written Word and rapidly ending with the denial of the living Word. And these two great parts of Christendom, modern Phariseeism and Sadduceeism are opposing the Person and the Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The day is not far off when there will be a great union of Christendom, a union which will take in the most ritualistic and the most liberal, a union which will also include the reform Jew and which will aim at a universal religion founded upon that anti-Christian doctrine of a Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of men. All this is seen approaching by the modern drift of things throughout Christendom. This union to come will be upon the ground of opposing the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement He made on the Cross. That coming union will be the devils millennium. When the Lord Jesus Christ comes the second time He will find that monstrosity fully developed in the earth.

And thus they came asking a sign out of Heaven. Before it was only asking a sign of Him. But now it was to be a sign out of Heaven. Perhaps the Sadducees had asked this and the Pharisees were well satisfied. He had done many signs among them and He Himself, God manifested in the flesh, was the Sign, and now they desire a sign. Would they have believed if He had given them a sign? Supposing He had with His omnipotent power opened the Heavens and shown out of Heaven with the rays of glory; what would have been the effect upon their unbelieving hearts? Would they have bowed in worship before Him? We believe not. The Sadducees, with a sneer, would have explained it as a phenomenon of nature. They do it so now. During a visit to California a brother told us how the leading preacher of a certain city, a Congregationalist, had told his hearers that it was a stroke of lightning which fell upon the sacrifice of Elijah on Mt. Carmel. And the Pharisees would have only blasphemed the more. They would have repeated their previous blasphemy in saying that the sign was given through Beelzebubs power. Indeed, the ritualistic, Jewish fanatic believes to this day that our Lord did His miracles through the mysterious and unlawful use of the Holy Name. A sign out of Heaven! Infidelity still demands it occasionally through its disciples. If some one came back from the other world we would believe, persons have often told us. But would they believe? If they hear not Moses and the prophets, not even if one rise from the dead will they be persuaded (Luk 16:31). That awful delusion Spiritualism with its satanic abominations has for a bait that ridiculous assertion, the evidence of a future life, the demonstration and sign of a hereafter, and many have been ensnared by these demon doctrines. No signs any more; the Sign of all signs has come, Christ Himself. But a sign will yet come, the sign of the Son of Man followed by the Manifestation of Himself out of Heaven. Of this we shall hear more in the closing verses of this chapter.

But He answering said to them, When evening is come, ye say, Fine weather, for the sky is red; and in the morning, A storm today, for the sky is red and lowering; ye know how to discern the face of the sky, but ye cannot the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it, save the sign of Jonas. And He left them and went away (Mat 16:2-4).

They understood the signs of nature, the warnings of the coming storm and the harbingers of a beautiful day. The Jews in general closely observed the seasons and signs in nature. (In the going out of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, all observed the rising of the smoke. If the smoke bended northward, the poor rejoiced, but the rich were troubled; because there would be much rain the following year and the fruits would be corrupted; if it bended southward, the poor grieved and the rich rejoiced, for there would be fewer rains that year, and the fruit would be sound; if eastward, all rejoiced; if westward, all were troubled. From Talmud, Bal. Ioma. — Horae Hebraeicae.) All the changes in nature they observed, but the signs of the times they did not discern. They were blinded to these. If their eyes had been open they would surely have known that a great change of seasons in another realm than nature had come. They could have seen the evidences of a fast approaching judgment upon the apostate nation and likewise the blessed evidences of the visitation from on High, by the Presence of the Lord, which had taken place.

And is professing Christendom less blind? Alas; almost everything is discerned and studied, the records of the past, the history of Christendom, everything else except the signs of the times. This strange, unscriptural optimism, by which Christendom closes wilfully the eyes, so as not to see the signs of an approaching crisis, this false cry of Peace and Safety, is indeed blindness as great, perhaps greater, than the blindness of those who asked a sign of the Lord.

But thanks be to God, not all are blinded, but many do discern the signs of the times and know the morning cometh, but also the night.

They were a wicked and adulterous generation; this solved the whole problem why they could not discern the signs of the times. The sign of the Prophet Jonas was to be the only sign they were to receive and that refers us to the death and resurrection of our Lord.

He left them and departed. Significant words as well as a symbolical action once more.

And when His disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. And Jesus said to them, See and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, Because we have taken no bread. And Jesus knowing said, Why reason ye among yourselves, O ye of little faith, because ye have taken no bread? Do ye not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many hand baskets ye took up? nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How do ye not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Then they comprehended that He did not speak to them to beware of the leaven of bread but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mat 16:5-12). Here the slowness of heart and the unbelief of the disciples stands exposed. The Lord turns to His own, right after He had turned His back upon these enemies, and He warns now that even His disciples, believers, are to beware of the terrible leaven of Ritualism and Rationalism. How significant that after He left the offspring of vipers and before He unfolds the truths concerning the church which was to be built, He warns to beware of the leaven and its pernicious work and effect. At no time perhaps is this warning to be heeded so much as in the times we live.

But they understood Him not. They thought of the bread which perishes and even then unbelief was mixed with it. Instead of being occupied with Christ Himself and spiritual things they minded earthly things and so He had to tell them in plain words that He did not speak of the leaven of bread, but of that which leaven typifies, the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

What follows now after the warning words of our Lord is one of the most important sections of this Gospel. Around the contents of the second half of the sixteenth chapter cluster indeed the most vital and solemn doctrines. We approach, therefore, the exposition of this part with much prayer, that His Word may be made very plain to every reader and all may learn the lessons which are put before us.

We find the Lord and His disciples in Caesarea-Philippi, and there He asks His disciples what men say concerning Himself. After the disciples had answered He turns to them with the same question and Simon Peter gives that wonderful answer upon which the Lord announces the fact of the future building of His church, as well as His coming suffering, death and resurrection. Before we begin the study of these events in detail we wish to say that only in Matthew do we find the full answer to Peters confession and the fact brought out that the Lord is to have a church. The other Gospel records do not mention these words at all. The Holy Spirit put them here in this dispensational Gospel because there it is where they belong. He, as the writer of this Gospel, is like a goldsmith who has numerous precious stones and pearls, each a costly gem in itself, and forms them in a perfect chain. He arranges all in His divine order, in perfect beauty, to work out and show forth the perfection and worth of the Lord. And so He put the events before us into the very heart of the Gospel of the King.

But when Jesus was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi, He demanded of His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some, John the Baptist; and others Elias; and others, again, Jeremias, or one of the prophets (Mat 16:14-15).

It is significant that this takes place in Caesarea-Philippi. It is on Gentile ground, so to speak, where it happens and where on the one hand it is demonstrated once more that His own had not received Him; and on the other, He is truly confessed and His revelation concerning the church is made known.

In putting the question to His disciples, Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am? He knew, of course, perfectly well what men said of Him, for He knows all things. Nor does He include in this question those proud and evil Pharisees with their blasphemies, but He means the multitudes who had followed Him, the men who had listened to His words and who had seen His miracles. The answer they give Him, the echo of the different voices in Israel, proves only too well that they knew Him not. John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias, or one of the prophets, these were the estimates of Him who is God manifested in the flesh. And is not this yet the burning and important question, Who is He? What think ye of Christ? It is still so, and the attacks of the enemy are ever aimed at the person of the Lord. The answer is a manifestation of the unbelief of His earthly people Israel, and this unbelief which became more and more evident indicated the setting aside of Israel. So it is likewise at the end of this Christian age. The ever increasing denial of the Deity of Christ and of His Glory, as it is going on in that which claims His name, Christendom, is the forerunner of judgment. (2Pe 2:1-22)

But now the Lord turns to His own. He says to them, But ye, who do ye say that I am? And Simon Peter answering, said to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The question was addressed to the disciples, but Peter answers as the representative of the disciples, and is also the mouthpiece of the Father, whose revelation has come to his heart. But what does this confession mean and what does it all include? It includes more than the prophetic statements contained in the Old Testament Scriptures concerning the Deity of the Messiah, that He is the Mighty God, Immanuel. It is more than the expression of faith in the prophecies and the fulfilment of them in the person of Him who was standing in their midst. The confession is personal faith in the Christ, the Son of the living God, and as such He had been revealed unto Peter by the Father, and Peter, knowing Him as the eternal life, realizing Him as the one who hath life and who imparts life, gives utterance to it. The confession goes beyond the cross and the grave and shows forth Christ the Son of God in resurrection, though Peter had not the full grasp of this when he spoke. It includes all that, realized in personal faith, of which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel of John. For even as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son also to have life in Himself,… and that which precedes this statement in Joh 5:1-47, Verily, verily I say unto you, that an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have heard shall live. But all is, of course, in anticipation of His resurrection from the dead, as we read in the Epistle to the Romans, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 1:4).

And thus Peters confession includes all upon which personal faith in the Son of God rests. The first Epistle Peter wrote by the Spirit of God shows forth the word living in connection with the resurrection of Christ. There we read of a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead, and the living and abiding Word of God, and the Lord is termed a living Stone, while believers are living stones. The confession of Him by Peter, through the Fathers revelation, is then something altogether new. It denotes a new departure and is the very opposite from Israel s unbelief. How it must have delighted His heart, when for the first time the full truth concerning Himself comes forth from human lips as the result of divine revelation! And now He is ready and free to give as the Son of the living God a new revelation. He is now giving a glimpse of what is going to be and He speaks of that mystery hidden in former ages, the church or assembly, which He calls My church.

And Jesus answering said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. And I, also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (assembly), and hades gates shall not prevail against it (Mat 16:17-18).

The blessedness of Peter is announced first, a blessedness which is equally upon each sinner who believes in the Christ, the Son of the living God. Bar Jona, as the Lord calls Simon, means son of a dove, and the dove is the emblem and type of the Holy Spirit. Flesh and blood could not produce such a revelation and such faith, it was the work of the Father; and upon this He, the Son, speaks, I also, I say unto thee… So in the event before us we have the Father mentioned as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit.

With His own divine authority the Lord now speaks to Simon. Simon Bar Jona receives a new name. Thou art Peter. The Greek word Petros means a stone; and then the Lord gives the declaration of the building of His assembly upon this rock. The new revelation is concerning His church. The word ecclesia is found here for the first time in the Bible. It means literally to call out, and denotes an assembly of persons. It would be much better if the word assembly could be substituted for the word church, as that term is so much misused. By speaking of my church the Lord indicates what he is going to do with those who, like Peter, with a God-given faith, confess Him as the Son of the living God. They are to form His church, one great assembly.

This passage containing the word church for the first time, and the Lord intimating that it is still a thing of the future, should be sufficient in itself to clear up all the unscriptural views held and taught throughout Christendom about the church.

The Lords speaking of the church as to be built upon this rock makes it clear that there was no church in existence up to that time. It is therefore all wrong to speak, as it is done so often, of the Old Testament church. There was no such institution in Old Testament times. It is altogether unknown on the pages of the Old Testament prophetic Word. There are, of course, types which indicate that a church was to be called into existence and which we now understand after Gods hidden secret has been made known. We remember some years ago, after giving an address on the church, how a number of brethren took exception to our statement that there was no church in the Old Testament. The argument they brought was from Stephens address in Act 7:1-60, where it speaks of the church in the wilderness, and because this referred to Israel these brethren took it for granted that Israel was the church of Christ in the wilderness. What havoc and confusion such a view produces and leads to! All the sad conditions about us in Christendom originate from the prevailing ignorance of what the church is. The miserable method of applying promises made to Gods earthly people Israel to the church, and forcing the fulfilment of them into this present age, has its starting point from the same misconception.

Now if the term church in the wilderness is mentioned in the Book of Acts, it simply means a congregation, an assembly of people in the wilderness, and such was Israel. The word ecclesia church is likewise used in Act 19:32. The mob there is called ecclesia, but, unlike Act 7:38, the translators used the word assembly instead of church.

However, the emphasis here is upon the word my. He is going to have an assembly of people, a church; this out-called people is for Himself. The formation of His assembly could only begin after the work of redemption had been accomplished. He had first to suffer and die, to be raised from the dead and by it become Lord and Christ, to be received up into Glory and the Holy Spirit sent down, ere the building of His assembly could begin. Therefore He says here, I will build my church; not I am building it now, or it has been building since Adams day, but I will build. Get this clearly settled in your mind and the fuller revelation about the church, the body and bride of Christ, her heavenly calling, heavenly relationship, heavenly hope and heavenly destiny, will soon be understood. And the gates of hades, death, cannot prevail against it because He whose is the church and who builds it has prevailed over death and has annulled him, who has the power of death, that is the devil.

This fuller revelation we do not find here. This is not the place for it. Nor do we find the full truth concerning the church revealed on the day of Pentecost. If Peter were the rock, a statement we shall follow closely, the rock upon which the church is built, we could surely expect that on that wonderful day, when the Spirit was poured out, Peter in his preaching would refer to himself and to the church. But he uses the word church not once in his address. When at last all is to be brought out and that mystery hidden in former ages is to be made known, the Lord does not commit these truths at all to Peter, but he chooses another instrument to whom He intrusts His secrets, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles. Through Paul the full revelation of the assembly, the one body, is given.

As it is so well known, Roman Catholicism founds upon the Lords words to Peter the assertion of Peters supremacy, and as an outflow from this the Papacy. Peter, according to the poor Romanist, is the stone upon which the church is built, and the infallibility of the church is claimed from the words hades gate shall not prevail against it.

What then does the Lord mean when He says, Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my assembly? He did not mean Peter or He would have said upon thee will I build my church. The word Peter — petros — means a part of a rock, that is a stone. When the Lord says upon what He is going to build His church, He no longer speaks of petros, a stone, but he uses the word petra, which means a rock, out of which the petros, the stone, is hewn. The word petra, rock, He uses for the first time in Mat 7:24-25. The house there is built upon a petra, a rock, and cannot fall, and this rock is He Himself. This rock upon which the assembly is built is Christ, the Son of the living God as confessed by Peter.

But why this peculiar use of petros and petra — a part of a rock and the rock? Ah, it brings out the most precious truth that Peter and every true believer in possession of eternal life, this life imparted, is associated with Him, is a part of Him, for He is the Eternal Life.

Let Peter answer from the God-breathed words of his first Epistle, To whom (Christ) coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (1Pe 2:4-6). Here is the same relation of stone and stones, and Peter himself settles the question of who the stone is — not he, but Christ — and Peter, like every other true believer, is but a living stone built upon Himself. It would take us too far to look to the Messianic prophecy in Isa 28:16, the basis of Peters words.

But the Lord has more to say to Peter. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth, shall be loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19).

These words have been very grossly misapplied and the most abominable doctrines have been built upon it. It is indeed strange that but few Christian believers are clear about their meaning. From these words to Peter the very ridiculous, Christ and the Gospel dishonoring picture is drawn, which represents Peter with keys in his hands guarding the entrance of heaven, and that it is left to him, who shall be admitted and who rejected. The Lord did not say the keys to heaven were given to him, nor did he say that the keys to the church were in his hands and with the loosing in the earth and loosing in heaven the Lord never meant that the eternal destiny of one single soul was left in Peters hands.

Let us see that the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens were given to him. The Kingdom of the heavens is not heaven nor is it the church, and upon this fact rests the true meaning of the words before us. Notice the place Peter has in the church, not different from the place every believer holds in the assembly through the Grace of God, is given first and when the Lord speaks of giving him keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, He confers upon him authority for actions not in the church, but in the Kingdom of the heavens. It is therefore wrong to say that the Lord gave the keys of the church to Peter, except one assumes (which is so often done) that the church and the Kingdom are identical.

We have learned before (Mat 13:1-58) what we have to understand by the Kingdom of the heavens in its present form. It embraces the entire sphere of Christian profession, all Christendom. Every one who confesses the name of Christ is in the Kingdom of the heavens, though that one may not at all be a true believer. This Kingdom of the heavens is in existence in the earth during the absence of the King; it is committed into the hands of men, and it is to be administered by men. Now, if the Lord tells Peter that He will give to him the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, He puts the administration of the Kingdom into his hands. The question arises next, Did the Lord assign to Peter a special place distinct from the other disciples? Are the keys peculiar to Peter and only to Peter? Was Peter to have these keys exclusively? These are important questions.

It is easily proven that the Lord did not mean to single out Peter and give to him a work distinct from the other disciples, nor did he give him a peculiar place or one of supremacy.

The Lord adds immediately after the declaration that He will give to him the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens — and whatsoever thou mayest bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc. Now, if we turn to the eighteenth chapter of this Gospel (Mat 16:18) we find that the Lord repeats this very commission and He addresses it no longer to Peter but to the whole company of disciples. Peter must be looked upon in the whole passage as the representative of the disciples and as such of all true believers. If the Lord calls him a stone, He certainly did not mean him alone, but every one who believes is a living stone, and so when He speaks of the keys and the binding and loosing He commits this authority not upon Peter exclusively, but upon every disciple, and as true believers form His assembly, upon the assembly as such.

It is generally taught that Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost, and when he preached to Cornelius and his household (Act 10:1-48). It is assumed that the Lord gave this commission to him exclusively and that the words of the Lord were fulfilled at these occasions. However, this cannot be proven from the Scriptures, nor does Peter refer to any special authority in preaching on the day of Pentecost or in the house of Cornelius. (After all that Rome and ritualism and even more evangelical systems have found in these keys it may be hard to credit such a view as this; and with many it has been customary to point to Peters eminent place on the day of Pentecost in opening the kingdom to the Jews, as afterwards in the person of Cornelius to the Gentiles. But an eminent place may be fully allowed him in this way, while yet we deny him an exclusive place; and, in fact, we cannot exclude others on the day of Pentecost; nor even at Caesarea allow that this was the sole use of the key in relation to the Gentiles, any more than the use of another key than that which before had opened the kingdom to the Jews. One act did surely not exhaust the service of the key, nor to open the door twice require two keys. Can it be thought that the door once, opened simply remained open, and needed no more opening? On the contrary, I believe it can be conclusively shown that the administration of the kingdom, which these keys stand for, is not yet over, is not at all come to an end in one initial authoritative act. Men still receive and are received in; and if the power of the keys speaks of admission into the kingdom, and the kingdom be the sphere of discipleship, then the key is in fact but authority to disciple. — Numerical Bible.)

But what are the keys? The answer is, Knowledge (teaching and preaching) and Baptizing. Go ye therefore and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Mat 28:19). These are the doors of entering into the professing sphere of Christendom, that is the Kingdom of the heavens. These keys are still used. The binding and loosing refers only to discipline on the earth. It has nothing whatever to do with remission of sins or eternal salvation. We pass this over at present, but shall enter into it more fully when we reach the eighteenth chapter, where we find these words in connection with the statement, where two or three are gathered together unto My Name, there am I in the midst of them.

Then He enjoined on His disciples that they should say to no man that He was the Christ (Mat 16:20). As the promised Messiah His people had rejected Him; He is now to go on towards Jerusalem to be delivered up and then raised from the dead to be announced as Lord and Christ. Therefore He enjoined His disciples not to publish Him as the Christ.

And now after the Lord had made known for the first time, upon Peters confession, the future building of His assembly, He speaks likewise for the first time in this Gospel of His rejection, death and resurrection. From that time Jesus began to shew to His disciples that He must go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised (Mat 16:21).

In the beginning of this chapter the fact was brought out that Israel had no heart for Him and His own knew Him not nor would they receive Him. What they would do to Him He now reveals. It was more than mere rejection of His Person and His words. He would have to suffer many things from the hands of the leaders of the nation and be killed; after death His resurrection. And when this solemn announcement came from His blessed lips He knew the full meaning of what was included in the suffering of many things and be killed. He knew before He entered into the world what work He was to do. Wherefore coming into the world He says, Sacrifice and offering thou willest not; but thou hast prepared me a body. Thou tookest no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. Then I said, Lo, I come, in the roll of the book it is written of me to do, O God, thy will (Heb 10:5-7). He knew the suffering, for His own Spirit was in the prophets of old, testifying before of the sufferings which belong to Christ (1Pe 1:11). He began then to speak of these sufferings to His disciples, but He alone knew what it all meant. He had entered into the world for this very purpose to give His life and as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. We must also lay emphasis upon the words from that time began Jesus. The building of His assembly and His suffering, death and resurrection are closely connected. The beginning of the assembly, the building of the same, could only be possible after the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ was finished. We read in Gen 2:22 how the helpmeet of the first Adam was made. She was taken from Adams side while he slept. She was built out of his side. It is that well known and blessed type of the last Adam and His assembly, Christ and the church.

No sooner had the last word of the announcement of His passion fallen from the lips of the Lord than the enemy is manifested, attempting to keep Him from going to the cross. It is Peter who interrupts Him. And Peter taking Him began to rebuke Him, saying, God be favorable to thee, Lord; this shall in no wise be unto thee (Mat 16:22). The same Peter who had uttered that glorious confession, the revelation of the Father, becomes all at once the mouthpiece of the adversary. He had not been asked by the Lord what he thought of His statement; he speaks in the impulsiveness of the flesh, as a natural man. Perhaps the conception of Messiahs kingdom, His glory as an earthly King in which He as a Jew with his fellow disciples so strongly believed, was in part responsible for this hasty word, and explains why he became so readily an instrument of Satan. May be the words addressed to Peter by the Lord, the giving of a new name and the commission, lifted up Peter and gave him a spiritual pride, which brought on his hasty action. The way he acts seems to indicate this. He acts in an astonishing forwardness. He takes his Lord aside and then began to rebuke Him. The Lord, who rebuked the winds and the sea, rebuked by His creature! What ignorance of the person of the Lord and what failure this action of Peter reveals. And what does he say to the Lord? He desires that God should be favorable unto Him by keeping Him from such a fate. But only through His sacrificial death could Gods favor flow forth to lost men, and so Peter gives expression to the very endeavor of Satan, who would have kept the Lord Jesus Christ from going up to Jerusalem to die on that cross of shame.

And now turning round to Peter, the Lord speaks: Get away behind Me, Satan; thou art an offence to Me, for thy mind is not on the things that are of God, but on the things that are of men (Mat 16:23). The Lord recognizes the enemy behind Peters words and He addresses that unseen one in almost the identical words He had used upon yonder mountain, from which Satan had showed Him the kingdoms of the world, offering the same to Him. We learned from the fourth chapter in the Gospel, from the temptations of our Lord by Satan, what the aim of the enemy was with every one of these temptations. He attempted to keep the Lord from going that path of humiliation, of obedience unto death, unto the death of the cross. Satan knew all his dreadful power, the power of death, would be broken and his complete defeat wrought on the cross, and to keep Him from going there was his aim. Here is a blunt attempt of Satan through Peter to hinder the Lord in His path.

And there is still another lesson which we cannot pass by. We read in the Epistle of James concerning the tongue, Does the fountain, out of the same opening, pour forth sweet and bitter? Can, my brethren, a fig produce olives, or a vine figs? Alas! it may be so with any believer, as it was with Peter, going on from the sweet revelation of the Father to the bitter things of the enemy and giving expression to them; and he was not conscious of it. Thy mind is not on the things that are of God. What a word this, is for our consideration! As soon as the mind ceases to be occupied with the things that are of God, and we turn to the things that are of men, we are stepping on the territory of the adversary. For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are noble, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are amiable, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue and if any praise, think on these things (Php 4:8-9).

Then Jesus said to His disciples, If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever shall desire to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it (Mat 16:24-25).

These words are addressed to the disciples and not to unbelievers. It is therefore not a question of salvation. We are not asked to deny self and take up the cross in order to be saved. These words tell us that the way the Lord went is the way of all His true disciples. He states in a few words all the great truths of the association of the believer with the Lord, which the Holy Spirit brings out so fully in the Epistles. We read of the same association in the Gospel of John, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit. He that loves his life shall lose it, and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. If any one serve me, let him follow me; and where I am there also shall be my servant (Joh 12:24-26). Of course there is an immeasurable difference between Him and the believer. He alone could drink the cup, and yet the path He went is our path. In the third chapter of Joshua we read of the passage of Gods people over Jordan. The ark of the covenant led the way and all the people followed. Between the ark and the people, however, was maintained the space of two thousand cubits. And yet they all followed after. It is the type for us. He has made the way and we follow Him. For to this have ye been called; for Christ also has suffered for you, leaving you a model that ye should follow in His steps (1Pe 2:21). But how little of the denial of self and the losing of the life is known in these days. Many are, no doubt, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ; but do they follow Him? Is His path ours, too? It is not only possible to believe in the Lord and not follow Him, but it is the most common thing we see today about us. If we are loyal to Him in a world which has rejected Him and which is unchanged, we shall share His rejection. We may not be called upon in these days to lay down our lives for His sake, but we should be willing for it, should it become again a test of following Him. Surely as we desire to follow Him and He is before us, we shall find abundant occasion to deny ourselves and take up our cross. In the degree we look upon Him, our adorable Lord, and He is the object of our affection, in that degree shall we be obedient to Him, deny self and take up the little cross. It will be a pleasure, a joy and a blessing then. As the martyrs went to the stake with singing or faced the wild animals with holy laughter and praises on their lips, so shall we praise Him for the little suffering with Him in these evil days. (Take up his cross. These words are not to be understood as meaning that we should choose a cross. Begin only with self-denial and then the cross will come of itself. He says his cross; for He does not teach that we should bear the identical cross which He bore. Everyones cross has been prepared according to the measure of each ones strength (1Co 10:13). — Martin Luther on the Gospels.)

For what does a man profit if he should gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mat 16:26). What solemn questions these are! And who could answer them? Surely if anything is taught in them it is the immense, immeasurable value of the soul. The soul is immortal; if it were not these questions would be unreasonable.

The denial of the immortality of the soul and with it the teaching of man dying like the beast, if he dies without Christ, is one of Satans lies which has gained ground throughout Christendom in these last days.

The last verse of this chapter contains another revelation. For the Son of Man is about to come in the Glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will render to each according to his doings. Verily, I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (Mat 16:27-28).

These words refer to His second coming, His coming in power and in glory. They have puzzled not a few readers, and all kinds of spiritual meaning have been read into them. They are, however, very clear if we read at once the first part of the seventeenth chapter, where we find six days after the Lord and three of His disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration. What the disciples beheld there was the type of His glorious second coming as Son of Man in His Kingdom. Our exposition of the next chapter will lead us deeper into this fact.

The sixteenth chapter has brought before us seven revelations:

1. The Rejection of the Lord.

2. The Confession of the Lord as the Christ the Son of the Living God.

3. The Building of His Assembly.

4. The Authority of His Assembly.

5. The Death and Resurrection of the Lord.

6. The Path of the Disciple.

7. The Return of the Lord.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Chapter 40

Show us a sign.

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

(Mat 16:1-12)

Since the beginning of time, unbelieving men and women have always demanded signs to corroborate the Word of God. Before he will believe God, the unregenerate, unbelieving man wants signs and evidences to convince him that what God says in his Word is true. The rich man in hell foolishly imagined that if his brothers could hear a preacher who was risen from the dead they would believe God. But God says, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (Luk 16:31).

God often confirms his Word to those who believe him by special providential occurrences, even as he once confirmed it to his people by special miracles. He show Noah the sign of his covenant by putting a rainbow in the sky. He showed Gideon a sign, using the fleece Gideon spread before him. He showed Elijah a sign on Mt. Carmel. And our Lord performed many miracles himself and by his Apostles, called signs and wonders (Heb 2:4), by which he confirmed to us that he is the Christ.

But any faith that is built upon signs, miracles, and evidences is a false faith (Joh 2:23). Our faith must be based upon the Word of God alone, not upon signs and miracles, scientific evidence, human reason and learning, or even our own emotions and experiences. As Luther put it

Feelings come, and feelings go,

And feelings are deceiving.

I trust the Word of God alone;

Naught else is worth believing!

Lost religionists as well as scoffing blasphemers have always demanded what God will never give them, a convincing sign from heaven, a carnal sign to convince their carnal minds that his word is true. That is exactly what we have before us in Mat 16:1-12.

A Wicked Alliance

First, the Holy Spirit describes and sets before us the wicked alliance of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven (Mat 16:1). The Pharisees and Sadducees hated each other. Normally, they would have nothing to do with one another. The Pharisees were conservatives, fundamentalists, who would never consider working with the Sadducees, free-thinking liberals. And the Sadducees were just as adamant in their hatred of the Pharisees. But both the Pharisees and Sadducees so thoroughly despised Christ and the gospel of Gods free grace in him that in order to oppose and persecute him, they laid aside their differences and formed the unholy alliance Matthew describes.

How often we see the exact same thing happening in our day. Men and women who despise each other, who have nothing to do with each other, will unite and work feverishly together to oppose the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ. I have often seen church members, who cared nothing for one another, unite in opposition to a faithful gospel preacher, and churches that are doctrinal opposites, unite to oppose a gospel church. There is nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1:9).

Notice the method employed by these pompous, religious, hypocritical friends of hell Tempting desired him that he would show them a sign. Those words mean that these men came to Christ scrutinizing and testing him with questions. It is always the method of heretics to ask leading questions with the hope of entrapping the one whose doctrine they despise. They are never open and honest (Jud 1:4). Gods servants are not of their mold. The heretic tries to entrap you. Gods servant simply, forthrightly declares the truth to you. Lost religionists, like dogs, may fiercely bite and devour one another, but unite to pursue their common prey.

Commenting on this verse, John Trapp quotes Zanchius, who said of the heretic Socinus, He was a learned man, and of unblameable behavior, but full of heresies, which he never propounded to me otherwise than by way of question, as seeming desirous to be better informed. By this subtle means, he drew away many.

These Pharisees and Sadducees came asking the Lord Jesus to show them a sign from heaven. They could not deny the miracles he had performed before so many. So they pretentiously acted as if they would believe him if he would prove himself to them by a sign from heaven. They were asking for some very unusual sight in the heavens as proof of his mission from God. They wanted him to produce a miracle in the visible heavens, to prove that he had come from heaven and that he is the Son of God, and the true Messiah. They wanted him to do something like God did when he set the rainbow in the sky, or dropped manna from heaven.

Of course, it was nothing but a hypocritical desire. Had our Lord suddenly formed fifty rainbows, turned upside down and covered the earth with manna, they would have found a very obvious and reasonable flaw in the sign. We would be wise, as our Lord did here, never to honor ungodly religionists with an answer to any of their learned objections to the gospel. Foolish and unlearned questions avoid (2Ti 2:23). If every question raised by carping infidels could be answered irrefutably, they would still be carping infidels. The best thing to do with them (always) is leave them alone.

A Wise Answer

He who is the Wisdom of God and Wisdom incarnate here gives us a great display of his great wisdom. Notice how he dealt with these people. First, he exposed their spiritual ignorance. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? (Mat 16:2-3)

They could predict the weather with a fair measure of ease and accuracy by observing the sky. But they were so blinded by religious tradition that they could not see the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets when he stood square in their face. The natural man, no matter how thoroughly educated, no matter how religious he may be, is totally ignorant of all things spiritual (1Co 2:14-16). Every thought he has, every opinion he forms about man, sin, God, Christ, redemption, salvation, righteousness, faith, justice, truth, mercy, love, and grace is totally wrong. Faith in Christ is a matter of divine revelation (Mat 16:18). No man can see the things of God until he is born of God (Joh 3:5-7). That means that the opinions of people who do not believe God are totally irrelevant, and should be looked upon with utter contempt by those who do believe God.

When our Savior here speaks about the signs of the times, he is referring to the undeniable fact that all the signs given in the Old Testament of the times of the Messiah were fulfilled in him and by him. They have nothing to do with people today being able (as multitudes imagine they are) to discern the time when prophetic events connected with our Lords second coming are to take place (Act 1:8).

Second, the Lord Jesus exposed the utter hypocrisy of these pretentious, religious deceivers. O ye hypocrites! When it came to dealing with the deceivers of mens souls, the Son of God did not mince words. He frankly and publicly declared them to be a wicked and adulterous generation (Mat 16:4), because they not only forsook God; but they attempted to justify their unbelief because they lacked sufficient proof.

Third, our Lord declared that one solemn, indisputable sign would be fulfilled by him, The Sign of the prophet Jonah (Mat 16:4). Jonah was sacrificed, one man for many, to save all who were in the ship with him from the wrath of God. So the Lord Jesus was sacrificed as our Substitute, one Man for many. He died to save all Gods elect (Joh 11:47-52) (2Co 5:21; 1Pe 1:18). As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so the Son of God was buried in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. As Jonah was delivered from the whales belly, so the Lord Jesus was raised up from the dead on the third day. Having put away our sins by the sacrifice of himself, he was justified in the Spirit when God raised him from the dead. As Jonah declared, so the Son of God declared, in all that he did and suffered for us, Salvation is of the Lord!

Then, at last, He left them (Mat 16:4). Oh, what a solemn word! He left them and departed; and the people of that place saw him no more. Because they would not hear him and would not believe him, he left them to themselves! This is horrible to consider; but it is his just judgment upon men who will not receive his Word (Hos 4:17; Pro 1:23-33). What great wrath our God heaps upon those who refuse to believe him! He orders his servants to preach no more to them. He allows none to tell them of the good news of life and salvation by him. He even commands his prophets not to pray for them. And even if they try to do otherwise, they simply cannot.

What a solemn passage this is to read! Here is a band of lost men showing great concern for the things of God. There are multitudes in every age who amuse themselves and deceive others by falsely interpreting the Scriptures to suit themselves, and by misrepresenting Gods faithful servants to get people to follow them. Like Diotrephes, they love to have the pre-eminence. The cross of Christ is always an offense to them. They want something more, a sign from heaven. But no sign shall be given them. And they shall only be offended more, if God has given them up to their reprobate minds.

A Warning Announced

In Mat 16:6; Mat 16:12 our Savior announces an ageless warning to his disciples. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the SadduceesThen understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

If you will read the four gospels carefully, paying attention to what our Savior taught, you cannot miss the fact that he warned us more often against false religion and false prophets than anything else. Nothing else is so dangerous to your soul. Nothing else is so deadly! Let us be wise and hear what the Savior says.

To whom is the warning given? Then Jesus said unto them, his disciples, take heed and beware. This is a warning given to the apostles themselves. If these men needed warning, how much more do we need it (1Co 10:12).

What is the danger against which the Son of God here warns us? The doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. The warning goes beyond the spirit of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and ritualism in the Pharisees. It goes beyond the spirit of the free-thinking, compromising, half-infidel intellectualism and rationalism of the Sadducees. Our Lord warns us to take heed and beware of their doctrine.

But the doctrines of the Pharisees and the Sadducees were totally different. They did not agree about anything. Their creeds were as opposite to one another as any two religious creeds could be. That is how it appears; but that is not really the case. True, the Sadducees denied the authority of the prophets, which the Pharisees defended. The Sadducees denied the resurrection and future judgment, which the Pharisees vigorously maintained. Yet, the Pharisees and the Sadducees really believed the same thing. Their doctrine was the result of human tradition, the commandments of men, and the inventions of religious leaders being mixed with the Word of God. They taught the freewill of man, justification by works, and religious ritualism. The Holy Spirit calls it the doctrine, not doctrines, of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

There are many churches and denominations in this world. Some are liberal. Others are conservative. Some are large, wealthy, and influential. Others are small, poor, and insignificant. But, if you cut through all the trappings of the various religions of the world and get to the heart of things, you will find that really there are only two religions in the whole world. The one is true. The other is false.

True religion, the religion of the Bible, is the religion of free grace. It traces salvation to God. It ascribes the entire work of salvation to God alone. It makes election, redemption, regeneration, preservation, and glorification to be the works of Gods free grace alone. All false religion is the religion of freewill. No matter what denominational name it wears, freewillism traces salvation to man. It does not omit God altogether. (Satan is too sly for that!) But it ascribes salvation to man, not to God. It makes the determining factor in salvation to be the will, work, and worth of man. Whereas the Word of God makes salvation to be determined by the will of God (Rom 9:11-18), the worth of Christ (1Pe 3:18; Rom 3:24-26), and the work of God the Holy Spirit (Joh 6:63).

Is your religion true, or false? Think about it? Does your religion glorify God, or man? Read Pro 16:25. The religion of the Bible honors the triune God alone (1Co 1:30-31).

What word does our Lord use to describe the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees? Leaven. Leaven once admitted, even in the smallest quantity, works secretly, without noise, and gradually changes the whole character of the loaf. So false doctrine and heresy works in the church to corrupt it from the simplicity that is in Christ (2Co 11:3). If the church of Christ is to be strong and established in the faith of the gospel, the pulpit must be strong, relentlessly proclaiming the faith of the gospel. It is the responsibility of every faithful pastor to see to it that he faithfully preaches the doctrine of Christ. It is also his responsibility to see to it that everything taught in the assembly trusted to his care is consistent with and reinforces the message of Gods free and sovereign grace that he proclaims in the pulpit. Every piece of literature in the assembly ought to reflect the message of the pulpit. If it does not, it is because the pastor is weak and irresponsible. The hymns sung must be gospel hymns. It is inconceivable to me that any pastor would preach free grace in the pulpit and then allow freewill hymns (if that title can be used for such trash) in the congregation. Yet, many do. If that is the case, it is because the pastor is weak and irresponsible. A faithful father would never allow poison to be served at the family table, no matter how much his wife and children were addicted to it.

This is a warning for all ages. We must add nothing to the gospel. We must take nothing from the gospel (Gal 1:6-8). Any human additions or subtractions are the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

A Wretched Assumption

In Mat 16:5-12 we see our Lords disciples make a wretched assumption. Because of the weakness of their faith, they assumed that the Lord Jesus was talking about their failure to bring food with them and almost missed the lesson he was teaching. How much we are like these poor disciples!

And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Their reasoning was carnal. They reasoned among themselves(Mat 16:7). Such reasoning is always carnal and leads to error. The poor disciples had forgotten their past experiences (Mat 16:8-10). It was their lack of faith that caused them to misunderstand the Saviors words. Spurgeon said, If it were not for our wretched little faith and our reasoning among ourselves, the memory of our former deliverances would lift us beyond all tendency to mistrust God. But our Lord is always better to us than our fears. We have a gracious and faithful Savior and Teacher who mercifully causes us to understand his Word, even as he did these disciples.

As we read and study Holy Scripture, we should always look for an obvious, personal and spiritual application, not merely the facts contained in the letter of the Word. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (Rom 15:4). Let us ever keep in memory the wondrous works of our God on our behalf, and review them often, so that we may learn to trust him implicitly. That which he has done, he will do. He will always care and provide for his own.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

The King and his Chosen Sign

THE Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

The King is again met by his foes. Two sects, which were violently opposed to each other, unite their forces against him. It is the way of the wicked to become friends when seeking the overthrow of the kingdom of heaven.

On this occasion they come not with a question, but with the old demand for a sign. This time it must be “a sign from heaven “, possibly a marvel in the sky. What right had they to set him a test of such a sort as their fancy might suggest? What need for more signs when his miracles were so many? Were not all his miracles signs from heaven? Did not this demand cast a slur on all that he had already done? Was it not a practical ignoring of all his previous works of power? Too often we also have fallen into the weakness of asking a new token of divine love, thus undervaluing former favours. If the evidence we have already received of our Lord’s grace and power is not enough, when will our doubts be ended?

In this demand for a sign, our Lord’s foes were tempting him. Did the temptation lie in urging him to seek his own glory by some ostentatious display of power, for which there would be no real need? Whatever it was, our Lord passed scath-less through this ordeal, for there was no pride in him. Pharisees and Sadducees will tempt us also. From their wiles and smiles may the Lord deliver us! From the desire to stand well with men may we be happily freed by our love to Jesus!

Mat 16:2-3. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the shy is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

They could prognosticate the weather by certain signs, and our Lord Jesus mentions the weather-tokens of Palestine; yet they could not read the plainer and more plentiful warnings of the near future. Weather-signs are doubtful; but there were moral and spiritual tokens around them which could hardly be misunderstood if they would only consider them. Each country has its own sky warnings, and those of Palestine differ from those of England; but the signs of the times are the same in all lands. Our Lord singled out an instance of their supposed weather-wisdom: the same sign which, in the evening, was a token of fair weather, was, in the morning, a mark of foul weather. They were able to draw nice distinctions on the variable condition of “the face of the sky “: why could they not “discern the signs of the times? “They could have seen, if they had chosen to do so, that all the prophecies were one in declaring that the date of Messiah’s appearing had arrived; and they could also have observed that every event was fulfilling those prophecies; but they were false at heart, and would not see, and yet cried out for a sign. Signs were all around them, and yet they repeated the parrot cry, “Show us a sign.” Most justly our Lord was indignant with them, and upbraided them, using the justly severe words, “O ye hypocrites! “To-day the men who want more evidences of the supernatural deserve a similar denunciation.

Lord, do not allow any of us to be blind to the heavenly signs,-thy cross, thy resurrection, thy Word, thy Spirit, and thy work of grace. Teach us carefully to “discern” these things as being in very deed the abiding “signs of the times.” Even in the growing coldness of the church, and the abounding iniquity of the world, let us see the tokens of thine Advent, and stand waiting and watching for thy long promised appearing.

Mat 16:4. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

It was not lack of evidence, but the sad depravity of their minds, which set them upon seeking after a sign; and therefore the Lord would not satisfy their unhealthy craving. They were wicked in morals, and adulterous in heart in their forsaking the one true God; and then they turned round and justified their unbelief in the Son of God by pleading want of proof, demanding more miracles to enable them to come to a right conclusion. Such is the deceit of man’s heart.

Our Lord repeats his former answer: he will give them no other. In the compass of the Old Testament there is no fuller sign of our Lord than Jonah. Our Lord knew that he would fulfil the type of Jonah even in its details, and therefore he points them to that prophet’s life. This is a subject which deserves our careful meditation, but we cannot enlarge upon it here. Our Lord looks to his death and resurrection, and gives the prophet Jonas as his sign. Jesus will be buried, and will rise on the third day, and in the power of his resurrection will win the Gentiles to repentance: in this he will be the antitype of Jonah, and this shall be the sign that he is indeed the Christ of God. This our Lord had said before, and he here repeated it, because it was a sufficient reply, and there was no need to study variety with a set of people who, themselves, harped perpetually upon one string.

Our Lord quitted such persons, for there was nothing to be done with them. “He left them, and departed”, and that place saw him no more. Lord, do not leave any one of us; for that would be a sure sentence of death to us.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

Pharisees: Mat 5:20, Mat 9:11, Mat 12:14, Mat 15:1, Mat 22:15, Mat 22:34, Mat 23:2, Mat 27:62

Sadducees: Mat 16:6, Mat 16:11, Mat 3:7, Mat 3:8, Mat 22:23, Mar 12:18, Luk 20:27, Act 4:1, Act 5:17, Act 23:6-8

tempting: Mat 19:3, Mat 22:18, Mat 22:35, Mar 10:2, Mar 12:15, Luk 10:25, Luk 11:16, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 20:23, Joh 8:6

a sign: Mat 12:38, Mat 12:39, Mar 8:11-13, Luk 11:16, Luk 11:29, Luk 11:30, Luk 12:54-56, Joh 6:30, Joh 6:31, 1Co 1:22

Reciprocal: Exo 17:2 – wherefore Jdg 6:36 – If thou wilt 2Ki 20:9 – This sign Pro 26:5 – a fool Isa 7:11 – a sign Isa 38:8 – I will bring Luk 21:31 – when Luk 23:12 – General Joh 2:18 – What Joh 4:48 – Except Joh 20:25 – Except Rev 13:13 – he maketh

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE PHARISEES NOW renewed their attack, combining with their ancient foes, the Sadducees, for this purpose. The sign from heaven was merely a catch, being just the kind of thing that the Sadducees, with their materialistic notions, would never accept. In reply the Lord pointed out that they were quite good judges of material things seen in the face of the sky, but quite blind to the signs of the times, which need spiritual discernment for their apprehension. Being wicked and adulterous they had no spiritual perception, and hence such signs as God gives were no use to them. As He had said before (Mat 12:39), there remained the sign of the Prophet Jonas, namely, His own death and resurrection. With that word He left them. When that great sign took place they used all their craft and their money in an effort to nullify it; as we see in the last chapter of this Gospel.

From these men the Lord turned to His disciples with words of warning. They were to beware of their leaven. This warning the disciples took in a material sense at first, their misunderstanding being helped on by their omission to take bread. Yet they should not have had any thought on that score in the light of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand. At last they understood that by leaven the Lord meant doctrine. It is evident therefore that though the true disciple could never be either Pharisee or Sadducee, he may be leavened by their doctrines-by either or by both.

The leaven of the Pharisee was that type of religious hypocrisy that lays all the stress on things outward and ceremonial. The leaven of the Sadducee was pride of intellect which elevates human reason into the place of sole judge, and waves aside Gods revelation and faith. How much Christendom is leavened by both these things is sadly apparent today. Ritualism is rampant on the one hand, and rationalism, or modernism, on the other, and not infrequently both are blended and the rationalistic ritualist is the product. The Lords warning against them is supplemented by the Apostle Paul in Col 2:1-23. In verse Mat 16:8 of that chapter we find his warning against rationalism, and in verses Mat 16:16, Mat 16:18, Mat 16:20-22, against ritualism in various forms, and we are shown how these things divert us from Christ and prevent us from holding the Head.

It is significant that in our chapter the Lords warning against both comes just before the record of His visit to Caesarea Philippi, and of the question He raised with His disciples there. In this place He was at the extreme northward limit of the land, and as far away from the haunts of these men as possible. Who was He? That was the supreme question. The answers given by the people were various and confused, and they were not sufficiently interested to make sober enquiry. But appealing more directly to His disciples Peter was able, as taught of God, to give a clear reply, which brought to light the Rock on which the church was to be built. Col 2:1-23 show us how destructive is the leaven, both of the Pharisee and the Sadducee, upon the churchs position and faith. In Mat 16:1-28 we see how the Lord warned His disciples against both, before making the first announcement of the church that He was going to build.

Simon Peter was a blessed man. From God Himself in heaven, whom Jesus spoke of as My Father, there had reached him a revelation which never could have come to him from man. His eyes had been opened to see in Jesus the Christ. That was His official position as Gods Anointed One. But who was this Anointed One? Peter discerned that He was the Son of the living God. This was truly a striking confession. God is the living God, infinitely above the power of death. Jesus is the Son in the eternal Godhead, equally above all the power of death. This thing had evidently come to Peter as in a flash by Divine revelation. He was not yet established in the full understanding of it, as we see half a dozen verses lower down. Yet he saw it was so, and he confessed it.

Do we confess this too? And do we really understand its significance? If we do, we have indeed found an impregnable Rock, and like Peter we are blessed indeed.

In His word to Peter, recorded in verse Mat 16:18, the Lord confirmed to him the name that He had given him at their first meeting, as recorded in Joh 1:42, and also disclosed something more of its significance. The meaning of Peter is stone, but what is its significance? This-that it connected him with the church which Christ, the Son of the living God, was about to build. Thus in Christ Himself lay the Rock, on which the church is founded. Peter was no rock. Indeed he seems to have been the most impulsive and easily moved of the disciples-see Gal 2:11-13. He was only a stone, and there is no excuse for the error of confounding him and the Rock, for in His use of words the Lord signalized the distinction, saying, Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.

The building of the church was still in the future, for the Rock was not fully disclosed until the Son of the living God had proved His triumph through death and resurrection, and gone up on high. Then began Christs ecclesia, or, called-out company; and here was found one of the stones that was then to be built up upon the Rock. In his First Epistle Peter shows us that this is not something confined exclusively to himself, for all who come to the Living Stone are living stones to be built also on that foundation.

In this great pronouncement the Lord spoke of His church as being His own handiwork, against which all adverse wisdom and power could not prevail. What is done in the power of Divine life nothing can touch. Other scriptures speak of the church as the community professing allegiance to Christ, brought into being through the labours of those who take the place of servants of God. On that community failure was stamped from the outset, and it merges into the kingdom of heaven, of which we learned so much in Mat 13:1-58, and which the Lord mentions in verse Mat 16:19 of our chapter. The keys of that kingdom were given to Peter-not the keys of the church.

All who profess allegiance to the King are in the kingdom of heaven, and Peter was given a special administrative place in connection with that. We see him in the act of loosing as regards Jews in Act 2:37-40, and as regards Gentiles in Act 10:44-48; and in the act of binding in Act 8:20-23. And in these cases clearly his acts were ratified in heaven. But Simon the sorcerer, though he had been baptized as a professed subject of the kingdom, had never been built by the Lord into His church.

The kingdom of heaven had been revealed in Old Testament scripture, though its present mysterious form had not. On the other hand nothing had been said as to the church, and this word of Jesus was a preliminary disclosure of it. Having made the announcement He at once withdrew the testimony which His disciples had been giving as to His being the Christ, come on earth to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (Rom 15:8). His rejection was certain and His death impending. Only thus would there be laid the proper basis for the fulfilment of the promises to Israel, or the blessing of Gentiles so that they might glorify God for His mercy in bringing them into the church. Hence from this point Jesus turned the minds of His disciples to His death and resurrection-the grand climax of His earthly story. Christ in resurrection glory, rather than Christ in earthly glory, was the goal before them.

Here Peter displays his frailty and un-rock-like character, and comes under rebuke. It is striking how in these few verses we see him Divinely illuminated, then administratively privileged and then speaking in a way which reminded our Lord of Satan and fallen men. Such was Peter, and we are no better than he. His mind and the minds of the other disciples were set upon blessings to be realized upon earth. The Lord knew this and proceeded to tell them how all would be altered for them by His death: they too would have death borne in upon them and lose their lives in this world.

This saying of our Lord (verse Mat 16:25) occurs no less than six times in the four Gospels, allowing for slight variations in the wording: twice in this Gospel, twice in Luke, and once in both Mark and John. The six occurrences cover, we believe, four different occasions. So it was evidently a saying often upon the lips of Jesus; and this testifies to its great importance. It cuts across the grain with every one of us, and yet it puts in a nutshell a great principle of spiritual life which persists all through the period of His rejection and absence from the world. Only when He comes again will saints enjoy life on earth in any full and proper sense. To go in for gaining the world now is to lose the soul.

Having shown His disciples what lay before Himself, and before them in the more immediate future, He went on to speak of His coming in glory. He will then take the kingdom from His Father and the time of reward will have arrived, and some of them were to have the privilege of seeing the kingdom in miniature as a sample of what was coming. This was an expression of His thoughtful grace towards them, lest they should be utterly discouraged by what He had just been telling them.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

16:1

A full description of these two sects will be given at verse 12. They were opposed to each other in various respects, but often forgot their differences and united in opposing Christ or his apostles. Their motive in coming to Jesus here was to tempt or test him. Had they been honestly seeking for evidence of the might and wisdom of the Lord he would have granted the request, but he never performed a miracle to gratify mere curiosity or to meet a challenge.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 16:1. And Sadducees. First mention of them, in antagonism to Christ. Opposed to each other, these two parties united against our Lord; opposition to the truth overbears other antagonisms. Extremes of error consistently meet in opposing our Lords people and cause.

Tempting, or trying Him, putting Him to the proof. But He never responded to doubt and disbelief; only to faith. To accede to their wish, would foster their carnal hopes.

A sign from heaven. Comp. chap. Mat 12:38. It was the common belief that visible signs from heaven would attend the Advent of the Messiah. Their request implied that the many mighty works He had already wrought were not of heavenly origin. The Jews require a sign (1Co 1:22); formalism and self-righteousness tend to superstition.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

FIRST STATEMENT OF HIS DEATH

In the first of these chapters there are several revelations, from one of which we take the title of the lesson.

We need not dwell on the first section (Mat 16:1-4), in which Jesus once more rebukes the Pharisees and Sadducees. Nor need we dwell on the second section which is self-explanatory (Mat 16:5-12). But at the third (Mat 16:13-16) we reach something of much importance. Of course, Jesus knew what men said of Him, but the question of Mat 16:13 was to lead up to the confession of Peter, which in the outcome became His own formal claim to the Messiahship, the first He had made. The answer of Mat 16:14 shows that the people knew Him not, as it is today, at the drawing to a close of the Christian age (compare 2 Peter 2-3). In the face of this, Peters confession is wonderful, including all upon which personal faith in the Son of God rests.

But it is wonderful also in that it is a supernatural revelation to Peter (Mat 16:17-20). The time is now ripe for Jesus to reveal that great fact, the mystery of His church, which had been hid from former ages. There is in the Greek of Mat 16:18 a play upon the words Peter and rock. The first is petros, which means a little rock, a piece of a large rock. The second is petra, which means rock. Christ does not mean to build His church on Peter, but on the confession of Himself as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Christ is the rock. Peter is careful to tell us this (1Pe 2:4-9). The word for church, ecclesia, is found here for the first time, and means an assembly of called-out ones. Israel was called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness (Act 7:38), and the town meeting at Ephesus was an assembly, an ecclesia (Act 19:39). Note the future tense, I will build my church. There was no church before, nor did it subsequently come into existence till the day of Pentecost. Nor did Peter receive the keys of the church, but of the Kingdom of the heavens (Mat 16:19), which is the sphere of Christian profession, or Christendom. A key is a badge of authority, and whatever it meant for Peter, it meant for all the apostles as is seen by comparing the whole verse with Mat 18:18, where the thought is repeated and applied to all. Peter never assumed any special authority (see Act 15:7-19; Gal 2:11-15; 1Pe 1:1; 1Pe 5:1). Just what is meant by the authority here conferred is not clear. Some think it was that exercised by Peter in opening the door of the gospel to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Act 2:38-42; Act 10:34-46). Others think it is a general authority constituted in the great commission (Mat 28:12). At all events, it was not what Rome thinks it is, for the eternal destiny of souls is held in the power of Christ alone (Rev 1:18).

The first revelation of His death following is hardly second in importance to the preceding revelation of His church, except that it has been anticipated; but the outcome of it in the case of the disciples is of the deepest instruction (Mat 16:21-27). The time had not come earlier for this revelation, and now that it had come how poorly prepared were the disciples to receive it (Mat 16:22-23)! Peters rebuke is explained by his expectation that the earthly Kingdom would be immediately set up, and his disappointment in losing the worldly advantages which would be his at that time. His temptation of Christ was not different in essence from that of Satan in the wilderness, who would have Christ take the Kingdom other than by the Cross (Mat 16:23). This was the occasion for a discourse on the denial of self (Mat 16:24-27).

The closing verse of the section above indicates that the expectation of the disciples will be realized at the second coming of Christ, and to strengthen their faith as to this the transfiguration follows (Mat 16:28; Mat 17:8). It is to the transfiguration that Mat 16:28 refers, inasmuch as three of them standing there saw Him coming in His Kingdom in miniature, in that event. For an inspired corroboration of this, read 2Pe 1:16-18. To quote the Scofield Bible:

The scene contains in miniature all the elements of the future Kingdom in manifestation: (1) the Lord, not in humiliation, but glory; (2) Moses, glorified, representing the redeemed who have passed through death into the Kingdom; (3) Elijah glorified, representing the redeemed who have entered by translation; (4) the three disciples not glorified, representing Israel in the flesh in the future Kingdom; (5) the multitude at the foot of the mountain (Mat 17:14), representing the nations who are to be brought into the Kingdom after it is established over Israel. For the third point, read 1Co 15:50-53 and 1Th 4:14-17; for the fourth Ezekiel 37, and for the fifth Isa 11:10-12 and many other places.

It remains to speak of the disciples question about Elijah (Mat 17:9-13), suggested by His appearance on the mountain, and which carries us back to Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5-6. Here are two distinct prophecies, the first fulfilled in John the Baptist who had come in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luk 1:17); and the second yet to be fulfilled before the Lord returns a second time. This will be doubtless after the church is translated.

QUESTIONS

1. How many divisions have been found in this lesson?

2. To what was the confession of Peter equivalent so far as Christ was personally concerned?

3. Give in your own words the play on the words Peter and rock.

4. Have you examined 1Pe 2:4-9?

5. What is the Greek word for church, and its meaning?

6. When did the church of Christ come into existence?

7. Have you examined the texts touching on Peters supposed authority?

8. What are the views about the power of the keys?

9. What explains Peters rebuke of Christ?

10. How is Mat 16:28 explained?

11. How does the transfiguration show us Christ coming in His kingdom?

12. How would you explain Christs words about Elijah?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Observe here, 1. The persons demanding of our Saviour a sign, the Pharisees and Sadducees, person of contrary opinions and interests; yet both agree in tempting and opposing Christ.

Learn hence, That wicked men, how opposite soever they are one to another, yet can agree together in opposing Christ, and undermining his truth.

Observe, 2. The sign demanded; Shew us a sign from heaven: as if they had said, Put us not off with such earthly signs as we have seen, in multiplying loaves; but let us see a miracle from heaven, such as Moses and Elias wrought. This they desired, not so much for their satisfaction, as out of curiosity, nay wicked treachery.

Learn thence, That to demand a sign, not to confirm our faith, but to harden ourselves in our unbelief, is a dangerous tempting of Christ.

Observe, 3. Our Saviour’s rejection of this demand of the Pharisees to give them a sign; O ye hypocrites, says he, ye can discern the face of the sky, but ye cannot discern the signs of the times. As if Christ had said, “Did not malice and obstinacy blind your eyes, ye might as easily see and discern that these are the times of the Messias, and that I am he, by the miracles wrought by me, as you can make a judgement of the weather, by looking upon the sky.”

Learn, that to pretend more ignorance and uncertainty in discerning the signs of the gospel times, than the signs of the weather is great hypocrisy: Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, but ye cannot discern the signs of the times?

Observe lastly, That our Saviour doth not condemn the study of nature, or making observation of the state of the weather, from the face of the sky. All that our Saviour blamed was, that they were better skilled in the signs of the weather, than in the signs of the times. As God by natural signs gives us warning of a change in natural things: so by his providential dispensations he gives us warning of a change in civil things. He that is wise, will observe these things; and by their observation will come to understand the pleasure of the Lord.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 16:1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came Notwithstanding the difference of their principles, and the alienation of their affections from each other, they now agreed to join in an attempt upon Christ; his doctrine being equally opposed to the errors and vices of both these sects; see the note on Mat 3:7 : tempting, or, trying him, as properly signifies; (see note on Mat 4:1,) that is, making trial, in a crafty and insnaring manner, whether he was able to do what they required: desired a sign from heaven Such a sign as they insinuated Satan could not counterfeit. They pretended they were willing to be convinced that he was the Messiah, could they see sufficient proofs of it: whereas they had already resisted the clearest evidence of it, and now indeed came with no design or desire of being convinced of his divine mission, but in order that, failing in the proof which they required, he might expose himself to general censure and contempt.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

LXX.

THIRD WITHDRAWAL FROM HEROD’S TERRITORY.

Subdivision A.

PHARISAIC LEAVEN. A BLIND MAN HEALED.

(Magadan and Bethsaida. Probably Summer, A. D. 29.)

aMATT. XV. 39-XVI. 12; bMARK VIII. 10-26.

b10 And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples, aand came into the borders of Magadan. binto the parts of Dalmanutha. [It appears from the context that he crossed the lake to the west shore. Commentators, therefore, pretty generally think that Magadan is another form of the name Magdala, and that Dalmanutha was either another name for Magdala, or else a village near it.] a1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees bcame forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign aand trying him [testing the strength of his miraculous power] asked him to show them a sign from heaven. [They rejected his miracles as signs of his Messiahship, the Pharisees holding that such signs could be wrought by Beelzebub. They therefore asked a sign from heaven such as only God could give, and such as he had accorded to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Elijah, or such as Joel foretold ( Joe 2:31). It is generally thought that the [406] Herodians were Sadducees of Galilee. If so, we note the beginning of their hostility recorded at Mark iii. 6, 1Co 1:22.] 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and bverily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. [i. e., none such as was demanded] bbut the sign of Jonah. [For comment on similar language, see pages 305-306. The resurrection or Jonah sign was a sign from heaven in the sense in which they used the words; that is, it was wrought directly by God, and not through man.] 13 And he left them, bAnd again entering into the boat departed to the other side. [I. e., from Magdala back again to the east shore, or rather, toward Bethsaida Julias, on the northeast shore.] a5 And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread. band they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf. [This loaf was probably left over from the previous supply.] a6 Then Jesus said unto them, b15 And he charged them, saying, aTake heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. band the leaven of Herod. [Leaven, which answered to our modern yeast, was a symbol of a secret, penetrating, pervasive influence, usually of a corrupting nature. The [407] influence of the Pharisees was that of formalism, hypocritical ostentation, and traditionalism; that of the Sadducees was sneering rationalistic unbelief, free thought and cunning worldliness, manifesting itself among the Herodians in political corruption. 16 And they reasoned one with another, aamong themselves, saying, We took {bhave} no bread. They thought that Jesus reproved them for their carelessness in forgetting to take bread, since that carelessness might lead them to be without bread on their journey. So his rebuke below indicates.] a8 And Jesus perceiving it said, {bsaith,} unto them, aO ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet perceive, bneither understand? aneither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets [cophini, probably traveling baskets] ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets [spurides, probably grain baskets or hampers] ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? bhave ye your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19 When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets [cophini] full of broken pieces took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. 20 And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls [spurides] of broken pieces took ye up? And they say unto him, Seven. 21 And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand? aBut beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. [Jesus had resorted to metaphor because the word leaven better expressed his idea than did the word teaching. The formulated dogmas of the Pharisees were not so bad, but the subtle influence of their spirit and example corrupted [408] without warning, like a concealed grave. There are those to-day who are too skillful to be openly convicted of heterodox statements, but whose teaching, nevertheless, in its very essence and spirit, tends to infidelity.] b22 And they cometh unto Bethsaida. [Not the suburb of Capernaum, but Bethsaida Julias, a town on the east side of the Jordan, near where it flows into the Sea of Galilee. Jesus was proceeding northward toward Csarea Philippi.] And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him. 23 And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village [Jesus increased the sympathy between himself and the man by separating him from the crowd. Our greatest blessing can only come to us after we have been alone with God]; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught? 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking. 25 Then again he laid his hands again upon his eyes; and he looked steadfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly. [The man’s eyes were probably sore, and Jesus made use of saliva to soften and soothe them. But it was our Lord’s custom to give variety to the manifestation of his power, sometimes using one apparent auxiliary means, and sometimes another; and also healing instantly or progressively, as he chose, that the people might see that the healing was altogether a matter of his will. The man had evidently not been born blind, else he would not have been able to recognize men or trees by sight, for those not used to employ sight can not by it tell a circle from a square.] 26 And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village. [The man, of course, lived in the village, and to send him home was to send him thither, but he was to go directly home and not spread the news through the town, for if he did the population would be at once drawn to Jesus, thus breaking up the privacy which he sought to maintain.] [409]

[FFG 406-409]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Matthew Chapter 16

Chapter 16 goes farther than the revelation of the simple grace of God. Jesus reveals what was about to be formed in the counsels of that grace, where He was owned, shewing the rejection of the proud among His people, that He abhors them as they abhor Him. (Zec 11:1-17). Shutting their eyes (through perversity of will) to the marvellous and beneficent signs of His power, which He constantly bestowed on the poor who sought Him, the Pharisees and Sadducees-struck with these manifestations, yet unbelieving in heart and will-demand a sign from heaven. He rebukes them for their unbelief, shewing them that they knew how to discern the signs of the weather; yet the signs of the times were far more striking. They were the adulterous and wicked generation, and He leaves them: significant expressions of what was now passing in Israel.

He warns His forgetful disciples against the devices of these subtle adversaries to the truth, and to Him whom God had sent to reveal it. Israel is abandoned, as a nation, in the persons of their leaders. At the same time in patient grace He recalls His disciples to the remembrance of what explained His words to them.

Afterwards He questions His disciples as to what men in general said of Him. It was all matter of opinion, not of faith; that is, the uncertainty that belongs to moral indifference, to the absence of that conscious need of soul which can rest only in the truth, in the Saviour one has found. He then inquires what they themselves said of Him. Peter, to whom the Father had deigned to reveal Him, declares his faith, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. No uncertainty, no mere opinion is here, but the powerful effect of the revelation, made by the Father Himself, of the Person of Christ, to the disciple whom He had elected for this privilege.

Here the condition of the people displays itself in a remarkable manner, not, as in the preceding chapter, with respect to the law, but with respect to Christ, who had been presented to them. We see it in contrast with the revelation of His glory to those who followed Him. We have thus three classes: first, haughty unbelieving Pharisees; next, persons conscious and owning there was divine power and authority in Christ, but indifferent; lastly, the revelation of God and divinely given faith.

In the fifteenth chapter, grace towards one who had no hope but in it, is put in contrast with disobedience to and hypocritical perversion of the law, by which the scribes and Pharisees sought to cover their disobedience with the pretence of piety.

The sixteenth chapter, judging the unbelief of the Pharisees respecting the Person of Christ, and setting aside these perverse men, brings in the revelation of His Person as the foundation of the assembly, which was to take the place of the Jews as the witness for God in the earth; and announces the counsels of God with respect to its establishment. It shews us, in adjunction to this, the administration of the kingdom, as it was now being established on the earth.

Let us consider, first, the revelation of His Person.

Peter confesses Him to be the Christ, the fulfilment of the promises made by God, and of the prophecies that announced their realisation. He was the One who should come, the Messiah whom God had promised.

Moreover, He was the Son of God. The second Psalm had declared that, in spite of the schemings of the leaders of the people, and the haughty animosity of the kings of the earth, Gods King should be anointed on the hill of Zion. He was the Son, begotten of God. The kings and judges of the earth [42] are called to submit themselves to Him, lest they should be smitten with the rod of His power, when He takes the heathen for His inheritance. Thus the true believer waited for the Son of God born in due time upon this earth. Peter confessed Jesus to be the Son of God. So had Nathanael also: Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. And, still later, Martha did the same.

Peter however, especially taught of the Father, adds to his confession a word simple, yet full of power: Thou art the Son of the living God. Not only He who fulfils the promises, and answers to the prophecies; it is of the living God that He is the Son, of Him in whom is life and life-giving power.

He inherits that power of life in God which nothing can overcome or destroy. Who can vanquish the power of Him-of this Son-who came forth from Him that liveth? Satan has the power of death; it is he who holds man under the dominion of this dreadful consequence of sin; and that, by the just judgment of God which constitutes its power. The expression The gates of hades, of the invisible world, refers to this kingdom of Satan. It is then on this power, which leaves the stronghold of the enemy without strength, that the assembly is built. The life of God shall not be destroyed. The Son of the living God shall not be overcome. That; then, which God founds upon this rock of the unchangeable power of life in His Son shall not be overthrown by the kingdom of death. If man has been overcome and has fallen under the power of this kingdom, God, the living God, will not be overcome by it. It is on this that Christ builds His assembly. It is the work of Christ based on Him as Son of the living God, not of the first Adam nor based on him-His work accomplished according to the power which this truth reveals. The Person of Jesus, the Son of the living God, is its strength. It is the resurrection that proved it. There He is declared to be the Son of God with power. Accordingly it is not during His life, but when raised from the dead, that He begins this work Life was in Himself; but it is after the Father had burst the gates of hades-nay, He Himself in His divine power had done so and was risen-that He begins to build by the Holy Ghost as ascended on high, that which the power of death or of him who wielded it-already overcome-can never destroy. It is His Person that is here contemplated, and it is on His Person that all is founded. The resurrection is the proof that He is the Son of the living God, and that the gates of hades can do nothing against Him; their power is destroyed by it. Hence we see how the assembly (though formed on earth) is much more than a dispensation, the kingdom is not.

The work of the cross was needed; but it is not the question here of that which the righteous judgment of God required, or of the justification of an individual, but of that which nullified the power of the enemy. It was the Person of Him whom Peter was given to acknowledge, who lived according to the power of the life of God. It was a peculiar and direct revelation from heaven by the Father. Doubtless Christ had given proofs enough of who He was; but proofs had proved nothing to mans heart. The Fathers revelation was the way of knowing who He was, and this went far beyond the hopes of a Messiah.

Here, then, the Father had directly revealed the truth of Christs own Person, a revelation which went beyond all question of relationship with the Jews. On this foundation Christ would build His assembly. Peter, already so named by the Lord, receives a confirmation of that title on this occasion. The Father had revealed to Simon, the son of Jonas, the mystery of the Person of Jesus; and secondly, Jesus also betokens, by the name He gives him, [<A refer=#43 43] the steadfastness, the firmness, the durability, the practical strength, of His servant favoured by grace. The right of bestowing a name belongs to a superior, who can assign to the one who bears it his place and his name, in the family or the situation he is in. This right, where real, supposes discernment, intelligence, in that which is going on. Adam names the animals. Nebuchadnezzar gives new names to the captive Jews; the king of Egypt to Eliakim, whom he had placed on the throne. Jesus therefore takes this place when He says, The Father hath revealed this unto thee; and I also give you a place and a name connected with this grace. It is on that which the Father hath revealed unto thee that I am going to build My assembly, [44] against which (founded on the life that comes from God) the gates of the kingdom of death shall never prevail; and I who build, and build on this immovable foundation-I give you the place of a stone (Peter) in connection with this living temple. Through the gift of God thou belongest already by nature to the building-a living stone, having the knowledge of that truth which is the foundation, and which makes of every stone a part of the edifice. Peter was pre-eminently such by this confession; he was so in anticipation by the election of God. This revelation was made by the Father in sovereignty. The Lord assigns him, withal, his place, as possessing the right of administration and authority in the kingdom He was going to establish.

Thus far with respect to the assembly, now mentioned for the first time, the Jews having been rejected because of their unbelief, and man a convicted sinner.

Another subject presents itself in connection with this of the assembly that the Lord was going to build; namely, the kingdom which was going to be established. It was to have the form of the kingdom of heaven; it was so in the counsels of God; but it was now to be set up in a peculiar manner, the King having been rejected on earth.

But, rejected as He was, the keys of the kingdom were in the Lords hand; its authority belonged to Him. He would bestow them on Peter, who, when He was gone, should open its doors to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. He should also exercise authority from the Lord within the kingdom; so that whatsoever he bound on earth in the name of Christ (the true King, although gone up to heaven) should be bound in heaven; and if he loosed anything on earth, his deed should be ratified in heaven. In a word, he had the power of command in the kingdom of God on earth, this kingdom having now the character of kingdom of heaven, because its King was in heaven [45] and heaven would stamp his acts with its authority. But it is heaven sanctioning his earthly acts, not his binding or loosing for heaven. The assembly connected with the character of Son of the living God and built by Christ, though formed on earth, belongs to heaven; the kingdom, though governed from heaven, belongs to earth-has its place and ministration there.

These four things then are declared by the Lord in this passage:-First, the revelation made by the Father to Simon; Second, the name given to this Simon by Jesus, who was going to build His assembly on the foundation revealed in that which the Father had made known to Simon; Third, the assembly built by Christ Himself, not yet complete, on the foundation of the Person of Jesus acknowledged as Son of the living God; Fourth, the keys of the kingdom that should be given to Peter, that is to say, authority in the kingdom as administering it on the part of Christ, ordering in it that which was His will, and which should be ratified in heaven. All this is connected with Simon personally, in virtue of the Fathers election (who, in His wisdom, had chosen him to receive this revelation), and of Christs authority (who had bestowed on him the name that distinguished him as personally enjoying this privilege).

The Lord having thus made known the purposes of God with regard to the future-purposes to be accomplished in the assembly and in the kingdom, there was no longer room for His presentation to the Jews as Messiah. Not that He gave up the testimony, full of grace and patience towards the people, which He had borne throughout His ministry. No; that indeed continued, but His disciples were to understand that it was no longer their work to proclaim Him to the people as the Christ From this time also He began to teach His disciples that He must suffer and be killed and be raised again.

But, blessed and honoured as Peter was by the revelation which the Father had made to him, his heart still clung in a carnal manner to the human glory of his Master (in truth, to his own), and was still far from rising to the height of the thoughts of God. Alas! he is not the only instance of this. To be convinced of the most exalted truths, and even to enjoy them sincerely as truths, is a different thing from having the heart formed to the sentiments, and to the walk here below, which are in accordance with those truths. It is not sincerity in the enjoyment of the truth that is wanting. What is wanting is to have the flesh, self, mortified-to be dead to the world. We may sincerely enjoy the truth as taught of God and yet not have the flesh mortified or the heart in a state which is according to that truth in what it involves down here. Peter (so lately honoured by the revelation of the glory of Jesus, and made in a very special manner the depositary of administration in the kingdom given to the Son-having a distinguished place in that which was to follow the Lords rejection by the Jews) is now doing the adversarys work with respect to the perfect submission of Jesus to the suffering and ignominy that were to introduce this glory and characterise the kingdom. Alas! the case was plain; he savoured the things of men, and not the things of God. But the Lord, in faithfulness, rejects Peter in this matter, and teaches His disciples that the only path, the appointed and necessary path, is the cross; if any one would follow Him, that is the path He took. Moreover what would it profit a man to save his life and lose all-to gain the world and lose his soul? For this was the question, [46] and not now the outward glory of the kingdom.

Having examined this chapter, as the expression of the transition from the Messianic system to the establishment of the assembly founded on the revelation of the Person of Christ, I desire also to call attention to the characters of unbelief which are developed in it, both among the Jews and in the hearts of the disciples. It will be profitable to observe the forms of this unbelief.

First of all, it takes the grosser form of asking a sign from heaven. The Pharisees and Sadducees unite to shew their insensibility to all that the Lord had done. They require proof to their natural senses, that is, to their unbelief. They will not believe God, either in hearkening to His words or in beholding His works. God must satisfy their wilfulness, which would be neither faith nor the work of God. They had understanding for human things that were much less clearly manifested, but none for the things of God. A Saviour lost to them, as Jews on earth, should be the only sign granted them. They would have to submit, willing or not, to the judgment of the unbelief they displayed. The kingdom should be taken from them; the Lord leaves them. The sign of Jonah is connected with the subject of the whole chapter.

We next see this same inattention to the power manifested in the works of Jesus; but it is no longer the opposition of the unbelieving will; occupation of heart with present things withdraws such from the influence of the signs already given. This is weakness, not ill-will. Nevertheless they are guilty; but Jesus calls them men of little faith, not hypocrites, and a wicked and adulterous generation.

We then see unbelief manifesting itself in the form of indolent opinion, which proves that the heart and conscience are not interested in a subject that ought to command them-a subject that if the heart would really face its true importance, it would have no rest until it had arrived at certainty with respect to it. The soul here has no sense of need; consequently there is no discernment. When the soul feels this need, there is but one thing that can meet it; there can be no rest till it is found. The revelation of God that created this need, does not leave the soul in peace until it is assured of possessing that which awakened it. Those who are not sensible of this need can rest in probabilities, each according to his natural character, his education, his circumstances. There is enough to awaken curiosity-the mind is occupied about it, and judges. Faith has wants, and, in principle intelligence as to the object which meets those wants; the soul is exercised till it finds that which it needs. The fact is that God is there.

This is Peters case. The Father reveals His Son to him Though weak, living faith was found in him, we see the condition of his soul when he says, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Happy the man to whom God reveals such truths as these, in whom He awakens these wants! There may be conflict, much to learn, much to mortify; but the counsel of God is there, and the life connected with it. We have seen its effect in the case of Peter. Every Christian has his own place in the temple of which Simon was so eminent a stone. Does it then follow that the heart is, practically, at the height of the revelation made to it? No; there may be, after all, the flesh not yet mortified on that side where the revelation touches our earthly position.

In fact the revelation made to Peter implied the rejection of Christ on earth-necessarily led to His humiliation and death. That was the point. To substitute the revelation of the Son of God, the assembly and the heavenly kingdom, for the manifestation of the Messiah on earth-what could it mean, except that Jesus was to be delivered up to the Gentiles to be crucified, and after that to rise again? But morally Peter had not attained to this. On the contrary, his carnal heart availed itself of the revelation made to him, and of that which Jesus had said to him, for self-exaltation. He saw, therefore, the personal glory without apprehending the practical moral consequences. He begins to rebuke the Lord Himself, and seeks to turn Him aside from the path of obedience and submission. The Lord, ever faithful, treats him as an adversary. Alas! how often have we enjoyed some truth, and that sincerely, and yet have failed in the practical consequences that it led to on earth! A heavenly glorified Saviour, who builds the assembly, implies the cross on earth. The flesh does not understand this. It will raise its Messiah to heaven, if you will; but to take its share of the humiliation that necessarily follows is not its idea of a glorified Messiah. The flesh must be mortified to take this place. We must have the strength of Christ by the Holy Ghost. A Christian who is not dead to the world is but a stumbling-stone to every one who seeks to follow Christ.

These are the forms of unbelief that precede a true confession of Christ, and that are found alas! in those who have sincerely confessed and known Him (the flesh not being so mortified that the soul can walk in the height of that which it has learnt of God, and the spiritual understanding being obscured by thinking of consequences which the flesh rejects).

But if the cross was the entrance into the kingdom, the revelation of the glory would not be delayed. The Messiah being rejected by the Jews, a title more glorious and of far deeper import is unfolded: the Son of man should come in the glory of the Father (for He was the Son of God), and reward every man according to his works. There were even some standing there who should not taste of death (for of this they were speaking) till they had seen the manifestation of the glory of the kingdom that belonged to the Son of man.

We may remark here the title of Son of God established as the foundation; that of Messiah given up so far as concerned the testimony rendered in that day, and replaced by that of Son of man, which He takes at the same time as that of the Son of God, and which had a glory that belonged to Him in His own right. He was to come in the glory of His Father as Son of God, and in His own kingdom as Son of man.

It is interesting to remember here the instruction given us in the beginning of the Book of Psalms. The righteous man, distinguished from the congregation of the wicked, had been presented in the first Psalm. Then, in the second, we have the rebellion of the kings of the earth and the rulers against the Lord and against His Anointed (that is, His Christ). Now upon this the decree of Jehovah is declared. Adonai, the Lord, shall mock at them from heaven. Further, Jehovahs King shall be established on Mount Zion. This is the decree: Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son: this day [47] have I begotten thee. The kings of the earth and the judges are commanded to kiss the Son.

Now in the Psalms that follow, all this glory is darkened. The distress of the remnant, in which Christ has a part, is related. Then, in Psa 8:1-9, He is addressed as Son of man, Heir of all the rights conferred in sovereignty upon man by the counsels of God. The name of Jehovah becomes excellent in all the earth. These Psalms do not go beyond the earthly part of these truths, excepting where it is written, He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh at them; while in Mat 16:1-28 Mat 16:1-28 the connection of the Son of God with this, His coming with His angels (to say nothing of the assembly), are set before us. That is to say, we see that the Son of man will come in the glory of heaven. Not that His dwelling there is the truth declared; but that He is invested with the highest glory of heaven when He comes to set up His kingdom on earth. He comes in His kingdom. The kingdom is established on the earth; but He comes to take it with the glory of heaven. This is displayed in the following chapter, according to the promise here in Mat 16:28.

In each Gospel that speaks of it, the transfiguration immediately follows the promise of not tasting death before seeing the kingdom of the Son of man. And not only so, but Peter (in his second Epistle, 2Pe 1:16), when speaking of this scene, declares that it was a manifestation of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that the word of prophecy was confirmed to them by the view of His majesty; so that they knew that whereof they spoke, in making known to them the power and the coming of Christ, having beheld His majesty. In fact it is precisely in this sense that the Lord speaks of it here, as we have seen. It was a sample of the glory in which He would hereafter come, given to confirm the faith of His disciples in the prospect of His death which He had just announced to them.

Footnotes for Matthew Chapter 16

42: The study of the Psalms will have made us understand that this is the connection with the establishment of the Jewish remnant in blessing in the last days.

43: The passage (Mat 16:18) should be read, And I also say unto thee.

44: It is important here to distinguish the church which Christ builds, not yet finished, but which He Himself builds, and that which is, as a manifested whole in the world, built up in responsibility by man. In Eph 2:20-21 and 1Pe 2:4-5, we have this divine building growing and built up. No mention of mans work is found in either passage; it is a divine one. In 1Co 3:1-23 Paul is a wise master builder; others may build in wood, hay and stubble. The confusion of these has been the basis of Popery and other corruptions found in what is called the church. His church, looked at in its reality, is a divine work which Christ accomplishes and which abides.

45: Remark here what I have spoken of elsewhere-there are no keys of or to the church or assembly. Peter had the keys of administration in the kingdom. But the idea of keys in connection with the church, or the power of the keys in the church, is a pure fallacy. There are none such at all. The church is built; men do not build with keys, and it is Christ (not Peter) who builds it. Further, the acts thus sanctioned were acts of administration down here. Heaven puts its sanction on them, but they did not relate to heaven, but to earthly administration of the kingdom. Further, it is to be remarked that what is conferred here is individual and personal. It was a name and authority conferred on Simon, son of Jonas. Some further remarks here may help us to understand more fully the bearing of these chapters. In the parable of the sower (chap. 13) the Person of the Lord is not brought forward, only that it is sowing, not reaping. In the first similitude of the kingdom He is Son of man, and the field is the world. He is quite out of Judaism. In chapter 14 we have the state of things from Johns rejection, to the time the Lord is owned on His return where He had been rejected. In chapter 15 is the moral controversy, and God in grace in Himself as above evil. On this I dwell no further. But in chapter 16 we have the Person of the Son of God, the living God, and hereon the assembly, and Christ the builder; in chapter 17 the kingdom with the Son of man coming in glory. The keys (however heaven sanctioned Simons use of them) were, as we have seen, of the kingdom of heaven (not of the assembly); and that, the parable of the tares shews, was to be corrupted and spoiled, and this irremediably. Christ builds the church, not Peter. Compare 1Pe 2:4-5.

46: In the Epistle of Peter we continually find these same thoughts-the words, living hope, living stone-applied to Christ, and afterwards to Christians. And again, in accordance with our present subject, salvation through life in Christ, the Son of the living God, we find receiving the end of our faith, even the salvation of [our] souls. We may read all the verses by which the apostle introduces his instructions.

47: We have seen that Peter went beyond this. Christ is here seen as the Son born on the earth in time, not as the Son from eternity in the bosom of the Father. Peter, without the full revelation of this last truth, sees Him to be the Son according to the power of divine life in His own Person, upon which the assembly consequently could be built. But here we are to consider that which belongs to the kingdom.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

CHAPTER 35

SIGNS OF HIS COMING

Mat 15:39. Having sent away the multitudes, He entered into a ship, and came to the coasts of Magdala. Mar 8:10 : Immediately embarking on a ship, with His disciples, He came into the parts of Dalmanutha. In these records, chronicling the peregrinations and defining the whereabouts of our Savior, Matthew and Mark precisely agree, both certifying His embarkation, crossing the sea, and His landing the latter in Dalmanutha, which is the name of the country; and the former, in Magdala, which is the name of the city into which He came on landing. This is the nativity of Mary Magdalene, the latter cognomen being taken from her city, Magdala. Though evidently saved out of the slums, by the ejectment of seven demons, she became one of the brightest saints and truest disciples on whom the sun ever looked down, being last at the cross, first at the sepulcher, and first to receive the full-orbed gospel commission, Run and preach the risen Christ. Among the mighty works of Jesus, only a small fraction do we have on record. We have no account of Mary Magdalenes conversion; but a mere reference to the ejectment of the seven demons, and her subsequent incessant concomitancy of our Lord to the end of His earthly ministry. I trow, she was converted during the present or some other visit of Jesus to her city, Magdala. I feel it pertinent thus to write about her, as she stood at the head of the female department of our Saviors ministry.

Mat 16:1-4 : The Pharisees and Sadducees, coming to Him, tempting, asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. He, responding, said to them, It being evening, you say, It will be fair, for the sky is red; in the morning, It will be stormy today, for the sky is red, lowering. O ye hypocrites, you truly know how to discern the face of the sky, and are you not able to discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous nation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given unto it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah. He had fed the multitudes this second time over in Decapolis, not very far out in the country, off the southeast coast of the Galilean Sea; after which, coming with His disciples and embarking on a ship, He crosses the sea from southeast to northwest, landing at Magdala, which is on the coast between Bethsaida and Tiberias, but nearer the former. I was in it, and as I sailed all around the sea, landing at many places, I saw all of these localities, and this as well as other routes pursued by our Lord and on record for our edification.

Jesus now preaches to the multitudes assembled at Magdala, in the land of Dalmanutha. Here we have, by Matthew and Mark, the subtle attack made on Him by the Pharisees and Sadducees. These, and the Essenes, were the great denominations of the Jewish Church. The Pharisees were the orthodox, with plenty of good and true doctrine, but spiritually dead; the Sadducees were rich and worldly, skeptical in doctrine, regarded as the heterodox wing of the popular Church; while the Essenes, very poor and generally living in the desert, were the holiness people of that day. As in all ages and countries there has been an exterminating war between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, so it was in that age. The Pharisees and Sadducees, however, bury the hatchet, and unite their forces against Jesus, as we see on this occasion, and may see all over this country, if you will open your eyes. Let a holiness evangelist come to a wicked town, and pour out the lightning truth of full salvation, and the warring sects will all make peace, like Pilate and Herod, and unite their forces, to criticize, oppose, and if possible defeat the revival. Though Jesus had flooded the whole country with His stupendous miracles, always exercising His power for the relief of suffering humanity, doing good to soul or body; dissatisfied with these wonderful benefactions, which they could neither criticize nor call in question, they allege that these works are all confined to this world, and as Moses, the great leader, lawgiver, and mediator of Israel, whose disciples they boastingly claim to be, had fed them with manna from heaven, incessantly, forty years in the wilderness, therefore they demanded of Him a similar miracle, coming down from heaven. He now, responsively to their impudent and arrogant demands, called them hypocrites; not by way of insult, but because it behooved the Author of all truth to call everything by its right name; and if these preachers had enjoyed the true light of God, instead of antagonizing Jesus, they would have been His faithful and loving disciples. Hence, the reason why, with all their meteorological sagacity, which enabled them to prognosticate the weather, and still they could not discern the spiritual signs of the time, was demonstrative proof that they were not the true ministers of God as they claimed to be, as in that case, the light of the Holy Ghost on the prophecies would enable them so to decipher the signs of the times as to know that He was truly the Christ. That it was not the want of natural intelligence was abundantly evinced by their accurate discriminations of the weather. But it was simply the want of spiritual illumination, which the Holy Ghost sheds on the Word, clear and unmistakable to the spiritually-minded. Hence, the very fact that those preachers were utterly blind to the signs of the times was demonstrative proof that they were hypocrites. What were those signs of His coming? The seventy weeks of Daniel i.e., four hundred and ninety prophetic years were just about expired. The scepter, which was not to depart from Judah till Shiloh (Christ) came, had actually departed about the time of His birth, as, on the death of Herod, Augustus Caesar, the Roman emperor, instead of transmitting to Archelaus, took it away altogether, turning Judea into a Roman province, and sending Coponius to serve as proconsul. Besides, all the prophets had just poured out torrents of Messianic predictions, which were wonderfully fulfilled on all sides; John the Baptist, the last of all, and the greatest of the prophets, not only having preached Him with all His might, but actually introduced Him publicly to all the people, assuring them of His Messiahship. If these preachers had not been bigoted and blinded hypocrites, they would most assuredly have seen in Jesus the Christ of prophecy.

Let us beware lest we plunge into the same awful dilemma. The present age is flooded with prophetic signs of the Lords near coming, as we are now in the last century of the demiurgic week; the six thousand years, according to some chronologies, already out; while all of them expire the period in the present century. The Gentile times, according to Daniel and John, are actually running out on us, the lunar chronology having them already expired, the Calendar due in twenty-four years, and the solar in seventy, all conspiring to illustrate the obvious fact that we are living in the time of the end of the Gentile age. Besides, the prophetical fulfillments among the Mohammedans, Romanists, heathens, and Protestants, and especially the Jews, literally girdle the globe with signs of His near coming; e.g., the rapid gathering of the Jews to Palestine, the revival of the old cities in that country, the great and rapid apostasy of the Church in the home lands, and the wonderful and unprecedented progress of missions among all heathen nations, are all literal fulfillments of the latter-day prophecies, ominous of the Lords near coming. And yet preachers by thousands see nothing of it, but comfort their carnal members by ridiculing the awful and momentous truths which Gods awakened people are preaching in all the earth, arousing the spiritually-minded to wash, and dress, and be ready for their coming King. We should not be surprised at the blindness of the pulpit and pew with reference to our Lords second coming, when we see how literally this state of things was verified in His first advent; as intellectual and educational culture has no power to open spiritual eyes, and reveal the electric light of Gods truth, so we may expect to find humanity uniform in all ages, and the same paradoxical blindness on Israel this day which, in the visitation of her Lord, disqualified her learned preachers to see Him.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 16:1. The pharisees also with the sadducees came, soliciting a sign from heaven: Mat 12:38. This was the second time, and they received the appellation of hypocrites, as professing the highest attainments of oriental literature, and yet blind as to the signs of the times. If they could augur future weather from present appearances of the sky, why not discern the aspects of providence, and study the signs of the times? The weeks of Daniel were coming to a completion. In Herod the sceptre was departed from Judah. Pious men were expecting the Messiah. Multitudes were rushing into the kingdom of God, while on the other hand the crimes of the rulers, and the corruptions of the sanctuary were precipitating the nation to the vortex of destruction, by revolt against the Romans. Like the ancient cloud, those signs were dark on the one side, and bright on the other.

Mat 16:4. There shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. The Saviour names this prophet as a striking figure of himself, being a voluntary victim thrown into the sea, raised on the third day, and sent to preach repentance to the gentiles, as Christ sent the gospel to all nations. The resurrection of Christ, the keystone of the church, was the sign of his Divinity, who should gather the nations to himself, and cause the glory of the ritual law to vanish away, being eclipsed and absorbed in the unfading glory of Christ.

Mat 16:6. Beware of the leaven of the pharisees and of the sadducees. To this the evangelist Mark adds, and of the leaven of Herod: Mar 8:15. The caution is against their cabala, or traditions, exalted above the law of God; but chiefly against the exterior pomp and parade of devotion, an empty substitute for real piety in the heart. Gibbon may boast of the elegant mythology of the Greeks, and the continental catholic may talk of the splendour of his devotions; but after all God prefers the humblest heart for his abode, before all temples built with hands.

Mat 16:7-9. It is because we have taken no bread. The disciples were next admonished for not being more acute in apprehending the Saviours figure of speech, that the leaven designated the misguided and unfounded doctrine of the scribes. Do ye not remember the five loaves, and the five thousand? When ministers want a loaf, they should learn to trust in providence, else how can they exhort others to live by faith?

Mat 16:13. The coasts of Cesarea Philippi, situate at the fountain-head of the JorDaniel Pheneas was the original name, but Philip having built many houses there, called it after his own name. Philip the evangelist, one of the seven deacons, resided here. Act 21:8.

Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? By asking the question, our Saviour meant to give the greater distinction to the confession which followed. It is very remarkable, that when our Saviour was about to disclose his Godhead, he calls himself the Son of man, which marks his humanity, that he was the son of Adam, or rather, the second Adam, the promised Seed. The same name was given Ezekiel, when favoured with high revelations, but in a different sense to this title of Christ: for in Christ it signifies the sovereign Judge of heaven and earth, the Father having given him authority to execute judgment, because he is by preminence the Son of man. Joh 5:27.

Mat 16:14. Some say thou art John the baptist. Both Herod and the scribes believed in the Pythagorean notion of the transmigration of souls from one body to inform another, as is implied in Mat 14:2. Some say, Elias. He is mentioned first among the old prophets, having been foretold by Malachi as coming to prepare the way of the Lord; for the jews understood not John the baptist, whose ministry resembled that of Elijah. Others say, Jeremias. This singular opinion seems to have been founded on the enlarged and extraordinary commission given to this prophet, as mentioned in Jer 1:10. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. Many of the rabbins also, from the words of Mal 4:5, entertained a notion that Enoch and Elijah would reappear in the days of the Messiah. Hence others said that one of the old prophets was risen again. Luk 9:8.

Mat 16:16. Simon Peter answered and said, thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the grand confession of faith. This is the pillar and ground of truth; and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh. 1Ti 3:16. Similar confessions occur in numerous other places. See Psa 2:8. Pro 30:4. Isa 9:6. Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5. Joh 1:49. Act 8:37.

It is apparent that this confession was made by all the apostles, as well as by Peter; for when the multitude were offended, and went away because the Lord had said that he came down from heaven, and would give them his flesh to eat, he put the question, Will ye also go away? Peter answered, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe, and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Joh 6:68-69. St. Matthew having related this conversation in full, the evangelists Luke and Mark merely name it, saying, Thou art the Christ of God, the only Mediator and Saviour of men.

On the subject of the deity and humanity of Christ, I would earnestly recommend all young clergymen to read and study bishop Bulls Latin work, the defence of the Nicene creed, and primitive fathers of the church, with notes by the learned professor Grabe, editor of the Septuaginta. Ed. London, 1721. There they will find christianity in all its glory, and less than that is not christianity.

Among the cloud of testimonies which might here be collected, I will add that only of Dr. Doddridge, the Socinians having claimed him as an Arian in disguise. Peter said to him in the name of the rest, Lord, we know that thou art the Messiah; and not only the Son of man, but in a proper and incommunicable sense, the Son of the everliving God. Sect. 88.

Mat 16:18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. These words are a confirmation of Peters confession of faith. The reference is to the surname which the Lord gave to Peter, when he was first called to the ministry. Joh 1:42. Thou art Simon the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone. The name is just; for Peter abides in the temple of the Lord as a stone remains in the building. In this view, the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the foundation, and the chief corner- stone. Eph 2:20; Eph 2:22. A glorious testimony that Peter was pure in faith, and sincere in piety.

Upon this rock I will build my church. The Vulgate, edited by Leo 10. puts rock in the feminine gender; super hanc petram. But how does this agree with Peter in the masculine? In Biblia Magna, the jesuits contend that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, and that the popes of Rome, as his successors, are also the rock of the church. Blasphemy beyond example! If so, the glorious confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, is superseded; the stone which God hath laid in Zion for a foundation, the rock cut out of the mountain without hands, is rejected. Paul is in error to say, Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Co 3:11. Rome once hardened with a million of martyrs lost all shame. I will build my church. The Hebrew has two words rendered by the LXX promiscuously, , synagogue, and ecclesia or church; these are cahal, and edah. Thus we find the congregation of the Lord, the congregation of the people, the princes of the congregation. Exo 12:6. Num 16:3; Num 20:4. Psa 22:23; Psa 35:18; Psa 89:6. It is also applied to the assembly of the wicked. Psa 26:5.

In the new testament, the word ecclesia designates an assembly for the worship of God. 1Co 14:34. The saints. Eph 5:17. The house of God. 1Ti 3:15. The faithful in Christ Jesus. Eph 1:22. Col 1:18.

The Gothic word kirk, and the Greek kurios are both primitive words, equivalent to the house of the Lord.

And the gates of hell, or hades, shall not prevail against it. The gates of fortified towns were doubly defended with a tower, and possession of the tower was to have the command of the city. The first effort of the powers of darkness to destroy the church was in Judea, as described in Act 8:4. The second was the violent persecutions of pagan Rome, as referred to in Rev 12:4. The third struggle was to destroy the church by arianism in the east, followed by the mahommedan scourge, which removed the candlestick out of its place. Rev 2:5. The fourth effort of the enemy was to gain possession of the church by the idolatries and tyrannies of papal Rome. The fifth was long-continued; for after the old Roman empire was dismembered, the northern nations, under the names of Thyrkenos, Teutones, Thuscos, Thyrsa-Getes, Titanes, Scythas, Gebros, Cumeos, Umbros, Gallos, Germanicos, Francos, Ascanios, Oscos or Scot, overran Europe, stormed Rome, marked their route with blood to the rock of Gibraltar, and drove the old Cimbrians to the mountains of Wales. The issues were, that christianity converted and softened the ferocious manners of all those bloody nations. The sixth, and present struggle is, the alliance of atheism and unitarian infidelity; a struggle we have referred to in the war of the Lamb, mentioned in Ezekiel 39. Is it possible, we ask, for the church to subsist through all the revolutions of empires, with apostasy within, and legions without; is it possible for a church so weak to subsist, and convert her murderers to the faith; unless she had been built on the rock of ages, and defended by an Omnipotent arm?

Mat 16:19. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peters keys were all reality. With one key he principally opened the door to the circumcision on the day of pentecost; and with the others, he opened the door to the gentiles in the house of Cornelius. Acts 10. And as to the remission of sins, that in the absolute sense belongs to Him alone who reads the heart. But he can commission his servants to preach remission of sins, and to tell Zion that her iniquity is pardoned. Ministers have plenary powers to apply promises to penitents, and afflicted believers; yea, to all sincere souls according to the light they have, and God can realize all those promises by the comforts of the Holy Ghost. Yea, ministers, consulting the elders of the church, have power to bind and loose, to receive and expel members; and what is worthily done on earth will be confirmed in heaven. But at the same time, the other apostles here believed as well as Peter; and Christ gave them all the same power to bind and loose, as in Mat 18:18. St. Paul had the keys to open a larger door to the gentiles in Europe, than St. Peter ever did in Asia. All the apostles had power to bind men with the yoke of Christ, and to loose them from the yoke of the ceremonial law.

Mat 16:20. Tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. See on Mat 17:9.

Mat 16:23. Get thee behind me, Satan. The speech was Satans to frustrate our redemption, though Peter was not aware of it.

Mat 16:24. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself. See on Mar 8:34; Mar 8:38, where the narration is more copious.

Mat 16:28. There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Till they see my resurrection from the dead, the descent of the Holy Spirit, with tongues and miracles, and the gospel preached to the Roman world.

REFLECTIONS.

This conversation of the Saviour which fully, for the first time, declared his glory in explicit words, was at the sources of the river Jordan, and at the extremity of the land. It was a secluded conversation, as Mark states, by the way. It was an unexpected disclosure of glory and of grace. He had indeed said as much to the woman of Samaria, it being essential to her conversion, nor was there any fear that the jews would believe her words.

We must notice here, the divine prudence of the Saviour, in gradually disclosing the glory of his person by his ministry and miracles. While engaged in his preparatory work, he called himself the Son of man, which was his proper title, had they so known it. Psa 8:4-5. He spake and acted as a servant, with regard to Him that sent him. But now, the tragic scenes of his passion being near, the suffering church required the strong pillars of Deity for her support. Had he said at first, I am the Christ, the Son of God, (and the rulers wished him to say so that they might stone him for blasphemy) wars and tumults would have followed, for all Jewry expected the Son of David on the throne. But the Saviours kingdom was not of this world.

Seeing now the Saviour risen from the dead, and glorified at the Fathers right hand, we are called to confess him openly before men, and even at the risk of life itself. Then the blessing that followed on Peter shall follow on us, and in every form of glory and of grace.

And thou, oh Unitarian, who according to Milton, and our best divines, followest the fallen angels in refusing submission to the Son; the subsequent words of the Saviour have a strong bearing on thy case. If you are ashamed of him before men; if you prefer a poor, blind, and dry philosophy to revelation, he will, on the fair law of retributive justice, be ashamed of you before his Father and the holy angels. Take your choice; be saved with Christ, or damned with Satan.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mat 16:1-4. The Request for a Sign Refused (Mar 8:11-13*, Luk 11:16; Luk 11:29 f.).For the mention of Sadducees cf. Mat 16:6*. The saying about the weather (Mat 16:2 b, Mat 16:3) is wanting in some good MSS., and is perhaps an interpolation from Luk 12:54-56*. The signs of the times are regarded here as the miracles already wrought by Jesus. The sign of Jonah is repeated from Mat 12:38*.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

The enmity against the true Messiah increases now to the point of Pharisee’s and Sadducee’s (usually hostile to each other) conspiring together to tempt Him, in an effort to trap Him in some way. Both saw their hold over the people weakening through the transparent honesty of His teaching. They demand that He would show them a sign from heaven; for they had blinded themselves to the fact of His multiplying the loaves and fishes on two occasions, and to what was involved in His many other miracles, for every healing was a sign also.

He therefore speaks to them of what they observed naturally day by day, in order to expose to them their hypocrisy. They had no difficulty in forecasting the next day’s weather when they observed the evening sky. As to natural things they read the signs easily. Yet, though they professed to be 1srael’s spiritual leaders, and were surrounded by many spiritual signs of the times, they still asked Him for a sign! As well as His miracles of grace and power being signs, the moral condition of the people was a sign; and a most striking sign was the spiritual stagnation and enmity of Israel’s leaders! The state of their hearts would certainly not be changed if, for instance, He brought sudden fire from heaven and consumed their synagogue!

He tells them rather that a wicked and adulterous generation sought a sign. Sadducees were specially characterized by wickedness in their doctrine; Pharisees by adulterous unfaithfulness to the truth they professed. The only sign that would be given them was that of Jonah the prophet, his three days and three nights in the belly of the fish typifying the death and resurrection of Christ. What a sign indeed! Yet Pharisees and Sadducees even then united in fighting against it. He leaves them to their empty thoughts.

If in Pharisees and Sadducees we have seen gross unbelief, now we see that the disciples themselves are afflicted by some measure Of this same disease. Having forgotten to take bread with them, they felt that the Lord’s reference to leaven is an indirect hint that He was displeased by their neglect. While He was concerned for their spiritual welfare, they virtually accused Him of complaining because of lack of materiel food! How important it s for us at all times to take deeply to heart the truth of God’s word, rather than to suspect the motives of the servant through whom God sends it to us.

The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, which stems from their not taking vitally to heart what they professed to believe, but the disciples show evidence of this very thing by their response. The leaven of the Sadducees was the false doctrine of rationalistic thoughts. The disciples, by their rationalizing, Missed the truth the Lord sought to impress on them. Their very response to Him showed how deeply they needed the warning of His words. Is our need any less than theirs?

His reminder then is necessary as to the simplicity with which He multiplied the loaves and fishes on two occasions, and the abundance left over. Had they forgotten this so soon? Necessary food was a simple thing for Him to care for; but it was no simple matter for them to rightly discern and beware of the corrupting influence of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Verse 13 now initiates a deeply important subject, based upon a mere important foundation. In the far north of the land the Lord Jesus asks His disciples of men’s opinion as to who He, the Son of Man, was. This is the foundation of all blessing, whether in the assembly or in the kingdom. The answers show the mere fleshly speculation that influenced men generally. They only reason that a great prophet like this must be the re-incarnation of a former prophet, as though God must resort to duplication, as man does. But how pathetic was the ignorance of those who said He was John the Baptist, for John had been contemporary with the Lord Jesus for many years, and both had been seen together (Mat 3:13-17). Also when God spoke in Mal 4:5 of sending Elijah the prophet, there was no reason to suppose that this must be literally the same man, as though God would return him to earth to suffer again after having rewarded him with the joys of heaven. Luk 1:17 explains the sense in Which this is to be understood, when speaking of John the Baptist going before the Lord Jesus “In the spirit and power of Elias.” John was the same type of prophet as was Elijah.

A question of real importance, however, is now addressed to the disciples, “Whom say ye that I am?” There is no hesitation in the precious answer of Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Both the Messiahship and the deity of Christ are clearly confessed by one who can speak for every true child of faith. “Son of the living God” implies that God is not a mere duplicator, but characterized by living power in all His works, and in Christ this living power is perfectly manifested. The Lord’s response to this is precious too. Peter was deeply blessed because he had received this truth as a revelation from the Father, not from any human source. The unquestioning conviction with which he spoke was evidence of this. Indeed, no-one lays hold of this truth in reality apart from the Father’s revealing it to him (Ch.11:25-27).

Yet, though He first called him “Simon-BarJona” (son of Jonah), which is his name by natural birth, He adds, “thou art Peter,” his name by new birth (Joh 1:42), which means “a stone.” Peter had confessed Christ’s name. The Lord Jesus in turn Confessed Peter’s name as being linked with Him. Christ is the Rock, but Peter is a stone, small indeed, but of the some character as the rock.

In verse 18 the Lord communicates to Peter a marvellous revelation. “an this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The rock is the truth of Christ’s eternal deity, which Peter confessed; for “God–is the Rock” (Deu 32:3-4). Christ is the only foundation of the church, the assembly (1Co 3:11), for He is Son of God. Clearly, the assembly was future when He spoke this, “I will build my assembly.” The beginning of this building is seen in the book of Acts (See Ch.2:47). Peter himself was a stone built upon the rock (Christ), and he speak of all believers as “living stones–built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood” (1Pe 2:5).

“The gates of hades shall not prevail against it.” Hades is the unseen condition of the soul and spirit when separated from the body. Throughout history, no matter how many were to die (martyred or otherwise) this would not prevail over the continuance of the assembly. As a testimony on earth she will remain until the coming of the Lord to rapture her to glory. Nor will believers who die be deprived of their place in the assembly: at the time they will be raised and be caught up together with the living saints to be forever with the Lord.

Verse18 is therefore totally the words of the Son of God in building and maintaining His church. Verse 19 adds a matter that is committed to Peter. The Lord would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These are certainly not the keys of heaven itself, nor the keys of the assembly. The kingdom of heaven is the sphere of Christian profession on earth, a kingdom on earth but with its headquarters in heaven. The keys of course are used to allow entry Luk 12:52 shows one of these keys to be that of knowledge, that is, the teaching of the truth of God. In Mat 28:19-20 baptism is connected with teaching, and it appears clear that these two are the keys to which the Lord refers, specially since Peter and the other apostles were sent to baptize, though Paul was not (1Co 1:17), and in fact Jesus Himself did not baptize (Joh 4:2). In Act 3:14-26 Peter used both of these keys in declaring the truth to the Jews, and insisting on baptism, with three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost. He used the same keys with Gentiles in Act 10:34-48. However, though Peter was prominent in these cases, there is no doubt that others also were entrusted with the same keys (See Act 8:12; Act 9:17-18).

As to binding and losing; losing is seen in baptizing, for this involves the public governmental forgiveness of sins (Act 2:38), but binding is seen in Act 8:18-23, when the forgiveness of Simon the sorcerer was rescinded by Peter when Simon exposed his actual unrepentant condition. Peter told him then that he had neither part nor lot in this matter, for he had manifested his own hypocrisy. Such righteous action by Peter and other apostles was ratified in heaven.

In verse 20 He charged His disciples to tell no-one that He was the Christ. For He had not come to establish His kingdom as the Messiah of Israel: He was leaving His kingdom rather (in a mystery form) in the hands of men for the time, He Himself accepting the Place of suffering and rejection, as He insists in verse 21. He Must at Jerusalem suffer many things from the elders (man’s authority), the chief priests (man’s religion), and the scribes (man’s wisdom), and be killed. But he does not leave matters there: He adds, “and be raised again the third day.”

Peter evidently totally missed hearing His last words as to His resurrection. The marvel of this ought to have deeply impressed him; but instead he dared to rebuke the Lord of glory, telling Him that He would surely not experience anything like this. We speak too easily Without thinking!

Peter’s ill-advised rebuke of the Lord Jesus required the stern, solemn rebuke of the Lord to him, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou severest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Peter, through a false effort to flatter the Lord, allowed Satan to speak through him. Why did he not rather believe the words of Him who cannot lie? Our only real protection from Satanic deception is in the implicit faith that believes the word of God. But Peter had missed God’s thoughts entirely, and expressed the mere natural thoughts of unregenerate men. To deny that Christ would die is to deny that He would rise again, yet both were clearly declared in the Old Testament, emphatically so in Isa 53:1-12.

Verse 24 then is specially significant for Peter and every follower of the Lord. To be a true disciple one must deny himself (including his mere natural thoughts), take up his cross, and follow the Lord Jesus. The denial here is not merely denying oneself certain things, but denying himself. Self is set aside by the application of the cross, which cuts out by the roots all that is merely of the natural man. Only this is true devotedness: Christ must take the place of Self.

If one would save his life (that is, if he would give his life in this world a prime place), he would only lose it: such a pursuit is futile. But one who will lose his life for Christ’s sake will find it. If he puts Christ first, it may seem that he is forfeiting his life so far as natural advantage is concerned, but his life will issue in lasting fruitfulness. Selfishness will defeat its own ends, while unselfishness for Christ’s sake will gain far more than is given up.

Many have gained tremendous wealth, yet where is the eternal profit? In fact, many of these have been left in abject misery at the end of their lives, to reflect on the sad folly of a life of self-seeking with no regard for the eternal welfare of the soul. Can one then give all his wealth in exchange for his soul? In this matter, his wealth is nothing, though he had gained the whole world.

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father to take rightful possession of all the earth, to dispossess those who think it belongs to them, and to reward every man (saved or unsaved) according to his works. This of course is not His coming for the church, but His coming in power at the end of the tribulation. To impress upon them the reality of the fact of the coming kingdom, He adds that some standing there would not taste of death till having seen the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Only “some” were to be given this privilege, that is, Peter, James and John, who were given a precious preview of the kingdom in Ch.17:13. For though the Lord insists that suffering must come first, He wants none to be discouraged, but all to have utter confidence in the prospect of His coming in majestic glory.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

A sign from heaven; some great prodigy in the heavens, more stupendous and imposing than the miracles of healing which he was accustomed to perform. This was the second time that such a demand had been made. (Matthew 12:38-45.)–Tempting; that is, the proposal was made as a sort of challenge, with evil and unfriendly designs.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

1-28

CHAPTER 16

And there came unto Him Pharisees, &c. They had previously asked for a sign (Mat 12:38). But here again they asked for one because of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. For when they perceived that this miracle was celebrated by the multitudes who had been partakers of the bread, they called it an earthly sign, and insinuated that Christ was a magician, and by the help of the devil (who rules on the earth) had multiplied the loaves, and performed His other miracles. This may be gathered from chapter xii. 24 (Mat 12:24). They ask, therefore, of Christ a sign from Heaven-that God, Who reigns above, would by it give attestation that Christ was sent by Him. And that if He did it, they would believe Christ to be the Messiah. But the Sadducees, who were atheists, thought no sign could be given from Heaven by God, who in their opinion had no existence. Lyra explains otherwise. He is of opinion, that the Jews were given to judicial astrology, and asked a sign of Christ, whereby He should show from the stars that He was Messiah. They thought that God had pointed out, and as it were written in the stars, all His providence about human affairs, and the whole order of the universe. But Matthew here intimates nothing of the kind. The Pharisees really seem to have alluded to the manna, as may be collected from Joh 6:30-31. As though they said, “0 Jesu, Thou hast indeed multiplied bread upon earth, but give a sign from Heaven. Rain down manna from the sky, as Moses did; so shalt Thou show Thyself like unto Moses, and the new Law-giver sent by God.” So Remigius, Bede, Abulensis.

But he answered, &c. The physical reason of this is, that the redness of the sky or the atmosphere indicates that the clouds are not dense, and therefore will be dissipated during the night, and consequently the following day be serene or free from clouds. For red is an intermediate colour between black and white. The blackness of the clouds signifies that they are thick and dense, so that the rays of the sun cannot pierce through them. Their whiteness shows that they are of very great rarity, so that the sun’s rays shine through them. The redness of the clouds indicates that they are not altogether dense, or rarefied, but are becoming so.

And in the morning, it will be foul weather-rain or wind-for the sky is red and lowring. The Greek word is the same as in the preceding verse-, i.e., is ruddy, , i.e., a sky bringing sorrow. The physical reason is that if the sky be red in the morning, it indicates that there are indeed only a few clouds, but that they are so dense that they cannot be dispersed by the rising sun. Wherefore, when the sun ascends and waxes hot they are resolved into rain or wind, rather than are driven by Him elsewhere. Hear what Pliny says about the signs of the weather (lib. 18, c. 35): If the sun set clear, it is a sign of fine weather. If he set with a clear sky, and rise in the same way, it is a certain sign of fine ,weather. If the sun appear larger, at sunrise thin at sunset; if he rise with a bluish tinge, or set in the same way, it is a sign of rain; if of a fiery colour, it betokens east wind. When the clouds are red before sunrise, there will be wind. When they are grey, or dark intermingled with red, it is a sign of rain.

Symbolically: Abulensis says (qust. 9.) In the first advent of Christ there was the serenity of grace: in His second advent there shall be the storm of vengeance and of hell, which God shall cause to thunder against the reprobate.

Ye can discern the face of the sky, i.e., its external form and appearance. The signs of the times. These are the signs of the time of Messiah’s advent, or of the times, i.e., of the seventy weeks of Daniel, of the prophecy of the Patriarch Jacob (Gen 49:10.), and the rest of the Prophets. For these prophecies, together with the miracles, which Christ was working every day plainly proved that Messiah was already come, and that He was Messiah. This verse must be read as an interrogation, not as Lyra reads as a negative assertion. He explains thus, ye Jews are given to astrology, and ye wish by means of the stars to discern the time of Messiah’s advent. But ye are in error. For by the stars may be derived presages of fine weather, or of storm, but not of the advent of Messiah. But this is a mistake. The argument in this place is from a minor to a major, thus, “If from the signs of Heaven ye know how to discern coming fine weather, or a coming tempest, much more can ye and ought ye from the oracles of the Prophets and My miracles to recognize Me to be Messiah.” So SS. Hilary, Jerome, Euthymius. It is also plain from Luk 12:56, where Christ says, Ye hypocrites ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth: how is it ye cannot discern this time? i.e., of My advent. Thus in like manner there are many in the present day who are lynxes in earthly things, moles in things Divine: prudent in the world, foolish for Heaven, of piercing sight in heaping up money, most ignorant in the worship of God. Their wisdom is in their purse, they are very dull in matters of conscience. S. Chrysostom gives another explanation (Hom. 54.) “There are signs of the present time, and there are other signs of what is to come. The signs of healing which I show are of time present: but the signs of the future shall be the signs in Heaven for which ye are now asking, 0 ye Scribes. For then there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon, and in the stars. (Luk 21:25.) Ye therefore act like Thales, who gazing at Heaven whilst he was walking, fell into a ditch. Thus also ye gazing at the future, and neglecting the present time of grace, are going headlong to destruction.”

An evil generation, &c. Christ repeats this verse, which we have already explained in chap. 12 (Mat 12:39).

And having left them, &c. From Magedan He passed over the Sea of Galilee, and returned to its hither bank, as appears from the following verse. Again and again did Christ pass over this sea, that He might teach the Galileans who dwelt on either side of it, according to the prophesy of Isaiah ix. 1.

And when His disciples, &c., had come, Gr. , i.e., when they had gone, meaning when they had ascended into the ship to cross over; for it is plain from the circumstances that this happened in the ship. For in the ship, and in sailing they would require food, of which they would find abundance in the harbour. The expression is a Hebraism. For the Hebrew verbs often denote an action not completed, but begun, or intended. So here, when they had come, i.e., when they had begun to come, when they were going they forgot, because the need of bodily refreshment had escaped their memory, through dwelling upon the company of the Lord, and the sweetness of the true bread, which was with them, i.e., Christ. So says Anselm.

Beware, Gr. , i.e., see of the leaven, i.e., of the doctrine as He explains verse 12 (Mat 16:11-12). Of this leaven He bids them beware, not in that the Pharisees taught and expounded the law of Moses: for in that respect He says they were to be heard and obeyed. But so far as they corrupted it with their own vain traditions, contrary to the law of God, and which were like sour leaven. By these traditions they infected the minds of their hearers. Luke (Luk 12:1.) calls it hypocrisy, take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For they had regard only to outward ceremonies and apparent sanctity, and neglected the purity of the heart. S. Jerome says, this is the leaven, of which the Apostle speaks. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Thus heretical doctrine, if it once cast the least spark into thy breast, will in a short time grow into a mighty flame, and take possession of the whole man.

But they reasoned, &c. Hugo and Dionysius expound thus: Christ said, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, because we have not taken bread, and He does not wish us to accept bread from them. Others take it more simply, thus: When the disciples heard Christ speak of leaven, they remembered that they had not taken any bread into the ship; and being afraid lest Christ might sail as he was accustomed, to some desert place, they were anxious to procure some loaves, and were disputing about it among themselves, perchance one throwing the blame of forgetfulness upon another. In this they committed two faults. First they were too anxious about the bread, and did not sufficiently trust in Christ, whose power and providence they had experienced but a little while before. The second fault was that they thought Christ was speaking of earthly leaven and bread, when He was speaking of what was spiritual.

But when Jesus knew it, &c. He knew this by the power of His Divinity; for He had not heard them speaking about this thing. Of little faith, as if I were speaking of earthly bread, for which I would have you anxious; or as if I were unable or unwilling to provide bread for you, either on board the ship or in the desert.

How many baskets (sportas), &c. Since Matthew as well as Mark invariably calls these baskets sports, and the baskets of’ the former miracle cophini it is clear that sport were a different kind of vessel and measure from cophini.

That I spake not to you concerning bread, &c. For from leaven bread is commonly made. Ye ought to have known from My words and deeds that I was not speaking of earthly bread but of spiritual, that is to say, of doctrine.

Then they understood, &c. Christ’s reproof sharpened their understanding.

When He was come . . . Cesarea Philippi. This was a town of Phnicia, situated at the foot of Lebanon. It was previously called Dan, because it had been captured by that tribe: and because two streams, named Jor and Dan, there unite and form the river Jordan. But because the name of Pan, the god of shepherds, was better known to the Gentiles than the Hebrew tribe Dan, the place was called by them Paneas. Afterwards, Philip, the son of Herod of Ascalon, who was tetrarch of Itura and Trachonites, enlarged it and made it the capital of his tetrarchy, and called it Cesarea, in honour of Tiberius Csar. It must be distinguished from the Cesarea between Dor and Joppa, which is called in the Acts absolutely Cesarea of Palestine. It was the boundary of Canaan, as promised by God to the Israelites towards the north, as Beersheba was its boundary on the south. Many of the neighbouring Gentiles flocked to this city. Therefore Christ retired to it upon this occasion, that He might teach the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that He might speak with more freedom about the Messiah. For in Judea it was perilous to speak upon this subject; since the Scribes were ready to accuse Him to the Roman governors of aiming at royal power, and of treason against Csar. Again this city had been a seat of idolatry, (Jdg 18:29, &c.). Christ therefore wished to cleanse it from this stain, and to bring it to the worship of God, yea to be the beginning and the matrix of Gentile Christian nations. It is now in the possession of the Turks, and is called Belima.

When do men say, &c. i.e., whom do they say that I, who out of humility, am wont to call Myself the Son of Man, am? And, especially I now so call Myself, that I may examine your faith concerning Me, 0 ye Apostles. The Syriac less correctly divides the sentence, in this manner, What do men say concerning Me, that I am the Son of Man? For Christ does not here ask whether He be so called, but asserts that He is the Son of Man, and goes on to ask what further men think about Him.

But some said . . . or one of the Prophets. The common people among the Jews were aware that for several hundred years Prophets had failed to be amongst them, together with the ark of the covenant and the oracles from the mercy seat. Thus they thought that Christ was not a new Prophet, but one of the ancient Prophets. For in Christ they beheld their virtues: their miracles and their doctrine. Few indeed were they who believed with certainty that He was the Messiah. By far the greater number did not believe. They were offended at His humility and His poverty. They thought Messiah would come with regal pomp as the Son of Solomon; as the Jews still think and expect. Wherefore although some of the people had recently said, when they saw so many miracles done by Christ, “Is not this the Son of David?” and, “This is indeed that Prophet which should come into the world;” yet this was a sudden and transient cry, elicited by beholding a miracle, not a firm and settled opinion: thus Abulensis. They thought that the soul of one of the Prophets had passed into Christ by metempsychosis. So Jansen and Baronius. Or more probably they thought one of the prophets had risen again, and Jesus was he; as though Jesus were really John the Baptist, Elias, or Jeremias: For the Pharisees and the Jews generally believed in the resurrection of the dead. This indeed is plain from what Herod said of Christ: This is John himself who is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show themselves in Him. Some thought Jesus to be John the Baptist, because he appeared to be very like him in age, in sanctity and in his preaching. And since John had been shortly before put to death by Herod, he was fresh in their memory, and seemed to be worthy of rising again. Others thought Christ was Elias, on account of the like zeal in both; and because Elias was not yet dead, and was expected by all the Jews to return according to the prophecy of Malachi (Mal 4:5): “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet.” They thought therefore that Elias had returned, and that Jesus was he. Others were of opinion that Christ was Jeremiah, because Jeremiah was a most holy man, and a mirror of patience and charity; and because some thought Jeremiah would return with Elias to preach to the Jews, being moved by those words, “I have given thee for a prophet to the Gentiles.” (Jer 1:5.)

Jesus saith to them, but whom do ye, &c. From the words but you, S. Jerome gathers that Christ here tacitly, as it were, calls the Apostles gods. “They indeed, because they are men have human ideas, but ye, who are gods, whom do ye think that I am?” But S. Chrysostom says with regard to the subject itself, “The Lord by His second question admonishes His disciples to think more loftily concerning Him. By the very manner of His interrogation, He shows that those common opinions fell far short of His dignity. You, He says, who have been always with Me, and who yourselves have done so many miracles in My name, whom do ye say that I am?”

Simon Peter answering, &c He who was called Simon when he was circumcised, was by Christ named Cephas, i.e., Peter. Some think Peter, as it were the mouth of the Apostles, answered not for himself alone, but for all. So S. Jerome, also Anselm, S, Thomas, the Gloss, Dionysius, Lyra, Jansen, and S. Augustine. Also S. Ambrose (l. de Incarn. c. 4). With more probability S. Hilary, Abulensis, Maldonatus, Francis Lucas, Barradi, and others think Peter spoke for himself, and his own feeling. For the other Apostles being silent, and hesitating what reply to give, Peter being wiser than the rest, forasmuch as he was taught of God, and being more fervent, lest any one should answer unworthily concerning Christ, dashed in with his answer, and replied on behalf of all: not because he knew the mind of all, for he had not spoken with them concerning the matter, but because he wished that his own opinion should be common to them all. This was what S. Jerome and the others who have been cited really meant, namely, that Peter, as about to be constituted after the resurrection the Prince of the Apostles and of the whole Church, being more deeply taught and inspired by God, recognized the Divinity of Christ, and answered concerning it what all the rest would have answered. This is plain, because to Peter only, as the reward of this confession, Christ promised the most ample reward and prerogative. For he says to him by name above the rest of the Apostles, “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,” &c.

Thou art the Christ, &c. Gr. , with the article. Thou, I say, art the Christ, or Messiah, i.e., anointed by God with the unction of the grace of the hypostatic Union with the WORD, and by this consecrated the Chief Doctor, High Priest, Prophet, and King of the world. Doctor, that Thou mayest teach men the will and law of God: High Priest, that by offering Thyself a sacrifice to God, Thou mayest reconcile the world to God; a prophet, that Thou mayest declare the secret things of God, and foretell things to come: a king that Thou mayest rule over Heaven and earth, and all the things which in them are.

Son of God: Not by grace and adoption, as all the saints are sons of God, but by nature and the Deity communicated to Thee by God the Father, by eternal generation. Wherefore the Greek has the definite article, , i.e., that Son, viz., the only natural son, of one substance with the Father. Living, who thus, formaliter lives the Divine, uncreated and beatific life, that causaliter, He breathes into all things created by Him, His own strength and vigour, and into living things, life and a soul. For from Him, as from a fountain and a sun of life, there floweth all the light and life of all angels, men, animals and plants. See what I have said on S. Joh 1:4. Thus S. Leo (Serm. de Transfig.): “The divine Peter, by the revelation of the Heavenly Father, overcoming corporeal things, and transcending things human, beheld the Son of the Living God, and confessed the glory of the Deity.” Thus too S. Chrysostom, Hilary, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Augustine, and Athanasius (Serm. 3. contra Arian.), and others, passim, who from this passage prove the Divinity of Christ.

Moreover SS. Hilary and Chrysostom and others are of opinion that S. Peter first of all men confessed the Divinity of Christ. Others deny this, saying that Nathanael confessed it before Peter, when he said, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou are the King of Israel. Nevertheless it is plain that before this confession of Peter the Apostles acknowledged Christ to be God from His very words, and from the many and great miracles which He wrought to prove it. We see this from the words of Peter (Joh 6:65 ), “Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ the Son of God.” Also from the words of the Apostles themselves, “Verily Thou art the Son of God.” (Mat 14:33.) But the Apostles, inasmuch as they were uninstructed, had formed a very confused and poor conception of this doctrine, and believed, after a sort, that Christ was truly the Son of God, above other Prophets, yea that He was God. But after what manner this was so, whether by eternal generation, or by some other way they were ignorant. But Peter being enlightened by God, recognized it distinctly, clearly, and sublimely, and first being asked concerning this thing, openly and constantly confessed the same and testified in this place, that verify, Christ was peculiarly the Son of God, that is, begotten of God the Father by eternal generation, and therefore consubstantial with Him, and very and eternal God. Christ required this faith concerning Himself from Peter and the Apostles-for the Apostles tacitly approved Peter’s confession, and tacitly confessed the same-as well because that faith is the foundation of our justification, as because the Passion and Death of Christ were at hand, in which it was needful that the Apostles should be sustained by this faith in the Divinity of Christ; lest when He was dead, they should think faith and all other things were dead with Him. This is plain from verse 21, &c.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. That is to say, blessed and happy art thou, 0 Peter, on account of this new faith concerning Me; for this is a mighty gift and benefit, not of flesh and blood, that is, not of nature, but by the grace of God inspiring and revealing to thee this very thing. For this faith is the beginning and the foundation of all grace and glory, and therefore it shall lead thee, and many through thee and thy example and preaching, to eternal blessedness. For blessedness in the journey standeth in the faith and love of Christ: but the blessedness of the country is the vision and fruition of the same, according to those words of S. John for “this is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.” Hence the synod of Ephesus (Act III.) says, “Thrice most blessed and worthy of all praise is the Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the base of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the true faith.” Hence also has arisen the custom of the faithful of addressing the Pontiff “Most Blessed Father.” Hence S. Jerome saith to Pope Damasus, “I am united to thy Blessedness,” that is, to the Chair of Peter.

Simon Bar-jona. For the father of Simon Peter was called Johanna, that is John, as is plain from S. Joh 21:15, meaning “God hath given: or God hath pitied: or the gift of God, from ‘Ia’ which is contracted from Jehovah, and ‘chanan,’ that is, he hath visited, he hath given.” Peter, then, was the son of John, or the grace of God, because he was most pleasing to God, and full of His grace. S. Chrysostom observes, that Christ gave the addition “Bar-jona,” not only according to the Hebrew custom, which always adds the name of the father to the children, but with a special reference to Peter’s answer, as though Christ confirmed it and said, “Thou hast spoken truly, 0 Peter, that I am the Son of God, for as thou art the son of Jona, a man from a man, according to natural generation, so am I the Son of God the Father, but begotten of Him from eternity-God of God, of one substance and Godhead with Him.” Symbolically Jona, that is “a dove,” is the emblem of the Holy Ghost, who in the form of a dove came down upon Christ. In this place also he descended upon Peter, and revealed to him that Christ was verify and indeed the Son of God. Thus S. Jerome-“Peter obtains a name from his confession, because he had a revelation from the Holy Ghost, whose son he was to be called.” Bar-jona in our language signifies “the son of a dove.” “For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee”-that is, not earthly parents nor friends nor any man who consists of flesh and blood has revealed unto thee that I am the Son of God-forasmuch as this knowledge far transcends all nature, and the natural knowledge of all men, but My Heavenly Father hath made it known to thee by the illumination of His grace. “What flesh and blood could not reveal, has been revealed by the grace of the Holy Ghost,” saith S. Jerome. By flesh, S. Hilary understands the bodily eyes of S. Peter, for they had told him that Christ was a man, but the revelation of the Father alone had made known to him that He was God.

And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. “And I,” in Greek, “” i.e., but I, or now I, give back to thee as a reward, and I in turn say and promise: for as S. Jerome saith. “Christ pays back the testimony of the Apostle concerning Himself.” Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ-the Son of the living God:” this true confession received a reward, namely, “Thou art Peter.” I therefore who am the very Son of God as thou hast confessed, I the Son of God tell and assure thee, and by saying it, I make and constitute thee, Peter, so that after Me thou mayest become the rock of the Church. Christ had promised this name to Simon (S. Joh 1:42), Saying, “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter:” but in this place He fulfils the promise, and gives him the name of Peter in fact. S. Leo (Ser. III, Anniver. Ascens.) thus expounds: “And I say unto thee, that even as My Father hath made known to thee My excellence, so do I also make known to thee that thou art Peter, i.e., inasmuch as I am the inviolable Rock, &c., so likewise thou art a rock, because thou art strengthened by My strength, and the things which are Mine by My own power are thine by participation with Me.”

Thou are Peter, and upon this role I will build My Church. The meaning is, thou art Peter; that is, the rock of the Church: for upon thee as upon a most solid rock I will build My Church: for the WORD declares and gives the reason why he is Peter, that is to say, “Thou art Peter, because upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church.” S. Augustine (Tract 27, upon John, and.B. 1 Retract, C. 1) says, “Upon this Rock, that is upon Myself, because the rock was Christ,” 1Co 10:4. Calvin, (B. 4, Inst. c. 6), and the heretics eagerly follow this interpretation, that they may overthrow the authority and the primacy of Peter and the Pope. But that Peter himself is here called the rock, the rest of the Fathers almost universally agree. Maldonatus and Bellarmine (B. 1, concerning the Roman Pontiff, e. 10) quote them at large. The meaning then is this, thou art “Kepha,” or “Cephas,” i.e., a rock or a very hard and very firm stone, for this is the signification of the Hebrew “Keph,” and of the Chaldee and Syriac “Kepha,” marked out and ordained by Me, that after My death, and the gift of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, having been entirely solidified and made strong, thou mayest become the foundation of the Church which I will build upon thee. For before the coming of the Holy Ghost, Peter was very far from being the rock of the Church; yea through fear he denied Christ in His Passion. So then the word “Peter,” and “Petra,” denotes the firmness of S. Peter as a prince of the Church, and of his successors the Pontiffs, and their constancy in the faith and religion of Christ. Thus among others, Angelus Caninius on the Hebrew names of the New Testament c. xu 1.

Moreover, that Peter is here called the Rock, is proved first, by the pronoun “this,” upon “this rock;” for since “this” is demonstrative it ought thus to be understood, viz.:-this rock of which I have spoken, and to whom I speak, i.e., thou art Peter the rock of the Church, and upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church. For there had been no mention made of any other rock to which the pronoun “this” could refer, except Peter. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. x., for there it is said “they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” Here the word rock precedes, which he explains by saying, that it was so, typically, that is to say, represented Christ: as if Christ had spoken in French He would have said “Tu es Pierre, et sur cest pierre je bastiray mon eglise.”

You may say, Christ said not thou art petra, but thou art Petrus, and so deny that the pronoun this refers to Peter. I answer, that Christ is said to have spoken in Syriac, thou art kepha, and upon this kepha I will build, &c. For kepha means a rock, and hence Peter in Syriac was called kepha. But the Greek translator, who is followed by the Latin, gave the masculine form of the noun-namely petrus rather than petra, which is feminine: but and in Greek equally signify a rock or a stone. Peter therefore is the same word as petra, but the translator made a variation for the sake of elegance, and rendered it thou art Peter and upon this petra, not upon this Petros, as in a true and proper sense he might have done, both because petra in Greek is more frequently used for a rock or a stone than petros, and because houses are properly built upon stones, not upon men. Beza allows this when he says “the Lord speaking in Syriac did not make use of a surname, but said cepha in both places, as in the vernacular the word pierr is used both as a proper and a common noun. In Greek, likewise, and differ only in their termination, not in their meaning.” Thus far correctly, but mistakenly he adds, “Matthew, or whoever was his translator, seems by this difference of interpretation to have intended that Peter, who is a part of the building, should be distinguished from the rock itself on which the building stands, that is from Christ; likewise that Peter himself should be distinguished from the promise of the faith which is common to the whole Church, as ancient writers also clearly prove, in order that Antichrist (so the heretics calls the Roman Pontiff) may become most ridiculous when his followers endeavour to establish his tyranny from this passage.” How petulantly and falsely Beza writes may be seen and learnt from the original passages of the Fathers which Bellarmine and Maldonatus cite, as I have already said. Besides, the text of Scripture itself is to be preferred to the translator: nor had the Greek translator a meaning different from the Syriac text, as I have previously said. I omit many other proofs, which either from what has been said, or from what will be said, will show the falsity of Beza’s conclusion.

Secondly-The same thing is plain from this, that there would be a want of connection to say thou art Peter and upon Myself the Rock I will build My church. In this indeed there would be a lessening of the speech, and an overthrow of the benefit bestowed. For Peter might say to Christ, “I am Peter, that is the rock of the Church, how then dost thou build Thy Church not upon me but upon Thyself?”

Thirdly-Because all that goes before and that follows refer to Peter alone: “and I,” he saith, “say to thee, 0 Peter, that is, I give and assign to thee as the reward and prerogative of thy great faith and confession, that after Myself, and after My death and resurrection, I will make thee the rock and foundation of the Church;” for this is the meaning of I will build My Church.

Fourthly-Because the original oriental versions agree together in this, that petrus is the very same word as petra, and petra as petrus, whence they give the same name Kepha to Petrus and Petra. Christ therefore as Angelus Caninius says, spoke thus in Syriac: ant kepha, veal kepha hadden ebne iat tsibbuti; or as the Syriac Gospel has it, ant hu kipha, veal hada kipha ebne leidti, that is, thou art Cepha, that is a rock, and upon this Cepha, that is petra, meaning upon thee, who art Peter or a rock, “I will build my Church.” Moreover, the Hebrew Gospel, which Sebastian Munster has edited as authentic, and as written by S. Matthew himself, has in like manner atta kepha, veal kepha hazzot ebne eth macpeli. So also the Armenian Gospel: Is bim, he saith e vera ais bim, that is, thou art a rank, and upon this rock I will build, &c.; and the Arabic Gospel, ant alsachra va ala hada, alsachra abni baidti, thou art a rock, and upon that rock I will build my Church. The thiopic Gospel has Anta quoqueh va dibazati, quoqh annesa lebeita Christianei, that is, thou are a rock and upon this rock I will build the Christian house-that is the Church. The Coptic also has, but I say unto thee that thou art this Peter, I will found my Church upon this rock, which is none else than this Peter, otherwise there would be no connection, for he gives the reason, the because, why he will build the Church upon a rock, because indeed Peter will be a solid rock on which the whole Church being founded may rest securely as upon a strong foundation. The Persian is, “I say unto thee that thou art sanac,” i.e., a rock, “and upon this sanac,” that is, rock, “I will build my Church.” Moreover, the Persian paraphrase explains sanac as a rock, adding, thou art the rock, that is, foundation and judge. (Vide Peter Victor in Annotat. ad N. T. pp. 105, 102, where he gives at length all these versions.)

To S. Augustine it is replied that he was misled by his ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, and therefore thought that petrus was something different from petra, and that Peter was as it were called appellatively from it Petreius, although it appears from the Syriac that Petrus and Petra are the same. Again, S. Augustine admits as probable the explanation of those who say that Peter is the rock of the Church; and in this respect he is at issue with Calvin, who is of opinion that such an explanation is blasphemy against Christ. Listen to S. Augustine in his sermon on the Chair of Peter. “Lastly, for strengthening the devotion of the churches he is called the rock; as saith the Lord, ‘thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;’ for he is called the rock because he first laid the foundations of the faith for the nations, and like an immovable rock he holds the joints and the superstructure of the entire Christian edifice. Peter then is called a rock on account of devotion, and the Lord is called a rock on account of strength; as saith the Apostle, ‘they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.’ Rightly does he deserve an association in name who had obtained an association in work. Peter lays the foundation, Peter plants; the Lord gives the increase, the Lord waters.” The same Augustine (Serm. 16 de Sanctis) says, “Worthy was Peter to be a foundation for building up the people of God, to be a pillar for support, a key to the kingdom.”

In fine, even if that exposition of S. Augustine were allowed, although it is not the true one, still it may thence be proved that Peter, after Christ, who is the Rock and Corner Stone of the Church, is still the next foundation, rock, or stone of the Church. For then the sense would be, I am the Rock upon which I will build the Church; but thou, 0 Peter, art next unto Me, and the next rock of the Church, upon whom immediately after Myself I will build My Church, and therefore thee only I call Peter, who before wast called Simon. By the same arguments the Magdeburg Centuriators (l. 1. cent. 1, chap. 4.) are refuted, and the Genevan ministers who in their Bibles expound thus-“upon this rock, that is, upon this confession or faith-viz.: that I am the Son of God.” For nowhere previously has this confession been called a rock, as Peter immediately before was called Cephas, that is, a rock.

You may say, some of the Fathers, by the rock, understand the faith which Peter confessed and set forth. So S. Chrysostom, S. Hilary (l. 6 de Trinit.), S. Cyril. (l. 4 de Trinit.), S. Ambrose (l. 6 in Luc. c. 9). I answer, these Fathers do not mean the faith abstractedly, but the faith as it was in Peter, and consequently they take Peter himself to be the rock of the Church, as they themselves afterwards fully explain. They hold that Peter, for the merit of his faith received the dignity of a rock in the Church. As SS. Hilary and Chrysostom say expressly; for on account of that faith he had deserved to be himself the foundation of the Church, and that his faith should never fail, but that he should confirm and strengthen others in the faith. (S. Luke xxii. 32.) For the Church is fashioned and renewed not of faith, but of faithful men, who are as it were its parts (for the Church is nothing else than the company of the faithful), wherefore, likewise, in order that the head of the Church may be of the same nature as the body, that head must be a faithful man-that is to say, Peter and the Pontiff. The faith then is the reason of the founding, but the foundation is Peter himself. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril (l. 4 de Trinit.) and S. Ambrose, Bellarmine (l. 1 de Pont. c. 10) where he refutes both Erasmus and Chytrus, who follow Origen, who allegorizes after his custom, and understands by the rock all the faithful. In this way indeed the whole Church would be the rock, for the whole Church consists of none other than the faithful; but where then would be the walls, the floors, and the roof of the Church? Of what then shall these be built? (See also Gretser in defence of Bellarm, l. 3. c. 5.)

Lastly, Christ bestowed this gift upon Peter as the future Pontiff of the Church; wherefore He gave the same gift to all the other Pontiffs, his successors, and that for the good of the Church, that it might be strengthened by them as by a rock, in the faith and religion of Christ. Wherefore, S. Bernard (l. 2, de Consid.) saith to Pope Eugenius, “Who art thou? A great priest-the chief Pontiff. Thou art the prince of bishops, thou art the heir of the Apostles, thou art Abel in primacy, Noah in government, Abraham in the patriarchate; in order, thou art Melchisedeck, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judgeship Samuel, in power Peter, in unction a Christ. To thee the keys have been delivered, the sheep entrusted.”

And upon this rock. From hence it is plain that like as Cephas is derived from cepha, so is Peter from petra, indeed that he is the same as petra, as I have already shown. Wherefore, when Optatus Milevit. (l. 2, against Parmen.) and others derive Cephas from the Greek , that is, a head-they do it by a congruous allusion, not by a real etymology. By a similar allusion, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. on the Passover) derives Phase or Pascha-which is a Hebrew word, as everybody knows (Exod. xii.), from the Greek , that is, to suffer. For in the Passover happened the Passion of Christ, and His immolation as the Paschal Lamb. Moreover, Christ gave this name of rock, rather than other names (such as pillar, tower, anchor, foundation, &c.), because this name of rock is given in Scripture to Christ Himself (Isa 28:16; Psa 118:22; Mat 21:42.) He communicated, therefore, a share in His own name, together with His dignity and office. Thus S. Jerome; and S. Gregory (On the Seven Penitential Psalms) says: “Christ is the rock, from which rock Peter received his name, and upon which He said that He would build.” Listen to S. Leo (Serm. 3, On the Anniversary of his Accession), where he introduces Christ as speaking thus to Peter: “Since I am the rock, I the cornerstone, who make of both one; I the foundation, besides which no one can lay any other; nevertheless thou art a rock likewise, because thou art strengthened by My strength in order that what things are Mine by Mine own power, may be thine also through participation with Me: and upon this rock I will build My Church; upon this strength He says, I will construct an eternal temple, &c.”

I will build My Church. That is to say, I therefore call thee Peter and the rock, because as a house is built upon a rock that it may rest firm and immovable upon it against every blast of the winds, so will I build upon thee, 0 Peter, as upon a most solid rock, My Church; that resting upon thee, it may abide firm against all the attacks of heretics and wicked men, and that thou mayest keep and sustain it in the true faith and worship of God, in like manner as a rocky foundation sustains and holds together the entire house which is built upon it. Thus S. Ambrose (Serm. 4) saith: “Peter is called the rock, because-like an immovable rock-he sustains the joints and the mass of the whole Christian edifice.”

You may say all the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, as is plain from Eph 2:20, and Apoc. xxi. 20 (Rev 21:20); so then Peter only is not the rock of the Church. I answer, that Peter is the rock and the foundation of the whole Church and of the entire body of the faithful, and therefore of the Apostles themselves. For the office of Peter-who is primate and chief-was to retain, direct, and strengthen the Apostles in faith, religion, and duty, and if at any time they should err, to correct them. Whence S. Jerome (l. 1, contra Jovin.) says: “Wherefore among twelve one is chosen, that by the appointment of a head, occasion of schism might be taken away.” And S. Cyprian (Tract on the Unity of the Church) says, “the primacy is given to Peter that it might be shown there is one Church of Christ and one Chair.”

Observe, Christ in this place promises by two metaphors, as S. Jerome says, that after His death and resurrection He will give to Peter the principality of the Church. The first metaphor is that of a foundation or foundation rock. For that thing, which in a building is the rock and foundation, in a body is the head, in a state the ruler, in a kingdom the king, in a church the pontiff. The second metaphor is that of the keys: for keys are only given to kings and rulers.

Observe, secondly: to build the Church upon this rock, signifies two things. First, that upon this reasonable stone-namely, Peter, as the head of all the Apostles-the care and government of the whole Church devolve next after Christ. Thus S. Chrysostom (Hom. 55), S. Ambrose (Serm. 57), S. Gregory (l. 4, Epist. 32). Secondly, that the Church rests upon and is strengthened by Peter as a foundation, as the Vicar of Christ, so that it cannot err in matters of faith. Whence Peter, on account of his lofty confession of faith, received grace from Christ to become and to be appointed this foundation rock.

And this is the meaning of SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Cyril-and Nyssen, in the end of his book (Contra Judos)-when they say that the Church was built by Christ upon the faith and confession of Peter, as I have explained above. Moreover, S. Chrysostom in this place lays stress upon the words I will build, and says: “They are similar to those words ‘God said,’ in the first chapter of Genesis, by which words all things were created and subsist.” In like manner he says: “I will build, hath wrought all, even though tyrants oppose, soldiers fight, the people rage, custom struggles. For the word of God coming like a vehement fire, hath burnt up the thorns, hath cleansed the fields, hath prepared the ground, hath raised the building on high, &c.” S. Jerome also (Epist. 57), consulting Pope Damasus whether we may say there are three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity or only one-thus addresses him: “I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. I, following none first, except Christ, am united to your Blessedness; that is, in communion with the See of Peter. I know that upon that rock the Church is built. Whosoever eateth the Lamb outside of this house is profane; if any man be not in the ark of Noah, he shall perish in the swelling of the deluge.”

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Namely, against the Church, because it has been founded upon Peter and his successors, as upon a most solid rock.

The gates of hell, i.e., the infernal city, meaning all hell, with its entire army of demons, and with the whole power of Lucifer its king. For hell and the city of God, i.e., the Church, are here put in opposition. When S. Augustine wrote his work de Civitate Dei, in the beginning of which he speaks of the two opposite cities; the one of God which is the Church; the other of the devil, i.e., of demons and wicked men: he takes the gates of hell to mean heresies, and heresiarchs; for they fight against the faith of Peter and the Church, and they proceed from hell and are stirred up by the devil. So S. Epiphanius (in Ancoratu), not far from the beginning. There are here the two figures of speech-synecdoche and metonymy; for by the gates he means the whole city, both because the gate is the entrance into a city, and because the chief defences and strength of a city are wont to be at the gates, because if they and the adjoining walls are safe, the city is safe, if they are taken, the city is taken.

Shall not prevail. Heb. lo juchelu la, i.e., shall not be able to stand against it-namely, the Church. So S. Hilary and Maldonatus. More simply, shall not prevail, i.e., shall not conquer or overcome, or pull down the Church. For this is the meaning of the original Greek. We have here the figure of speech, miosis: for little is said but much is meant; not only that the Church shall not be conquered, but that she shall conquer and subdue under her all heretics, tyrants, and every other enemy, as she overcame Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Nero, Decius, Diocletian, &c. Therefore by this word Christ first animates his Church that she should not be faint hearted when she sees herself attacked by all the power of Satan and wicked men. In the second place, He as it were sounds a trumpet for her, that she may always watch with her armour on against so many enemies, who attack her with extreme hatred. Thirdly, He promises to her, as well as to her head, Peter, i.e., the Pontiff-victory and triumph over them all. Again, Christ and the Holy Ghost assist with special guidance her head, the Roman Pontiff, that he should not err in matters of faith, but that he may be firm as an adamant, says S. Chrysostom, and that he may rightly administer and rule the Church, and guide it in the path of safety, as Noah also directed the ark that it should not be overwhelmed in the deluge. Wherefore S. Chrysostom (Hom. de Verb. Isaiah) says: “It were more easy for the sun to be extinguished than for the Church to fail;” and again, “what can be more powerful than the Church of God: the barbarians destroy fortifications, but not even the devils overcome the Church. When it is attacked openly, it conquers; when it is attacked by treachery, it overcomes.” S. Augustine on the Psalms against the Donatists, says: “Reckon up the Bishops even from the very Pontificate of Peter. That is the very rock which the proud gates of hell conquer not.” This has been made especially plain in the conversion of all nations, specially of Rome and the Romans. For Rome being the head, both of the world and of idolatry, where the idols of all nations were worshipped, has been converted from them by S. Peter and his successors, and has bowed down her proud head to the cross of Christ, which thing is of all miracles the greatest.

And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Thee-who art one person-namely, Bar-jona, or the son of Jona, as is plain from everything which precedes and follows. Not therefore in this place were the keys of Heaven promised to Peter in the person of the Church, or primarily to the Church herself, as the heretics take it, but to Peter himself as the head of the Church; and through him to the Church and her ministers, in like manner as to the same Peter they were specially given and consigned by Christ after His resurrection, when He said: “Feed My sheep.” Thus the Greek and Latin Fathers explain, passim, whose words Bellarmine recites (l. 1 de Pontiff, c. 12), where in like manner he proves at length that this is the meaning of S. Augustine, when he says that Peter bore the figure of the Church because indeed Peter was a representative of the Church as a king of a kingdom: for so indeed S. Augustine explains himself (Tract. ult. upon S. John), where he says: “Of this Church the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his Apostleship, was a kind of general representative.” And on Psalm 109, “Of which Church he is acknowledged to be the representative, on account of the primacy which was his among the disciples.” Wherefore for the good of the Church Peter, as her head, received the keys from Christ; from which it is also plain that Christ promised the keys to Peter as a future Pontiff, and consequently promised the same keys to the other Roman Pontiffs, successors of Peter. For Christ in this place had regard to a most necessary matter, and of the highest moment to His ever-abiding Church-that is to say, to its perpetual head; and He ordained the best and most abiding constitution for her, namely, the monarchical, that the one Church of Christ should be ruled by the one Roman Pontiff, as S. Cyprian teaches on the Unity of the Church; S. Jerome (l. 1, contra. Jovin.), and others, passim. Our Gretzer, and after him Adam Contsen, ably refute the cavils of Calvin and his followers about this passage. The keys-you will ask what the keys here signify. Calvin answers (l. 4, Inst. c. 6, sec. 3), that they signify both the power to preach the Gospel, as well as the forgiveness of sins to him who believes the Gospel which promises forgiveness. But this is a jejune and worthless explanation. For by keys doors are opened, not the mouths of preachers. Whence keys specially belong to kings and rulers; not to doctors, and teachers, and preachers; wherefore the keys here signify properly the right to rule; whereunto pertains not only power to preach the Gospel, but also to absolve sins, to admonish, to ordain priests, to interpret Holy Scripture, to excommunicate, and to do all other things which pertain to the good government of the Church.

I say therefore, by the keys is here signified the chief power, both of order and jurisdiction, over the whole Church, promised and delivered in this place by Christ to Peter. For with such an object in view the keys of the cities are delivered to kings and princes. And Christ thus explains the keys in what follows, when He says: Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, &c. For he who hath the keys of a house, or of a city is its lord, to open or shut it at his pleasure: to admit into it, and to shut out of it whom he will. There is an allusion to Isa c. xxii.(Isa 22:20-23), where God promising the principality of the synagogue to Eliakim, the Pontiff of the Old Testament, says: “And I will lay upon his shoulder the key of the house of David, so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” Moreover, Eliakim was a type of Christ as a priest, of whom it is said (Rev 21:10), “I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” The sense then is this-I, Christ, will give to thee, Peter, as a Pontiff, and consequently to all the other Popes who come after thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by which I mean supreme authority to rule the universal Church dispersed throughout the whole world, that by the keys, i.e., by thy power in opening or shutting the Church to men, thou mayest open or shut heaven to them. Where observe Christ said not, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of earth, lest an earthly and temporal power should be thought to be meant, but of the kingdom of heaven, that this power might be properly and directly exercised in spiritual things, which are those that pertain to the kingdom of heaven; but that it should be exercised only indirectly with reference to temporal things, being such as are necessary, or at least very profitable to spiritual matters. Thus S. Chrysostom (Hom. 55) teaches that by the delivery of these keys by Christ to Peter there was committed to him the care and government of the whole world, and that he was created pastor and head of the entire Church. Thus also S. Gregory (l. 4, ep. 32) says: “It is plain to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church has been committed to S. Peter, the chief of all the Apostles.” And he immediately adds the reason, “for to him it is said, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Thus also S. Hilary on this passage, and S. Leo, (Serm. 2 in Anniv. Assum.), and others, passim. Listen also to S. Augustine (Serm 28 de Sanct.) “Peter alone among the Apostles had grace to hear, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Worthy indeed was he to be a foundation stone for building up the people in the house of God; to be a pillar to support them, a key for the kingdom. Hence also S. Ambrose (l. 2, ep. 13) to his sister Marcellina-when he records the contest which he had with the Arians, who had demanded that the keys of the Cathedral of Milan, over which he presided should be delivered to them, and that by the command of the Emperor Valentinian the younger, who was ruled by his mother Justina, an Arian-said: “The order is given,-‘Deliver up the Cathedral.’ I answer, it is neither lawful for me to deliver it, nor is it fitting for thee, 0 Emperor, to receive it. Thou hast no right to intrude upon the house of a private person, dost thou think, that God’s house may be taken away? It is alleged, all things are lawful to the Emperor, for all things are his. I answer, Do not burden thyself, 0 Emperor, to think that thou hast any imperial right over those things which are Divine. Do not lift up thyself, but if thou wouldst reign long, be subject to God, for it is written, Render unto Csar the things that are Csar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. To the Emperor pertain palaces, but churches to the priesthood. To him has been committed the power over the public fortifications, not of sacred buildings.” Thus Hosius, bishop of Cordova, president of the Nicene Counsel, steadfastly replied to the Arian Emperor Constantius, when he made a similar demand; that to him belonged the keys of the cities, but the keys of the church to the Pontiff alone. “To thee” he says, “God has committed the empire, to us he has entrusted what belongs to the Church.”

Tropologically, the keys denote the industry, skill and wisdom in ruling which ought to exist in a Pontiff; for a key ought to be skilfully placed, fitted to, and turned in the lock, that the door may be opened; so “the art of arts is the government of souls,” says S. Gregory in his Pastoral.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whatsoever, i.e., whomsoever, but he says whatsoever, because the neuter gender is fuller and of more universal application than the masculine. For the Pontiff binds and looses not men only, but sins, vows, oaths, &c. There is a transition from the metaphor of the keys to the kindred metaphor of binding and loosing; for to open and shut, to bind and loose, are akin. Whence, by it, he signifies the same thing-that by the keys and by the rock are meant the supreme authority of Peter and the Pontiffs in ruling the Church. The power therefore of binding is a very ample one, and is exercised by Peter and the Pontiff in various ways. First, by not absolving but retaining sins and offences, and by refusing sacramental absolution in the sacrament of penance to such as are unworthy, and without the proper dispositions, so likewise by refusing the Eucharist and other sacraments. (S. Joh 20:23.) Second, by enjoining penance to the lapsed. Third, by binding such as are guilty with excommunication and other ecclesiastical censures. Fourth, by enjoining laws and precepts with respect to feasts, fasts, tithes, &c., upon the faithful. Fifth, by binding Christians with definitions of faith, when the Pontiff, ex cathedra, defines and declares what is to be believed, what is to be rejected, as erroneous and heretical, what monastic orders are good, what are not-what estate of life is honourable and lawful-what is not, &c. Hence, from the contraries, it is plain what is meant by loosing; namely, to absolve and to release from the aforesaid obligations. Christ therefore here explains the power of the keys through the metaphor, not of opening and shutting, which are the two proper offices of keys, but by one more powerful, that is of chains, by binding men with them, or loosing those that are bound; which power S. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs, his successors, have received from Christ over all men whatsoever, throughout the whole world. The Pontiffs, nevertheless, give a share of this power, as they think good, to bishops and pastors and other ministers of the Church subordinate to them; and therefore Christ said to the other Apostles also (Mat 18:18): Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall 1oose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven; by which words the same power is given to the Apostles by Christ over the whole world which is here given to Peter; but the same power is here given in an especial manner to Peter only, to signify that he has the primacy and the principality in this power, so as to be able by it to be direct, constrain, correct the other Apostles, as it were subordinate to him, and committed to his care, and hence that he might, if indeed it were needful, deprive them of it. Whence the Synod of Alexandria, over which S. Athanasius presided, agreeable to the council of Nice, writes to Pope Felix that the power of binding and loosing has been, by a special privilege granted, above others, to the Roman See by the Lord Himself.

Upon earth: (Following upon these words Lapide enters upon a discussion as to how far, and in what manner the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff extends over souls in hell or purgatory. He gives various opinions of theologians, not apparently of the very highest authority, which it would be wearisome to translate, and then concludes the discussion, summing up as follows: Translator.) In fine it is more agreeable to truth that the Pope possesses judicial power to bind and loose those only who are living upon the earth, but not the dead. When therefore he gives indulgences applicable to the departed, it is not in the way of judicial absolution, because the dead are no longer under his jurisdiction, but by way of suffrages, as he is accustomed fully to express in his Bulls-namely, by expending for the dead so much of the treasure of the Church, of which he is the steward, as the departed owe of penalties to God. For this treasure is upon earth, and is at the disposal of the Pontiff. This is the opinion of S. Thomas, Bonaventura, Alensis, Gabriel, Major, Richardus, Cajetan, D. Soto, Navarre, and Bellarmine (Tract. de Indul.), whom Suarez cites and follows (de Pnit: Disp. 53, s. 2. n. et seq.), who also adds, that properly and directly the Pontiff can neither excommunicate the dead, nor absolve them from excommunication, but only indirectly, in so far as he may directly forbid, or permit the living to pray for one who is dead, and by so doing may deprive the dead indirectly of the suffrages of the Church, as though they had been excommunicated-or, on the other hand, may give them a share in those suffrages, in the same manner as if he absolved them from excommunication. When, therefore, Christ saith here to Peter Whatsoever thou shall loose, &c., by loosing is to be understood not only judicial absolution, but every dispensation, favour and grace as well, which, by the efficacy of that power, has been conferred upon him by Christ, and of this kind is that dispensing of the treasure of the Church which, by way of suffrages, the Pontiff expends and applies for the benefit of the faithful departed. This then is the meaning of the words upon earth.

Then He commanded . . . Jesus the Christ. Some Greek MSS. and the Syriac omit the word Jesus. Then the sentence flows more clearly; for all men knew that He was called Jesus, but they did not know that He was Messiah, or Christ, the true Son of God. Christ did not wish the Apostles to preach this doctrine to others, for two reasons; first, because they themselves were not as yet sufficiently instructed and confirmed in it. Secondly, because Christ was about to be put to death by the Jews. Wherefore the Jews would have been scandalised if the Apostles had preached that He was Messiah and God, and would have said to them, Away with your Christ to destruction, Who would make us Deicides-even as the Jews say to Christians now; wherefore, had they once cast away faith in Christ, they would not have hearkened to it any more, even though it had been attested afterwards by miracles. Thus they were to wait for the death, the glory, and the resurrection of Christ; that then they might proclaim Him to be Messiah and the Son of God, and confirm this doctrine by miracles, and persuade the people, as they did at Pentecost (Acts ii.), according to the words: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Phil. ii. 9, 10.) Thus S. Jerome: “Preach Me when I shall have suffered those things, since it is not expedient that Christ should be publicly proclaimed, and His majesty made commonly known among the people, when they are about shortly to behold Him scourged and crucified.”

From that time forth began Jesus, &c. Gr. , i.e., from this time in which He had made known to them His Divinity, He began to teach them concerning His Passion and Death. For there are two chief points of faith-namely, Christ’s Divinity, and His Humanity, together with His Cross and Passion, by which He redeemed the world. There was also another reason-lest when the Apostles beheld Christ put to death, they should doubt concerning His Divinity; and He would show them that the two things were not inconsistent. For in this way only could He make perfect sa

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

16:1 The {1} Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and {a} tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

(1) The wicked who otherwise disagree with one another, agree well together against Christ, but do what they can, Christ is victorious, and triumphs over them.

(a) To see whether he could do that which they desired, but their purpose was useless for they thought to find something in him by it, in which case they might have just occasion to reprehend him: or else distrust and curiosity moved them to do so, for by such means also is God said to be tempted, that is to say, provoked to anger, as though men would strive with him.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

7. The opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees 16:1-12

Back in Jewish territory Jesus faced another attack from Israel’s religious leaders.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The renewed demand for a sign 16:1-4 (cf. Mar 8:11-12)

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Matthew introduced the Pharisees and Sadducees with one definite article in the Greek text. Such a construction implies that they acted together. That is remarkable since they were political and theological enemies (cf. Act 23:6-10). However a common opponent sometimes transforms enemies into allies (cf. Luk 23:12; Psa 2:2). Representatives of both parties constituted the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish governing body in Israel (cf. Act 23:6). This delegation, evidently from Jerusalem, represented the most official group of religious leaders that Matthew reported coming to Jesus thus far.

These men came specifically to test Jesus (Gr. peipazontes), to demonstrate who He was by subjecting Him to a trial that they had contrived (cf. Mat 4:1; Mat 4:7). The scribes and Pharisees had asked Jesus for a sign earlier (Mat 12:38). Now the Pharisees and Sadducees asked Him to produce a sign from heaven. The Jews believed that demons could do signs on earth, but only God could produce a sign out of heaven. [Note: Alford, 1:169.] The Jews typically looked for signs as divine authentication that God was indeed working through people who professed to speak for Him (cf. 1Co 1:22).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 12

The Crisis in Galilee

Mat 14:1-36 – Mat 15:1-39 – Mat 16:1-12.

THE lives of John and of Jesus, lived so far apart, and with so little intercommunication, have yet been interwoven in a remarkable way, the connection only appearing at the most critical times in the life of our Lord. This interweaving, strikingly anticipated in the incidents of the nativity as recorded by St. Luke, appears, not only at the time of our Saviours baptism and first introduction to His Messianic work, but again at the beginning of His Galilean ministry, which dates from the time when John was cast into prison, and once again as the stern prophet of the desert finishes his course; for his martyrdom precipitates a crisis, to which events for some time have been tending.

The period of crisis, embracing the facts recorded in the two chapters following and in part of the sixteenth, is marked by events of thrilling interest. The shadow of the cross falls so very darkly now upon the Saviours path, that we may look for some more striking effects of light and shade, – Rembrandt-like touches, if with reverence we may so put it, – in the Evangelists picture. Many impressive contrasts will arrest our attention as we proceed to touch briefly on the story of the time.

I-THE BANQUET OF HEROD AND THE FEAST OF CHRIST Mat 14:1-21

“Among them that are born of woman there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” Such was the Saviours testimony to His forerunner in the hour of his weakness; and the sequel fully justified it. The answer which came to Johns inquiry brought him no outward relief. His prison bolts were as firmly fastened as before, Herod was as inexorable, the prospect before Him as dark as ever; but he had the assurance that Jesus was the Christ, and that His blessed work of healing the sick and preaching the gospel to the poor was going on; and that was enough for him. So he was quite content to languish on, resting in the Lord and waiting patiently for Him. We learn from St. Mark that Herod was in the habit of sending for him at times, evidently interested in the strange man, probably to some extent fascinated by him, and possibly not without some lingering hope that there might be some way of reconciling the preacher of righteousness and securing the blessing of so well-accredited a messenger of Heaven. There is little doubt that at these times the way was open for John to be restored to liberty, if only he had been willing to lower his testimony against Herods sin, or consent to say no more about it; but no such thought ever crossed his noble soul. He had said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her”; and not even in the hour of deepest depression and darkest doubt did he for a moment relax the rigour of his requirements as a preacher of righteousness.

As he had lived, so he died. We shall not dwell on the details of the revolting story. It is quite realistic enough in the simple recital of the Evangelist. One cannot help recalling in this connection four hideous pictures of Salome with the head of John the Baptist recently displayed, all on the line, in the Salon at Paris. Of what possible use are such representations? To what sort of taste do they minister? There was no picture of John looking with flashing eyes at the guilty monarch as he said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her.” That is the scene which is worthy of remembrance: let it abide in the memory and heart; let the tragic end serve only as a dark background to make the central figure luminous, “a burning and a shining light.”

The time of Herods merciful visitation is over. So long as he kept the Baptist safe {Mar 6:19-20} from the machinations of Herodias, he retained one link with better things. The stern prisoner was to him like a second conscience; and so long as he was there within easy reach, and Herod continued from time to time to see him and hear what he had to say, there remained some hope of repentance and reformation. Had he only yielded to the promptings of his better nature, and obeyed the prophet, the way of the Lord would have been prepared, the preacher of righteousness would have been followed by the Prince of Peace; and the gospel of Jesus, with all its unspeakable blessing, would have had free course in his court and throughout his realm. But the sacrifice of the prophet to the cruelty of Herodias and the folly and wickedness of his vow put an end to such prospects; and the fame of Christs deeds of mercy, when at last it reached his ears, instead of stirring in him a living hope, aroused the demon of guilty conscience, which could not rid itself of the superstitious fear that it was John the Baptist risen from the dead. Thus passed away for ever the great opportunity of Herod Antipas.

The disciples of John withdrew in sorrow, but not in despair. They had evidently caught the spirit of their master; for as soon as they had reverently and lovingly taken up the mortal remains and buried them, they came and told Jesus.

It must have been a terrible blow to Him, – perhaps even more than it was to them, for they had Him to go to; while He had none on earth to take counsel with: He must carry the heavy burden of responsibility all alone; for even the most advanced of the Twelve could not enter into any of His thoughts and purposes; and certainly not one of them, we might indeed say not all of them together, had at this time anything like the strength and steadfastness of the great man who had just been taken away. We learn from the other accounts that at the same time the Twelve returned from their first missionary journey; so that the question would immediately come up, What was to be done? It was a critical time. Should they stir up the people to avenge the death of their prophet? This would have been after the manner of men, but not according to the counsel of God. Long ago the Saviour had set aside, as quite apart from His way of working, all appeals to force; His kingdom must be a kingdom of the truth, and on the truth He will rely, with nothing else to trust to than the power of patient love. So He takes His disciples away to the other side of the lake, outside the jurisdiction of Herod, with the thoughtful invitation: “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile.”

What are the prospects of the kingdom now? Sin and righteousness have long been at strife in the court of Galilee; now sin has conquered and has the field. The great preacher of righteousness is dead; and the Christ, to Whom he bore such faithful witness, has gone to the desert. Again the sad prophecy is fulfilled: “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” That little boat crossing from the populous shores of Gennesaret to the desert land on the other side-what does it mean? Defeat? A lost cause? Is this the end of the mission in Galilee, begun to the music of that majestic prophecy which spoke of it as daybreak on the hills and shores of Naphtali and Zebulun, Gennesaret and Jordan? Is this the outcome of two mighty movements so full of promise and hope? Did not all Jerusalem and Judea go after John, confessing their sins and accepting his baptism? And has not all Galilee thronged after Jesus, bringing their sick to be healed, and listening, at least with outward respect and often expressed astonishment, to His words of truth and hope? Now John is dead, and Jesus is crossing with His own disciples and those of John in a boat-one boat enough to hold them all-to mourn together in a desert place apart. Suppose we had been sitting on the shore that day, and had watched it getting ever smaller as it crossed the sea, what should we have thought of the prospects? Should we have found it easy to believe in Christ that day? Verily “the kingdom of God cometh not with observation.”

The multitudes will not believe on Him; yet they will not let Him rest. They have rejected the kingdom; but they would fain get as much as they can of those earthly blessings which have been scattered so freely as its signs. So the people, noticing the direction the boat has taken, throng after Him, running on foot round the northern shore. When Jesus sees them, sad and weary as He is, He cannot turn away. He knows too well that it is with no pure and lofty devotion that they follow Him; but He cannot see a multitude of people without having His heart moved with a great longing to bless them. So He “went forth, and healed their sick.”

He continued His loving work, lavishing His sympathy on those who had no sympathy with Him, tilt evening fell, and the disciples suggested that it was time to send the people away, especially as they were beginning to suffer from want of food. “But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart: give ye them to eat. And they say unto Him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. He said, Bring them hither to Me.”

The miracle which follows is of very special significance. Many things point to this.

(1) It is the one miracle which all the four Evangelists record.

(2) It occurs at a critical time in our Lords history. There has been discouragement after discouragement, repulse after repulse, despite and rejection by the leaders, obstinate unbelief and impenitence on the part of the people, the good seed finding almost everywhere hard or shallow or thorny soil, with little or no promise of the longed-for harvest. And now a crowning disaster has come in the death of John. Can we wonder that Christ received the tidings of it as a premonition of His own? Can we wonder that henceforth He should give less attention to public preaching, and more to the training of the little band of faithful disciples who must be prepared for days of darkness coming on apace-prepared for the cross, manifestly now the only way to the crown?

(3) There is the significant remark {Joh 6:4} that “the Passover was nigh.” This was the last Passover but one of our Saviours life. The next was to be marked by the sacrifice of Himself as “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” Another year, and He will have fulfilled His course, as John has fulfilled His. Was it not, then, most natural that His mind should be full, not only of thoughts of the approaching Passover, but also of what the next one must bring. This is no mere conjecture; for it plainly appears in the long and most suggestive discourse St. John reports as following immediately upon the miracle and designed for its application.

The feeding of the five thousand is indeed a sign of the kingdom, like those grouped together in the earlier part of the Gospel (Mat 8:1-34, Mat 1:1-25). It showed the compassion of the Lord upon the hungry multitude, and His readiness to supply their wants. It showed the Lordship of Christ over nature, and served as a representation in miniature of what the God of nature is doing every year, when, by agencies as far beyond our ken as those by which His Son multiplied the loaves that day, He transmutes the handful of seed-corn into the rich harvests of grain which feed the multitudes of men. It taught also, by implication, that the same God Who feeds the bodies of men with the rich abundance of the year is able and willing to satisfy all their spiritual wants. But there is something more than all this, as we might gather from the very way it is told: “And He commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and looking up to heaven, He blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.” Can we read these words without thinking of what our Saviour did just a year later, when He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat, this is My body?” {Mat 26:26} He is not, indeed, instituting the Supper now; but it is very plain that the same thoughts are in His mind as when, a year later, He did so. And what might be inferred from the recital of what He did becomes still more evident when we are told what afterwards He said-especially such utterances as these: “I am the bread of life; The bread which I will give you is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world; Verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”

We have, then, here, not a sign of the kingdom only, but a parable of life eternal, life to be bestowed in no other way than by the death to be accomplished at Jerusalem at the next passover, life for thousands, life ministered through the disciples to the multitudes, and not diminished in the ministering, but growing and multiplying in their hands, so that after all are fed there remain “twelve baskets full,”-far more than at the first: a beautiful hint of the abundance that will remain for the Gentile nations of the earth. That passover parable comes out of the anguish of the great Redeemers heart. Already, as He breaks that bread and gives it to the people, He is enduring the cross and despising the shame of it, for the joy set before Him of giving the bread of life to a hungry world.

One can scarcely fail at this point to contrast the feast in honour of Herods birthday with the feast which symbolised the Saviours death. “When a convenient day was come, Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; and “the rest is well known, -the feasting, mirth, and revelry, ending in the dark tragedy, followed by the remorse of a guilty conscience, the gnawing of the worm that dieth not, the burning of the fire that is not quenched. Then think of that other feast on the green grass in the pure air of the fresh and breezy hillside-the hungry multitudes, the homely fare, the few barley loaves and the two small fishes; yet by the blessing of the Lord Jesus there was provided a repast far more enjoyable to these keen appetites than all the delicacies of the banquet to the lords of Galilee-a feast pointing indeed to a death, but a death which was to bring life and peace and joy to thousands, with abundance over for all who will receive it. The one is the feast to which the world invites; the other is the least which Christ provides for all who are willing to “labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.”

II-CALM ON THE MOUNTAIN AND TROUBLE ON THE SEA.

We learn from the fourth Gospel that the immediate result of the impression made by our Lords miraculous feeding of the five thousand was an attempt on the part of the people to take Him by force and make Him a king. Thus, as always, their minds would run on political change, and the hope of bettering their circumstances thereby; while they refuse to allow themselves to think of that spiritual change which must begin with themselves, and show itself in that repentance and hunger and thirst after righteousness, which He so longed to see in them. Even His disciples, as we know, were not now, nor for a long time subsequent to this, altogether free from the same spirit of earthliness; and it is quite likely that the general enthusiasm would excite them not a little, and perhaps lead them to raise the question, as they were often fain to do, whether the time had not at last come for their Master to declare Himself openly, put Himself at the head of these thousands, take advantage of the widespread feeling of irritation and discontent awakened by the murder of John the Baptist, whom all men counted for a prophet, {Mar 11:32} hurl Herod Antipas from the high position he disgraced, and, with all Galilee under His control and full of enthusiasm for His cause, march southward on Jerusalem. This was no doubt the course of action they for the most part expected and wished; and, with One at their head Who could do such wonders, what was there to hinder complete success?

May we not also with reverence suppose that this was one of the occasions on which Satan renewed those assaults which he began in the wilderness of Judea? A little later, when Peter was trying to turn Him aside from the path of the Cross, Jesus recognised it, not merely as a suggestion of the disciple, but as a renewed temptation of the great adversary. We may well suppose, then, that at this crisis the old temptation to bestow on Him the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them-not for their own sake, of course (there could have been no temptation in that direction), but for the sake of the advancement of the interests of the heavenly kingdom by the use of worldly methods of policy and force-was presented to Him with peculiar strength.

However. this may have been, the circumstances required prompt action of some kind. It was necessary that the disciples should be got out of reach of temptation as soon as possible; so He constrained them to enter into a boat, and go before Him to the other side, while He dispersed the multitude. And need we wonder that in the circumstances He should wish to be entirely alone? He could not consult with those He trusted most, for they were quite in the dark, and anything they were at all likely to say would only increase the pressure put upon Him by the people. He had only One for His Counsellor and Comforter, His Father in heaven, Whose will He had come to do; so He must be alone with Him. He must have been in a state of great physical exhaustion after all the fatigue of the day, for though He had come for rest He had found none; but the brave, strong spirit conquers the weary flesh, and instead of going to sleep He ascends the neighbouring height to spend the night in prayer.

It is interesting to remember that it was after this night spent in prayer that He delivered the remarkable discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, in which He speaks so plainly about giving His flesh for the life of the world. It is evident, then, that, if any question had arisen in His mind as to the path of duty, when He was suddenly confronted with the enthusiastic desire of the multitudes to crown Him at once, it was speedily set at rest: He now plainly saw that it was not the will of His Father in heaven that He should take advantage of any such stirring of worldly desire, that Be must give no encouragement to any, except those who were hungering and thirsting after righteousness, to range themselves upon His side. Hence, no doubt, the sifting nature of the discourse He delivered the following day. He is eager to gather the multitudes to Himself; but He cannot allow them to come under any false assumption; -He must have spiritually-minded disciples, or none at all: accordingly He makes His discourse so strongly spiritual, directs their attention so far away from earthly issues to the issues of eternity (“I will raise him up at the last day” is the promise He gives over and over again, whereas they wanted to be raised up then and there to high places in the world), that not only did the multitude lose all their enthusiasm, but “from that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him,” while even the Twelve themselves were shaken in their allegiance, as seems evident from the sorrowful question with which He turned to them: “Will ye also go away?” We may reverently suppose, then, that our Lord was occupied, during the early part of the night, with thoughts like these-in preparation, as it were, for the faithful words He will speak and the sad duty He will discharge on the morrow.

Meantime a storm has arisen on the lake-one of those sudden and often terrible squalls to which inland waters everywhere are subject, but which are greatly aggravated here by the contrast between the tropical climate of the lake, 620 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and the cool air on the heights which surround it. The storm becomes fiercer as the night advances. The Saviour has been much absorbed, but He cannot fail to notice how angry the lake is becoming, and to what peril His loved disciples are exposed. As the Passover was nigh, the moon would be nearly full, and there would be frequent opportunities, between the passing of the clouds, to watch the little boat. As long as there seems any prospect of their weathering the storm by their own exertions He leaves them to themselves; but when it appears that they are making no progress, though it is evident that they are “toiling in rowing,” He sets out at once to their relief.

The rescue which follows recalls a former incident on the same lake. {Mat 8:23-27} But the points of difference are both important and instructive. Then He was with His disciples in the ship, though asleep; in their extremity they had only to rouse Him with the cry, “Save, Lord, or we perish!” to secure immediate calm and safety. Now He was not with them; He was out of sight, and beyond the reach even of the most piercing cries. It was therefore a much severer trial than the last, and remembering the special significance of the miracle of the loaves, we can scarcely fail to notice a corresponding suggestiveness in this one. That one had dimly foreshadowed His death; did not this, in the same way, foreshadow the relations He would sustain to His disciples after His death? May we not look upon His ascent of this mountain as a picture of His ascension into heaven-His betaking Himself to His Father now as a shadow of His going to the Father then-His prayer on the mount as a shadow of His heavenly intercession? It was to pray that He ascended; and though He, no doubt, needed, at that trying time, to pray for Himself, His heart would be poured out in pleading for His disciples too, especially when the storm came on. And these disciples constrained to go off in a boat by themselves, -are they not a picture of the Church after Christ had gone to His Father, launched on the stormy sea of the world? What will they do without Him? What will they do when the winds rise and the waves roar in the dark night? Oh! if only He were here, Who was sleeping in the boat that day, and only needed to be roused to sympathise and save! Where is He now? There on the hilltop, interceding, looking down with tenderest compassion, watching every effort of the toiling rowers. Nay, He is nearer still! See that Form upon the waves! “It is a spirit,” they cry; and are afraid, very much as, a little more than a year afterward, when He came suddenly into the midst of them with His “Peace be unto you,” they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. {Luk 24:37} But presently they hear the familiar voice: “Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.” There can be no doubt that the remembrance of that night on the lake of Galilee would be a wondrous consolation to these disciples during the storms of persecution through which they had to pass after their Master had ascended up to heaven; and their faith in the presence of His Spirit, and His constant readiness to help and save, would be greatly strengthened by the memory of that apparently spectral Form they had seen coming across the troubled sea to their relief. Have we not some reason, then, for saying that here, too, we have not only another of the many signs of the kingdom showing our Lords power over nature and constant readiness to help His people in time of need, but a parable of the future, most appropriately following that parable of life through death set forth in the feeding of the thousands on the day before?

There seems, in fact, a strange prophetic element running all through the scenes of that wondrous time. We have already referred to the disposition on the part even of the Twelve, as manifested next day at the close of the discourse on the “bread of life,” to desert Him-to show the same spirit which afterward, when the crisis reached its height, so demoralised them that “they all forsook Him, and fled”; and have we not, in the closing incident, in which Peter figures so conspicuously, a mild foreshadowing of his terrible fall, when the storm of human passion was raging as fiercely in Jerusalem as did the winds and waves on the lake of Galilee that night? There is the same self-confidence: “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come unto Thee on the water”; the same alarm when he was brought face to face with the danger the thought of which he had braved; then the sinking, sinking as if about to perish, yet not hopelessly (for the Master had prayed for him that his faith should not fail); then the humble prayer, “Lord, save me”; and the gracious hand immediately stretched out to save. Had the adventurous disciple learnt his lesson well that day, what it would have saved him! May we not say that there is never a great and terrible fall, however sudden it seems, which has not been preceded by warnings, even long before, which, if heeded, would have certainly averted it? How much need have the disciples of Christ to learn thoroughly the lessons their Lord teaches them in His gentler dealings, so that when darker days and heavier trials come they may be ready, having taken unto themselves the whole armour of God to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

There are many other important lessons which might be learnt from this incident, but we may not dwell on them; a mere enumeration of some of them may, however, he attempted. It was faith, in part at least, which led the apostle to make this venture; and this is, no doubt, the reason why the Lord did not forbid it. Faith is too precious to be repressed; but the faith of Peter on this occasion is anything but simple, clear, and strong: there is a large measure of self-will in it, of impulsiveness, of self-confidence, perhaps of love of display. A confused and encumbered faith of this kind is sure to lead into mischief, -to set on foot rash enterprises, which show great enthusiasm, and perhaps seem to rebuke the caution of the less confident for the time, but which come to grief, and in the end bring no credit to the cause of Christ. The rash disciples enterprise is not, however, an entire failure: he does succeed so far; but presently the weakness of his faith betrays itself. As long as the impulse lasted, and his eye was fixed on his Master, all went well; but when the first burst of enthusiasm was spent, and he had time to look round upon the waves, he began to sink. But how encouraging it is to observe that, when put to extremity, that which is genuine in the man carries it over all the rest!-the faith which had been encumbered extricates itself, and becomes simple, clear, and strong; the last atom of self-confidence is gone, and with it all thought of display; nothing but simple faith is left in that strong cry of his, “Lord, save me!”

Nothing could be imagined better suited than this incident to discriminate between self-confidence and faith. Peter enters on this experience with the two well mixed together, -so well mixed that neither he himself nor his fellow-disciples could distinguish them; but the testing process precipitates one and clarifies the other, -lets the self-confidence all go and brings out the faith pure and strong. Immediately, therefore, his Lord is at his side, and he is safe; -a great lesson this on faith, especially in revealing its simplicity. Peter tried to make a grand thing of it: he had to come back to the simple, humble cry, and the grasping of his Saviours outstretched hand.

The same lesson is taught on a larger scale in the brief account of the cures the Master wrought when they reached the other side, where all that was asked was the privilege of touching His garments hem, “and as many as touched were made perfectly whole”; not the great ones, not the strong ones, but “as many as touched.” Only let us keep in touch with Him, and all will assuredly be well with us both in time and in eternity.

III-ISRAEL AFTER THE FLESH AND ISRAEL AFTER THE SPIRIT. {Mat 15:1-39}

Issue is now joined with the ecclesiastical leaders at Jerusalem, who send a deputation to make a formal complaint. When Jerusalem was last mentioned in our Gospel it was in connection with a movement of quite a different character. The fame of the Saviours deeds of mercy in Galilee had then just reached the capital, the result being that many set out at once to find out what new thing this might be: “There followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan.” {Mat 4:25} That wave of interest in the south had now died down; and instead of eager multitudes there is a small sinister band of cold, keen-witted, hard-hearted critics. It was a sad change, and must have brought new distress to the Saviours troubled heart; but He is none the less ready to face the trial with His wonted courage and unfailing readiness of resource.

Their complaint is trivial enough. It is to be remembered, of course, that it was not a question of cleanliness, but of ritual; not even of ritual appointed by Moses, but only of that prescribed by certain traditions of their fathers which they held in superstitious veneration. These traditions, by a multitude of minute regulations and restrictions, imposed an intolerable burden on those, who thought it their duty to observe them; while the magnifying of trifles had the natural effect of keeping out of sight the weightier matters of the law. Not only so, but the most trivial regulations were sometimes so managed as to furnish an excuse for neglect of the plainest duties. Our Lord could not therefore miss the opportunity of denouncing this evil, and accordingly He exposes it in the plainest and strongest language.

The question with which He opens His attack is most incisive. It is as if He said, “I am accused of transgressing your tradition. What is your tradition? It is itself transgression of the law of God.” Then follows the striking illustration, showing how by their rules of tradition they put it within the power of any heartless son to escape entirely the obligation of providing even for his aged father or mother-an illustration, be it remembered, which brought out more than a breach of the fifth commandment; for by what means was it that the ungrateful son escaped his obligation? By taking the name of the Lord in vain; for surely there could be no greater dishonour to the name of God than meanly to mark as dedicated to Him (“Corban”) what ought to have been devoted to the discharge of an imperative filial duty. Besides, it was not at all necessary that the money or property should be actually dedicated to sacred uses; it was only necessary to say that it was, only necessary to pronounce over it that magic word Corban, and then the mean hypocrite could use it for the most selfish purposes-for any purpose, in fact, he chose, except that purpose for which it was his duty to use it. It is really difficult to conceive such iniquity wrapped up in a cloak of so-called religion. No wonder our Lord was moved to indignation, and applied to His critics the strong language of the prophet: “Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (R.V). No wonder that He turned away from men who were so deeply committed to a system so vile, and that He explained, not to His questioners, but to the multitude who had gathered round, the principle on which He acted.

There seems, however, to have been more of sorrow than of anger in His tone and manner. How else could the disciples have asked Him such a question as that which follows: “Knowest Thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?” Of course the Pharisees were offended. They had most excellent reason. And the disciples would have known that He had no intention of sparing them in the least, and no concern whether they took offence or not, if His. tone had been such as an ordinary person would naturally have put into such an invective. It is probable that He said it all calmly, earnestly, tenderly, without the slightest trace of passion; from which it would not be at all unnatural for the disciples to infer that He had not fully realised how strong His language had been, and into what serious collision He had brought Himself with the leaders in Jerusalem. Hence their gentle remonstrance, the expression of those feelings of dismay with which they saw their Master break with one party after another, as if determined to wreck His mission altogether. Was it not bad policy to give serious offence to persons of such importance at so critical a time?

The Saviours answer is just what was to be expected. Policy had no place in His plan. His kingdom was of the truth; and whatever was not of truth must go, be the consequences what they might. That system of traditionalism had its roots deeply and firmly fastened in the Jewish soil; its fibres were through it all; and to disturb it was to go against a feeling that was nothing less than national in its extent. But no matter: firmly, deeply, widely rooted though it was, it was not of Gods planting, and therefore it cannot be let alone: “Every plant, which My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” It is for all ritualists, ancient and modern, all who teach for doctrines what are only commandments of men, seriously to ponder this most radical utterance by One Whose right it is to speak with an authority from which there is no appeal.

Having thus condemned the ritualistic teaching of the day, He disposes next of the false teachers. This He does in a way which ought to have been a warning to those persecutors and heresy-hunters who, by their unwise use of force and law, have given only larger currency to the evil doctrines they have tried to suppress. He simply says “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Expose their error by all means; root it out if possible; but as for the men themselves, “let them alone.”

The principle He sets forth as underlying the whole subject is the same as that which underlies His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount-viz., that “out of the heart are the issues of life.” The ritualist lays stress on that which enters into the man-the kind of food which enters his mouth, the objects which meet his eye, the incense which enters his nostril; Christ sets all this aside as of no consequence in comparison with the state of the heart (Mat 15:16-20). Such teaching as this was not only irreconcilable with that of the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem, but it lay at the very opposite pole.

Was it on this account that after this interview Jesus withdrew as far as possible from Jerusalem? He is limited, indeed, in His range to the Holy Land, as He indicates in His conversation with the woman of Canaan; but just as after the death of John He had withdrawn out of the jurisdiction of Herod to the east, so now, after this collision with the deputation from Jerusalem, He withdraws to the far north, to the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And was it only a coincidence that, just as Jerusalem had furnished such sorry specimens of dead formalism, the distant borders of heathen Tyre and Sidon should immediately thereafter furnish one of the very noblest examples of living faith? The coincidence is certainly very striking and most instructive. The leaders from Jerusalem had been dismissed with the condemnation of their own prophet: “This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me”; while out of far-away heathendom there comes one whose whole heart is poured out to Him in earnest, persevering, prevailing prayer. It is one of those contrasts with which this portion of our Lords history abounds, the force of which will appear more clearly as we proceed.

The suppliant was “a woman of Canaan,” or, as she is described more definitely elsewhere, a Syro-Phoenician woman. Yet she has learned of Jesus-knows Him as the Christ, for she calls Him “Son of David”-knows Him as a Saviour, for she comes to ask that her daughter may be healed. Her application must have been a great solace to His wounded heart. He always loved to be asked for such blessings; and, rejected as He had been by His countrymen, it must have been a special encouragement to be approached in this way by a stranger. That it was so may be inferred from what He said on similar occasions. When the Roman centurion came to have his servant healed, Jesus commended his wonderful faith, and then added: “I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” So, too, when it was announced to Him that some Greeks desired to see Him, the first effect was to sharpen the agony of His rejection by His own countrymen; but immediately He recovers Himself, looks beyond the cross and the shame to the glory that shall follow, and exclaims, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.” There can be no doubt that at this time of rejection in Galilee it must have been a similar consolation to receive this visit from the woman of Canaan.

How, then, can we explain His treatment of her? First, He answered her not a word. Then He reminded her that she did not belong to Israel, as if she therefore could have no claim on Him. And when she still urged her suit, in a manner that might have appealed to the hardest heart, He-gave her an answer which seems so incredibly harsh, that it is with a feeling of pain one hears it repeated after eighteen hundred years. What does all this mean? It means “praise and honour and glory” for the poor woman; for the disciples, and for all disciples, a lesson never to be forgotten. He Who knew what was in man, knew what was in this noble womans heart, and He wished to bring it out-to bring it out so that the disciples should see it, so that other disciples should see it, so that generation after generation and century after century should see it, and admire it, and learn its lesson. It cost her some minutes pain: Him also, – how it must have wrung His heart to treat her in a way so foreign to every fibre of His soul! But had He not so dealt with her, what a loss to her, to the disciples, to countless multitudes! He very much needs a shining example of living faith to set over against the dead formalism of these traditionalists; and here it is: He must bring it out of its obscurity, and set it as a star in the firmament of His gospel, to shine for ever and ever. He tested her to the uttermost, because He knew that at the end of all He could say: “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” The heart of the Saviour was never filled with a deeper tenderness or a wiser and more far-seeing love than when He repulsed this woman again and again, and treated her with what seemed at the moment most inexcusable and unaccountable harshness.

The lessons which shine out in the simple story of this woman can only be touched in the slightest manner. We have already referred to the contrast between the great men of Jerusalem and this poor woman of Canaan; observe now how strikingly is suggested the distinction between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the spirit. The current idea of the time was that lineal descent from Abraham determined who belonged to the house of Israel and who did not. The Saviour strikes at the root of this error. He does not indeed attack it directly. For this the time has not yet come: the veil of the Temple has not yet been rent in twain. But He draws aside the veil a little, so as to give a glimpse of the truth and prepare the way for its full revealing when the time shall come. He does not broadly say, “This woman of Canaan is as good an Israelite as any of you”; but He says, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the horse of Israel”-and heals her daughter notwithstanding. Was it not, then, evident that this poor woman after all did in some sense belong to the lost sheep of the house of Israel whom Jesus came to save?

The house of Israel?-what does Israel mean? Learn at Peniel. See Jacob in sore distress at the brook Jabbok. A man is wrestling with him, -wrestling with him all the night, until the break of day. It is no mere man, for Jacob finds before all is over that he has been face to face with God. The man who wrestled with him indeed was the same as He Who wrestled with this woman of Canaan. The Divine Man struggles to get away without blessing the patriarch. Jacob cries, in the very desperation of his faith, “I will not let Thee go, except Thou bless me!” The victory is won. The blessing is granted, and these words are added: “What is thy name? Jacob.” “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel” (i.e., prince with God): “for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” Was this woman, then, or was she not, “a prince” with God? Did she, or did she not, belong to the true house of Israel? Let us now look back to vv. 8 and 9 {Mat 15:8-9}: “This people” (i.e.) the children of Israel according to the flesh “honoureth Me with their lips: but their heart is far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me.” In vain do they worship: are they, then, princes with God? Nay, verily; they are only actors before Him, as the Saviour plainly says. Truly they are not all Israel who are of Israel; and just as truly they are not the only Israel who are of Israel, for here is this woman of Canaan who earns the name of Israel by as hard a contest and as great a victory as that of Jacob at the brook Jabbok, when first the name was given.

Another instructive contrast is inevitably suggested between the foremost of the apostles and this nameless woman of Canaan. The last illustration of faith was Peters venture on the water. What a difference between the strong man and the weak woman! To the strong, brave man the Master had to say “O thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou doubt?” To the weak woman, “O woman, great is thy faith.” What an encouragement here to the little ones, the obscure, unnoticed disciples! “Many that are first shall be last, and the last first.”

The encouragement to persevering prayer, especially to parents anxious for their children, is so obvious that it need only be named. That silence first, and then these apparent refusals, are trials of faith, to which many earnest hearts have not been strangers. To all such the example of this woman of Canaan is of great value. Her earnestness in making the case of her daughter her own (she does not say, “Have mercy on my daughter”; but, “Have mercy on me”; and again, “Lord, help me”), and her unconquerable perseverance till the answer came, have been an inspiration ever since, and will be to the end of the world.

The lesson taught by our Lords dealing with the woman of Canaan is conveyed again on a larger scale by what happened in the region of Decapolis, east of the Sea of Galilee; for it was in that region, as we learn from the more detailed account in the second Gospel, that the events which follow came to pass.

The distance from the one place to the other is considerable, and the route our Lord took was by no means direct. His object at this time seems to have been to court retirement as much as possible, that He might give Himself to the preparation of His disciples-and we may with reverence add, His own preparation also-for the sad journey southward to Jerusalem and Calvary. Besides, His work in the north is done: no more circuits in Galilee now; so He keeps on the far outskirts of the land, passing through Sidon, across the southern ridge of Lebanon, past the base of mighty Hermon, then southward to Decapolis-all the way on border territory, where the people were more heathen than Jewish in race and religion. We can imagine Him on this long and toilsome journey, looking in both directions with strange emotion-away out to the Gentile nations with love and longing; and (with what mingled feelings of pain and eagerness who can tell?) to that Jerusalem, where soon He must offer up the awful sacrifice. When, after the long journey, He came nigh to the Sea of Galilee, He sought seclusion by going up into a mountain. But even in this borderland He cannot be hid; and when the sick and needy throng around Him, He cannot turn away from them. He still keeps within the limits of His. commission, as set forth in His reply to the woman of Canaan; but, though He does not go to seek out those beyond the pale, when they seek Him, He cannot send them away; accordingly, in these heathen or semi-heathen regions, we have another set of cures and another feeding of the hungry multitude.

We need not dwell on these incidents, as they are a repetition, with variations, of what He had done at the conclusion of His work in Galilee. As to the repetition, -strange to say, there are those who cavil, whenever similar events appear successively in the story of the life and work of Christ. As if it were possible that a work like His could be free from repetition! How often does a physician repeat himself in the course of his practice? Christ is always repeating Himself. Every time a sinner comes to Him for salvation, He repeats Himself, with variations; and when need arose in Decapolis-like that which had previously arisen at Bethsaida, only more urgent, for the multitude in the present case had been three days from home, and were ready to faint with hunger-must their wants go unrelieved merely to avoid repetition? As to the telling of it-for this of course might have been avoided, on the ground that a similar event had been related before-was there not most excellent reason for it, in the fact that these people were not of the house of Israel in the literal sense? To have omitted the record of these deeds of mercy would have been to leave out the evidence they afforded that the love of Christ went out not to Jews only, but to all sick and hungry ones.

Sick and hungry-these words suggest the two great needs of humanity. Christ comes to heal disease, to Satisfy hunger; in particular, to heal the root disease of sin, and satisfy the deep hunger of the soul for God and life in Him. And when we read how He healed all manner of disease among the multitudes in Decapolis, and thereafter fed them abundantly when they were ready to faint with hunger, we see how He is set forth as a Saviour from sin and Revealer of God beyond the borders of the land of Israel.

It is worth noticing how well this general record follows the story of the woman of Canaan. Just as she-though not of Israel after the flesh-proved herself to be of Israel after the spirit, so these heathen or semi-heathen people of Decapolis forsake their paganism when they see the Christ; for of no heathen deity do they speak: they “glorified the God of Israel.” {Mat 15:31} Thus we have a contrast similar to that which we recognised in the case of the woman of Canaan, between those scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem-who drew near to the God of Israel with their lips while the heart was far away-and these people of Decapolis, who, though “afar off” in the estimation of these dignitaries of Jerusalem, are in truth “nigh” to the God of Israel. Is there not in the events of the chapter a wondrous light cast on the true meaning of the name Israel, as not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit?

IV-THE CULMINATION OF THE CRISIS.- {Mat 16:1-12}

All this time Jesus has been keeping as much out of the way of His ungrateful countrymen as the limits of His commission would permit, hovering, as it were, around the northern outskirts of the land. But when in the course of this largest circuit of all His northern journeys, He reaches Decapolis, He is so near home that He cannot but cross the lake and revisit the familiar scenes. How is He received? Do the people flock around Him as they did before? If it had been so, we should no doubt have been told. There seems to have been not a single word of welcome. Of all the multitudes He had healed and blessed, there is no one to cry, “Hosanna to the Son of David!”

His friends, if He has any, have gone back, and walk no more with Him; but His old enemies the Pharisees do not fail Him; and they are not alone now, nor, as before, in alliance only with those naturally in sympathy with them, but have actually made a league with their great opponents, the two rival parties of Pharisee and Sadducee finding in their common hatred of the Christ of God a sinister bond of union.

This is the first time the Sadducees are mentioned in this Gospel as coming in contact with Jesus. Some of them had come to the baptism of John, to his great astonishment; but, beyond this, they have as yet put in no appearance. They were the aristocracy of the land, and held the most important offices of Church and State in the capital. It is therefore the less to be wondered at that up to this time the Carpenter of Nazareth should have been beneath their notice. Now, however, the news of His great doings in the north has at last compelled attention; the result is this combination with the Pharisees, who have already been for some time engaged in the attempt to put Him down. There is indication elsewhere {Mar 8:15} that the Herodians had also united with them; so we may look upon this as the culmination of the crisis in Galilee, when all the forces of the country have been roused to active and bitter hostility.

The Pharisees and Sadducees, as is well known, were at opposite poles of thought; the one being the traditionalists, the other the sceptics, of the time, so that it was quite remarkable that they should unite in anything. They did, however, unite in this demand for a sign from heaven. Neither of them could deny that signs had been given, -that the blind had received sight, lepers had been cleansed, the lame healed, and deeds of mercy done on every side. But neither party was satisfied with this. Each was wedded to a system of thought according to which signs on earth were of no evidential value. A sign from heaven was what they needed to convince them. The demand was practically the same as that which the Pharisees and scribes had made before, {Mat 12:38} though it is put more specifically here as a sign from heaven. The reason why the Pharisees adopted the same method of attack as before is not far to seek. Their object was not to obtain satisfaction as to His claims, but to find the easiest way of discrediting them; and, knowing as they did from their past experience that the demand of a special sign would be refused, they counted on the refusal beforehand, to be Used by their new allies as well as themselves as a weapon against Him. They were not disappointed, for our Lord was no respecter of persons; therefore He spoke just as plainly and sternly when the haughty Sadducees were present as He had done before they made their appearance.

The words are stern and strong; but here again it is “more in sorrow than in anger” that He speaks. We learn from St. Mark that, as He gave His answers, “He sighed deeply in His spirit.” There had been so many signs, and they were so plain and clear-signs which spoke for themselves, signs which so plainly spelt out the words, “The kingdom of heaven is among you”-that it was unspeakably sad to think that they should be blind to them all, and find it in their heart to ask for something else, which in its nature would be no sign at all, but only a portent, a barren miracle.

We can see in this how determined our Lord was not to minister to the craving for the merely miraculous. He would work no miracle for the mere purpose of exciting astonishment or even of producing conviction, when there was quite enough for all who were at all willing to receive it, in the regular, natural, and necessary development of His work as the Healer of the sick, the Shepherd of the people, the Refuge of the troubled and distressed. Had there been no signs of the times, there might have been some reason for signs in the heavens; but when there were signs in abundance of the kind to appeal to all that was best in the minds and hearts of men, why should these be discredited by resorting to another kind of sign much inferior and far less adapted to the securing of the special object for which the King of heaven had come into the world? The signs of the times were after all far more easily discerned than those signs in the heavens by which they were accustomed to anticipate both fine and stormy weather. There were signs of blessing enough to convince any doubter that the summer of heaven was easily within His reach; on the other hand, in the state of the nation, and the rapidly developing circumstances which were hastening on the fulfilment of the most terrible of the prophecies concerning it, there were signs enough to give far more certain indication of approaching judgment, than when the red and lowering morning gave token of the coming thunderstorm (Mat 16:2-3). So He tells them, convicting them of wilful blindness; and then repeats in almost identical terms the refusal He had given to the scribes and Pharisees before: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” {see Mat 12:39, and remarks on it}

“And He left them, and departed.” How sad for Him; how awful for them! Had there been in their hearts one single aspiration for the true and good, He would not have left them so. Where are these Pharisees and Sadducees now? What do they now think of the work of that day?

“He left them, and again entering into the boat departed to the other side.” {Mar 8:13} Did He ever cross the lake again? If He did, there is no record of it. He passed in sight of it in that sorrowful southward journey to Jerusalem which He must presently commence; and He will visit the same shore again after His resurrection to cheer the apostles at their toil; but this seems to have been the last crossing. What a sad one it must have been!-after a beginning so bright that it was heralded as daybreak on Gennesarets shore, after all His self-denying toil, after all the words of wisdom He has spoken and the deeds of mercy He has done upon these shores, to leave them, as He does now, rejected and despised, an outcast, to all outward appearance a failure. No wonder He is silent in that crossing of the lake; no wonder He is lost in saddest thought, turning over and over in His mind the signs of the times forced so painfully on His attention!

The disciples with Him in the boat had no share in these sad thoughts. Their minds, as it would seem, were occupied for the most part with the mistake they had made in provisioning the boat. Accordingly, when at last He broke silence, He found them quite out of touch with Him. He had been thinking of the sad unbelief of these Pharisees and Sadducees, and of the awful danger of allowing the spirit which was in them to dominate the life; hence the solemn caution: “Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” The disciples meantime had been counting their loaves, or rather, looking sadly on the one loaf which, on searching their baskets, they found to be all they had; and when the word leaven caught their ear, coupled with a caution as to a particular kind of it, they said one to another, “It is because we have taken no bread!” Another cause of sadness to the Master. He had been mourning over the blindness of Pharisees and Sadducees; He must now mourn over the blindness of His own disciples; and not blindness only, but also forgetfulness of a thrice-taught lesson: for why should the mere supply of bread be any cause of anxiety to them, after what they had seen once and again in these very regions to which they were going?

But these hearts were not shut against Him; theirs was not the blindness of those that will not see; accordingly, the result is very different. He did not leave them and depart; nor, on the other hand, did He explain in so many words what He meant. It was far better that they should find out for themselves. The riddles of nature and of life are not furnished with keys. They must be discerned by thoughtful attention; so, instead of providing them a key to His little parable, He puts them in the way of finding it for themselves by asking them a series of questions which convinced them of their thoughtlessness and faithlessness, and led them to recognise His true meaning (Mat 16:8-12).

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary