Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 16:13

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 16:13” utilice nuestra app.

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?

13. Cesarea Philippi ] The most northerly point reached by our Lord. The city was rebuilt by Herod-Philip, who called it by his own name to distinguish it from Csarea Stratonis on the sea coast, the seat of the Roman government, and the scene of St Paul’s imprisonment.

The Greek name of this Csarea was Paneas, which survives in the modern Banias. Csarea was beautifully placed on a rocky terrace under Mount Hermon, a few miles east of Dan, the old frontier city of Israel. The cliffs near this spot, where the Messiah was first acknowledged, bear marks of the worship of Baal and of Pan. See Recovery of Jerusalem, and Tristram’s Land of Israel.

Son of man ] See note ch. Mat 8:20. The question of Jesus is: In what sense do the people believe me to be the Son of man? In the sense which Daniel intended or in a lower sense? Observe the antithesis in Peter’s answer: the Son of man is the Son of God.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

13 20. The great Confession of St Peter, and the Promise given to him

Mar 8:27-30: The question is put “while they were on the way,” the words “the Son of the living God” are omitted, as also the blessing on Peter. Luk 9:18-20: Jesus was engaged in prayer alone; the words of the confession are “the Christ of God;” the blessing on Peter is omitted.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 16:13; Mat 16:17

Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?

Confession and cross-bearing

I. The confession.

1. The substance of the confession.

2. The source of the confession (Mat 16:17).

3. The power of the confession (Mat 16:18-19).

4. The limitations of the confession (Mat 16:20).

II. The covenant of the christian church

1. The dignity of cross-bearing (Mat 16:21; Mat 16:23).

2. The necessity of crossbearing (Mat 16:24-26).

3. The rewards of cross-bearing (Mat 16:27-28). (Monday Club Sermons.)

The Son of man-the Son of God

I. The question of Jesus Christ-Whom do men, etc.

1. The first word we shall emphasize is the word men. His mind soars above all national distinctions.

2. The other word we shall emphasize is the word Son of man. He is humanity condensed.

3. We shall next emphasize the two words together-men and Son of man. The Saviour presents Himself on the level of our common humanity, and appeals to our common sense, our common nature, to say who He is.

II. The answer of the world.

III. The answer of the church. (J. C. Jones.)

Christ the universal man

He is not an excrescence of our nature. No poet He, no philosopher He, no man of science He. He was all these in one, He was man, thorough man, growing out of the depths of our nature. The sea on the surface is divided into waves-go down and you will soon come to a region where there are no waves, where there is nothing but water. And humanity on the surface is broken into nationalities and individualities. But go down a little way, and you will soon come to a region where differences give place to resemblances: force your way down and you will soon arrive at the region of human unities, where every man is like every other man. Now Jesus Christ emerges from the profoundest depths of our nature, from the region of unities. No Jew He-no Greek He-no Roman He-but Man. He touches you and me not in our branches but in our roots. Show me an oak and show me an ash tree: it is easy to tell the difference between them in the branches, but not so easy in the roots. Show me a rose and show me a tulip: any one can tell the difference between them in the leaf, but only a very few can tell the difference between them in their seeds. And Jesus Christ is the Root of Jesse, the Seed of Abraham and of David; and all nations and all men in their roots and seeds are very much alike. (Monday Club Sermons)

The true idea of Christ to be obtained from the New Testament rather than from creeds

Creeds embody the ripest and most advanced thoughts of the ages they represent. It is not against the use of creeds that I speak-we cannot very conveniently do without them-but against their abuse, against setting them up in every jot and tittle as infallible standards for all subsequent ages. If you look at a picture of the sky in our picture galleries, you will find that with rare exceptions it has been rendered too hard and too material. The sky on canvas is a ceiling beyond which the eye cannot wander. But if you go out of the gallery a very different sky will open itself before you-a sky which seems to recede for ever before your vision. The sky of painters is too often a thing to be looked at; the sky of nature is not a thing to be looked at, but a thing to be looked through. In like manner, the truth concerning Christ as rendered in creeds and systems is hard and dry-it is the sky of the picture. The truth concerning Christ as presented in the Gospels is deep, living, infinite-it is the sky of nature. And I greatly rejoice that men try to understand the Christ of the Gospels and not the Christ of the creeds, the Christ of the evangelists and not the Christ of the schools. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Monday Club Sermons.)

Christ the centre of theology

An American writer says: We have in our congregation a little deaf and dumb boy. On Sunday he loves to have his mother find for him the words that we are all singing, though the music never thrills his quiet ear, nor touches his heart. He looks at the hymn, glides his little finger over every word to the end; if he finds Jesus there, he is satisfied and absorbed to the close of the singing; but if the word Jesus is not there, he closes the book, and will have nothing more to do with it. So should we test the religions of the day-if we find Jesus the central thought of any system of theology, it is good, it will do for us; if not, turn away and have nothing to do with it.

Christ mentally conceived

He was conceived over thirty years ago in the nature of man, but in the text for the first time is He conceived in the mind of man; and the conception in the mind was as necessary to our salvation as the conception in the nature. (Monday Club Sermons.)

Opinion sought by a question

Benjamin Franklin made an experiment, one of the most daring ever made by mortal man. Seeing a cluster of thunder-clouds hanging overhead, he let fly into their midst a paper kite, to which was attached a metallic chain. As the kite was flying among the clouds, anxiety weighed heavily on his heart. At last he presumptuously applied his knuckles to the chain and called forth sparks of wild lightning; and had the stream of electricity been a little stronger at the time, the philosopher would have met with instantaneous death. He has left on record, that so surprising was the discovery to him, that in the ecstasy of the moment he expressed his willingness to die there and then. In like manner there were clouds of opinion afloat in society respecting Jesus Christ, indeed the thunder-clouds were gathering fast. Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? Some say that Thou art John the Baptist-that is one cloud. Others, Elias-that is another cloud. Others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets-that is a cluster of clouds. Everything seemed mist and haze, vagueness and uncertainty. Jesus Christ prayerfully and anxiously flies a question into the midst of these dark clouds. What will the result be? His heart trembles, therefore He prays. See the question fly-But whom say ye that I am? What answer will be called forth? Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Monday Club Sermons.)

The Christ of God

I. The question-Whom say ye that I am? It is a great mercy that Jesus calls out the faith that is in His disciples. By what various means of questioning does He speak? Sometimes by conscious afflictions; by our very fails. This is the question of questions; not what we think of Churches, disciples, but of Christ.

II. The answer-Thou art the Christ, etc. There was little comparative light in the apostles before the Day of Pentecost; the Holy Spirit must teach to saving profit. But they were still His disciples, though their faith was small. It is humbling that, having so much more light than they, we should have less love. All the glory of Christ as the Mediator hangs upon the glory of His Person. If a mere creature, His work is comparatively nothing.

III. The vast encouragement-Blessed art thou. The infinite condescension of Jesus. He takes notice and encourages the weakest faith.

1. How blessed the condition of those who have been taught this lesson. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it. Nature, education, miracles, never taught it. What a foundation for strong confidence. He, the Son of God.

2. How great the sin of the man who rejects this Son of the living God. (J. H. Evans, M. A.)

Peters faith

I. Peters faith.

II. The source of Peters faith.

III. What Peters faith qualified him to be.

IV. The special reward of Peters faith. Conclusion: How can we become stones in Christs Church? Not naturally. Only by having Peters faith. In Jesus as the Christ. In Jesus as the Son of God. How may we get this faith? God alone can give it-ask Him. (E. Stock.)

Peters compression

How hearty and distinct is this utterance! This is the first Confession of Faith. This is the true Apostles Creed. These are the prime and essential articles of catholic verity, upon which rest all sound theology and all saving faith. In this short but illustrious statement, says a great theologian, you have the whole truth with respect to the Person and the work of Jesus Christ.

1. It is plainly implied that Jesus Christ possesses human nature, a true body and a reasonable soul. He put the question as the Son of man. He was a real man.

2. The confession of Peter asserts the divinity as well as the humanity of our Lord. He calls Him the Son of the living God. This expression denotes Divine nature. He is set forth as a Divine Person in the Old Testament. He manifested Himself in this character in the days of His flesh, etc. Had He been less than Divine, He could not have been the Saviour.

3. The confession of Peter asserts the truth with regard to the office or work as well as the Person of the Son of God. He declares that He is the Christ, that is, the Messiah, etc. And for what end? It is to save sinners. This is the great work given Him to do. He is the only, the all-sufficient, Saviour of sinners. To Him alone belongs all the glory. Believest thou these things? Is this thy heartfelt creed and confession? (A. Thompson.)

Christs appeal to our individual faith

This is a most pertinent question now. Reasons why we should ask it of ourselves.

I. We are in danger, as the disciples were, of being affected by the crude opinions of men about our Lord, and His religion, and His Church.

II. The question is vital, for it asserts the great truth that only a deep, strong faith will ever inspire confidence in others.

III. It shows us how dear to Christ is the personal faith of the soul. (Ellison Capers.)

Right apprehensions of the character of Christ essential to salvation

I. That there are many opinions about Christ.

1. As regards His Person.

2. As regards the nature of the work which He came to accomplish.

3. As regards His religion, His acquirements, and His claims.

II. It is of the utmost importance that we form correct and decided opinions on this subject. Our opportunities of doing so are very great. (Dr. T. Raffles.)

Whom do men say that I am?-

I. That when Christ became a man he could not seem divine according to the pre-conceptions of men, who looked for the exhibition of that which appeals to the sense, and who did not look for inward harmony. Christ did bring with Him the Divine nature, but not the attributes of Jehovah disclosed in their amplitude. He humbled Himself.

II. Every person came to Christ through some elements that were in himself. Some came to Him through the door of sympathy; some from lower motives. What is Christ to you? Is He part of your life? (H. W. Beecher.)

The personal affirmations of Christ

What did Christ teach concerning Himself?

1. He affirmed the divinity of His redemptive mission.

2. His independence of, and separation from, the world.

3. His pre-existence.

4. Some of the affirmations of Christ contain most impressive representations of His character and work-I am the Bread of Life, I am the Light of the World, I am the Door, I am the True Vine.

5. Some of the affirmations of our Lord contain wondrous glimpses of His grace and glory.

6. His second coming in great glory. (G. W. McCree.)

Public opinion concerning Jesus Christ

1. Was not Christ superior to what men thought about him? He did not stoop to public opinion, but was anxious to know that men had clear and right conceptions concerning Him; that He did not live and teach in vain. What are men saying in yonder workshop of you?

2. We must try and find out what is the public opinion to-day about Christ, and instruct, correct it, gently. (W. Cuff.)

Christs divinity incidentally indicated in the New Testament, not logically proved

It is in these incidental ways that we see Jesus Christ best. Yes, and I will venture to say that it is in these incidental ways we see all men best. We do not understand men best because we see them in their great efforts. Please do not take me to the poet, if you want me to understand him thoroughly, when he has got his pen, ink, and paper ready to write his great poem. I should see him then in a great mood, but I should not see him in an incidental way, and in all the little things that make up the mans character. I do not want to see Mr. Gladstone when he is braced up to chop down an ash-tree; nor do I want to see him as he has braced himself to make a great speech in the House of Commons. I should want to see him as his wife sees him; and I venture to say that we should understand him better in that than in any other way. Your wife knows you better than anybody else; she sees you in the little things of every-day life, and it is in these incidental ways that the great things and the great truths come up all through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. You do not value that clock yonder for its striking capacity. I do not know whether it strikes at all; however, it has a very fine musical bell in it that knocks off twelve, when it is twelve, in a quick or slow manner, but you would not value it for that. You value the clock for its capacity to tell you every minute of the time and every hour of the day. And just as you look at the little things on the face, and get the minutes as well as the hour, you value the clock for its correctness. (W. Cuff.)

Varied views of Christ

We find Christ so differently because we seek Him in such very different ways. We cannot have a uniform Christ any more than we can have a uniform experience. In essence, in character, in love, in pity, Jesus Christ will ever be the same to every sinner who comes to Him, but as we come to Him we shall seem to have a very different Christ, because we use our own glasses, and, therefore, see Him from different points of view, and have different convictions about Him. Here is a person who comes to Jesus Christ, who has been educated and brought up in a manner of refinement and beauty, whose home has been the centre of everything that was charming; his mother was gentle, and sweet as an angel, his education from boarding-school days until he settled himself in life was all that could be desired to train the taste, to balance the judgment, and to make the character round, unique, and beautiful. By-and-by he comes to Jesus Christ, and he comes along such a different path to that man over there, for he was born down a back street, where hardly a gleam of sunshine ever burst through his mothers window, and he hardly ever saw a beautiful flower; certainly his boyish feet never tripped along a green field; he never heard the birds sing in the wood, nor saw the light and charm of nature as others have seen it; rough, rude, uneducated, unable to read one word of the New Testament. By-and-by that man comes to Christ, and he sits in the church at the Lords table by the side of that other educated and refined Christian. If they compare notes they will seem to have a very different Christ, because they came along such very different roads up to the cross. I believe, brethren, that that first view of Jesus in the souls experience makes a vast deal of difference to his whole thinking and to his whole life about the Saviour whom he first saw. Oh, what passion burns in one man, and what calm, strong, intellectual, and dignified faith wrestles and grapples in the other, as he comes up first to look at Jesus Christ. John Newton saw Him like this:-

I saw One hanging on a tree
In agonies and blood,
Who fixed His languid eyes on me,
As near His cross I stood;
And never till my latest breath
Shall I forget that look,
It seemed to charge me with His death,
Though not a word He spoke.

James Allen saw Him like this:-

Sweet the moments, rich in blessing,
Which before the cross I spend,
Love and health and peace possessing,
From the sinners dying friend.
Here it is I find my heaven
While upon His cross I gaze,
Love I much? Ive more forgiven,
I am a miracle of grace.

So the poets and hymn-writers came to Him differently, and seemed to take a different view of Him. (W. Cuff.)

The revelation of Christ often misinterpreted

Payson, when he lay on his bed dying, said: All my life Christ has seemed to me as a star afar off; but little by little He has been advancing and growing larger and larger, till now His beams seem to fill the whole hemisphere, and I am floating in the glory of God, wondering with unutterable wonder how such a mote as I should be glorified in His light; but he came to that after a long life. (H. W. Beecher.)

The revelation of Christ an inward power, rather than a scientific belief

But how many people there are whose God is no bigger than a confession of faith! How many persons have a God that is like a dried specimen of a flower in a herbarium, which is good for science, and for nothing else? But Christ is a power-a glory-a life; and he that has come to Christ, and accepted Him even in the smallest degree, to him it is given to become, and to know that he is becoming, a son of God. To all of you I say, stand fast in the faith, in the inward sense, of a living Saviour. Love Him and trust Him. (H. W. Beecher)

The revelation of Christ perfected in heaven

And remember that what you see now is full of mixture-that, like ill-blown glass, it is full of crinckles-that it is full of elements that are drawn from the peculiarities of your own nature. Look upon Christ as one that, all after, much as He is to you, is to be revealed in you-that is to say, when you have grown, when you have been cleansed, when you leave this body behind, and when you rise to stand face to face with God, the little that you knew before will be as what a man has seen who has never been out of his garden here compared with what he would see if he were, by some power, translated into a tropical forest. He has seen growths in a northern clime largely developed under glass, but oh, to see the growths that have been developed by the tropical powers of nature! And when we shall see Him as He is-in magnitude-in wonderful disposition-in profound, and sweet, and life-giving influences-then, with an ecstasy of joy, we shall cast our crowns at His feet and say: Not unto us, not unto us, but unto Thy name be the praise. (H. W. Beecher)

Perverse views of Christ

Well, now I must gather up the fragments and close; and I will do so by saying that there will be, as there have been, very different answers given as to who the Son of man is. There always were different answers; there always must be; because men look at Christ as they look at other men and other things. We do not all look at the New Testament through the same mental laws; and that makes all the difference in the answer we shall give to the question, Whom do you say I, the Son of God, am? You know if you go to the photographers shop and ask the artist to be kind enough to let you look through the lens covered by that little black piece of cloth, and if you look at the chair on which you have to sit for your portrait, it is reversed, and the opposite of what you expected it to be. That is how some men look at other men. They always see them reversed-very different to what they are. That is precisely the kind of lens that many bring to the New Testament to look at Christ. (W. Cuff.)

Religious affections produce a conviction of reality

Spiritual things have the influence of reality upon renewed persons. Their eyes are opened to see that the doctrines of the Bible are really true. Not all religious affections are attended with this conviction, because not produced by the spiritual illumination of the mind. Whore the understanding is spiritually enlightened, the affections do not spring from so-called discoveries, from a strong confidence of their good estate, from a strong persuasion that the Christian religion is true as the result of education, or from mere reasons and arguments. Spiritual affections spring from the beauty of Divine things; their beauty is discerned through the illumination of the mind; and this view produces the conviction of their reality.

I. Directly. The judgment is directly convinced of the divinity of the gospel by the clear view of its inherent glory and excellence. Many things in the gospel are hid from the eyes of natural men which are manifest to those who have a spiritual sense and taste, and to whom the beauty and glory of the gospel are revealed. To them alone religion becomes experimental. Were it otherwise, the illiterate and the heathen could not have so thorough a conviction as to embrace the gospel and hazard every earthly thing for its possession. God gives to these some sort of evidence that His covenant is true beyond all mere probability or historical evidence, which the illiterate are capable of, and which produces the full assurance of faith. They become witnesses to the truth through being spiritually enlightened. Infidelity never prevailed so much in any age as in this, wherein these arguments (from ancient traditions, histories and monuments) are handled to the greatest advantage. To be a witness is to see the truth.

II. Indirectly.

1. This view of Divine glory removes enmities and prejudices of the heart, so that the mind is more open to the force of the reasons which are presented.

2. And, by thus removing hindrances, it positively helps reason. It makes even the speculative notions more lively. In this way truly gracious affections are distinguished from others, for gracious affections are evermore attended with such a conviction of the judgment.

III. Some conclusions.

1. There is a degree of conviction which arises from the common enlightenings of the Spirit of God. This may lead to belief, but not to the spiritual conviction of truth, and the apprehension of its Divine beauty and glory.

2. There are extraordinary impressions on the imagination, which are delusive, and produce only a counterfeit faith.

3. Those beliefs of truth, which rest merely upon our supposed interest in what the gospel reveals and promises, are also vain. (J. Edwards.)

St. Peter here confesses that our Lord is

(1) The Christ-not merely an anointed one, as priests and prophets of old might have been anointed, but that He is the One anointed of God, having received this gift in a super-eminent manner.

(2) The Son-not one son merely out of many, but that He was so beyond all others, and in a way which singled Him out from them. Son and only-begotten, not by grace, but of the substance of the Father.

(3) The Son of the living God-not of the gods of the heathen world, the object of Gentile idolatry, but the Son of the One living, and true God, who has life in Himself, who is uncreated life-the living life-giving principle to all mankind.

(4) That He is Christ and at the same time Son of the living God-in contradistinction to the crowd, who believed Him to be the Baptist, Elias, or one of the prophets; Peter acknowledged Him to be Christ, and the Son of the living God.

II. In this confession there are included these. Truths-

(1) The nature which Christ took; the human nature, that is, which was anointed or consecrated.

(2) The anointing which He received, the fulness of the Holy Spirit, imparted without measure to Christ at His conception.

(3) The object of this anointing-that He might be the Christ, the King, the Priest, the Prophet of His people. (W. Denton, M. A.)

This truth was not revealed to Peter-

(1) By carnal men, nor indeed by men at all, since man cannot of himself make known the things of the Spirit;

(2) Through mere carnal reasoning (1Co 2:11.);

(3) Nor was it the revelation of Christs flesh. It was not merely that Peter had been able to pierce beyond the veil of Christs human nature, and through that, and by means of that, to understand the Divinity. No. It was the direct act of the Father, by which he was enlightened. (W. Denton, M. A.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 13. Casarea Philippi] A city, in the tribe of Naphtali, near to Mount Libanus, in the province of Iturea. Its ancient name was Dan, Ge 14:14; afterwards it was called Lais, Jdg 18:7. But Philip the tetrarch, having rebuilt and beautified it, gave it the name of Cesarea, in honour of Tiberius Caesar, the reigning emperor: but to distinguish it from another Caesarea, which was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and to perpetuate the fame of him who rebuilt it, it was called Caesarea Philippi, or Caesarea of Philip.

When Jesus came] – when Jesus was coming. Not, when Jesus came, or was come, for Mark expressly mentions that it happened , in the way to Caesarea Philippi, Mr 8:27, and he is Matthew’s best interpreter.-WAKEFIELD.

Whom do men say] He asked his disciples this question, not because he was ignorant what the people thought and spoke of him; but to have the opportunity, in getting an express declaration of their faith from themselves, to confirm and strengthen them in it: but see on Lu 9:20. Some, John the Baptist, c. By this and other passages we learn, that the Pharisaic doctrine of the Metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, was pretty general for it was upon this ground that they believed that the soul of the Baptist, or of Elijah, Jeremiah, or some of the prophets, had come to a new life in the body of Jesus.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

This, and the following part of this discourse, is related both by Mark and Luke. Mark hath it, Mar 8:27, And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. Luke saith, Luk 9:18,19, And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. Matthew and Mark name the place whither our Saviour was going, viz. Caesarea Philippi: it is so called partly to distinguish it from another Caesarea, and partly because it was built to the honour of Tiberius Caesar, by Philip the tetrarch. It was a city at the bottom of Lebanon, and upon the river of Jordan. Mark saith this discourse was in the way. Luke saith, as he was alone praying; but as must there signify after, for we cannot think that our Saviour would interrupt himself in prayer by this discourse, nor could he be alone praying if his disciples were with him, both which Luke saith; so that were certainly translated better, after he had been praying alone, his disciples were with him: so that this discourse might be (as Mark saith) in the way, before they came to Caesarea Philippi, whither he was going.

He asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men (or the people, as Luke hath it)

say that I am? Not that our Saviour, who knew the hearts of all, did not know, but to draw out Peters following confession.

And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: we heard before that Herod said so.

Some, Elias: this respected the prophecy, Mal 4:5. The Jews had a tradition, that before the coming of the Messias Elias should come, Joh 1:21.

Others, Jeremias, ( this is only in Matthew),

or one of the prophets. The Jews seeing Christ do such wonderful works, could not resolve themselves who he was. Herod and his court party said that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead. They had, it seems, an opinion of some extraordinary virtues, or powers, in such as were risen from the dead. Many interpreters agree that the Jews had an opinion, that good mens souls, when they died, went into other bodies; this made them guess that our Saviour was one of the old prophets.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

13. When Jesus came into thecoasts“the parts,” that is, the territory or region.In Mark (Mr 8:27) it is “thetowns” or “villages.”

of Csarea PhilippiItlay at the foot of Mount Lebanon, near the sources of the Jordan, inthe territory of Dan, and at the northeast extremity of Palestine. Itwas originally called Panium (from a cavern in itsneighborhood dedicated to the god Pan) and Paneas.Philip, the tetrarch, the only good son of Herod the Great, in whosedominions Paneas lay, having beautified and enlarged it, changed itsname to Csarea, in honor of the Roman emperor, and addedPhilippi after his own name, to distinguish it from the otherCsarea (Ac 10:1) onthe northeast coast of the Mediterranean Sea. [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 15.10,3; 18.2,1]. This quiet and distant retreatJesus appears to have sought with the view of talking over with theTwelve the fruit of His past labors, and breaking to them for thefirst time the sad intelligence of His approaching death.

he asked his disciples“bythe way,” says Mark (Mr 8:27),and “as He was alone praying,” says Luke (Lu9:18).

saying, Whomor moregrammatically, “Who”

do men say that I the Son ofman am?(or, “that the Son of man is”the recenteditors omitting here the me of Mark and Luke [Mar 8:27;Luk 9:18]; though the evidenceseems pretty nearly balanced)that is, “What are the viewsgenerally entertained of Me, the Son of man, after going up and downamong them so long?” He had now closed the first great stage ofHis ministry, and was just entering on the last dark one. His spirit,burdened, sought relief in retirement, not only from the multitude,but even for a season from the Twelve. He retreated into “thesecret place of the Most High,” pouring out His soul “insupplications and prayers, with strong crying and tears” (Heb5:7). On rejoining His disciples, and as they were pursuing theirquiet journey, He asked them this question.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,…. The towns that were in the neighbourhood of this city; which city went by several names before, as Leshem, Jos 19:47 which being taken by the Danites, they called it Dan; hence we read of

, “Dan, which is Caesarea” b. It was also called Paneas, from the name of the fountain of Jordan, by which it was situated; and which Pliny says c gave the surname to Caesarea; and hence it is called by Ptolomy d Caesarea Paniae; and by the name of Paneas it went, when Philip the e tetrarch rebuilt it, and called it Caesarea, in honour of Tiberius Caesar; and from his own name, Philippi, to distinguish it from another Caesarea, of which mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, built by his father Herod, and so called in honour of Augustus Caesar; which before bore the name of Strato’s tower. The Misnic doctors speak of two Caesareas f, the one they call the eastern, the other the western Caesarea. Now, as Mark says, whilst Christ and his disciples were in the way to these parts; and, as Luke, when he had been praying alone with them,

he asked his disciples, saying, whom do men say that I the Son of man am? He calls himself “the son of man”, because he was truly and really man; and because of his low estate, and the infirmities of human nature, with which he was encompassed: he may have some respect to the first intimation of him, as the seed of woman, and the rather make use of this phrase, because the Messiah was sometimes designed by it in the Old Testament, Ps 80:17 or Christ speaks here of himself, according to his outward appearance, and the prevailing opinion of men concerning him; that he looked to be only a mere man, born as other men were; was properly a son of man, and no more: and therefore the question is, not what sort of man he was, whether a holy, good man, or not, or whether the Messiah, or not; but the question is, what men in general, whether high or low, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, under the notion they had of him as a mere man, said of him; or since they took him to be but a man, what man they thought he was; and to this the answer is very appropriate. This question Christ put to his disciples, they being more conversant with the people than he, and heard the different opinions men had of him, and who were more free to speak their minds of him to them, than to himself; not that he was ignorant of what passed among men, and the different sentiments they had of him, but he was willing to hear the account from his disciples; and his view in putting this question to them, was to make way for another, in order to bring them to an ingenuous confession of their faith in him.

b Targum Hieros. in Gen. xiv. 17. c Hist. l. 5. c. 15, 18. d Geograph. l. 5. c. 15. e Joseph. Antiqu. l. 18. c. & de Bello Jud. l. 3. c. 13. f Misn. Oholot, c. 18. sect. 9.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ’s Conference with His Disciples.

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Csarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 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. 18 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. 19 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. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

We have here a private conference which Christ had with his disciples concerning himself. It was in the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, the utmost borders of the land of Canaan northward; there in that remote corner, perhaps, there was less flocking after him than in other places, which gave him leisure for this private conversation with his disciples. Note, When ministers are abridged in their public work, they should endeavour to do the more in their own families.

Christ is here catechising his disciples.

I. He enquires what the opinions of others were concerning him; Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?

1. He calls himself the Son of man; which may be taken either, (1.) As a title common to him with others. He was called, and justly, the Son of God, for so he was (Luke i. 35); but he called himself the Son of man; for he is really and truly “Man, made of a woman.” In courts of honour, it is a rule to distinguish men by their highest titles; but Christ, having now emptied himself, though he was the Son of God, will be known by the style and title of the Son of man. Ezekiel was often so called to keep him humble; Christ called himself so, to show that he was humble. Or, (2.) As a title peculiar to him as Mediator. He is made known, in Daniel’s vision, as the Son of man, Dan. vii. 13. I am the Messiah, that Son of man that was promised. But,

2. He enquires what people’s sentiments were concerning him: “Who do men say that I am? The Son of man?” (So I think it might better be read). “Do they own me for the Messiah?” He asks not, “Who do the scribes and Pharisees say that I am?” They were prejudiced against him, and said that he was a deceiver and in league with Satan; but, “Who do men say that I am?” He referred to the common people, whom the Pharisees despised. Christ asked this question, not as one that knew not; for if he knows what men think, much more what they say; nor as one desirous to hear his own praises, but to make the disciples solicitous concerning the success of their preaching, by showing that he himself was so. The common people conversed more familiarly with the disciples than they did with their Master, and therefore from them he might better know what they said. Christ had not plainly said who he was, but left people to infer it from his works, Joh 10:24; Joh 10:25. Now he would know what inferences the people drew from them, and from the miracles which his apostles wrought in his name.

3. To this question the disciples have him an answer (v. 14), Some say, thou art John the Baptist, c. There were some that said, he was the Son of David (&lti>ch. xii. 23), and the great Prophet, John vi. 14. The disciples, however, do not mention that opinion, but only such opinions as were wide of the truth, which they gathered up from their countrymen. Observe,

(1.) They are different opinions; some say one thing, and others another. Truth is one; but those who vary from that commonly vary one from another. Thus Christ came eventually to send division, Luke xii. 51. Being so noted a Person, every one would be ready to pass his verdict upon him, and, “Many men, many minds;” those that were not willing to own him to be the Christ, wandered in endless mazes, and followed the chase of every uncertain guess and wild hypothesis.

(2.) They are honourable opinions, and bespeak the respect they had for him, according to the best of their judgment. These were not the sentiments of his enemies, but the sober thoughts of those that followed him with love and wonder. Note, It is possible for men to have good thoughts of Christ, and yet not right ones, a high opinion of him, and yet not high enough.

(3.) They all suppose him to be one risen from the dead; which perhaps arose from a confused notion they had of the resurrection of the Messiah, before his public preaching, as of Jonas. Or their notions arose from an excessive value for antiquity; as if it were not possible for an excellent man to be produced in their own age, but it must be one of the ancients returned to life again.

(4.) They are all false opinions, built upon mistakes, and wilful mistakes. Christ’s doctrines and miracles bespoke him to be an extraordinary Person; but because of the meanness of his appearance, so different from what they expected, they would not own him to be the Messiah, but will grant him to be any thing rather than that.

[1.] Some say, thou art John the Baptist. Herod said so (ch. xiv. 2), and those about him would be apt to say as he said. This notion might be strengthened by an opinion they had, that those who died as martyrs, should rise again before others; which some think the second of the seven sons refers to, in his answer to Antiochus, 2 Macc. vii. 9, The King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.

[2.] Some Elias; taking occasion, no doubt, from the prophecy of Malachi (ch. iv. 5), Behold, I will send you Elijah. And the rather, because Elijah (as Christ) did many miracles, and was himself, in his translation, the greatest miracle of all.

[3.] Others Jeremias: they fasten upon him, either because he was the weeping prophet, and Christ was often in tears; or because God had set him over the kingdoms and nations (Jer. i. 10), which they thought agreed with their notion of the Messiah.

[4.] Or, one of the prophets. This shows what an honourable idea they entertained of the prophets; and yet they were the children of them that persecuted and slew them, ch. xxiii. 29. Rather than they would allow Jesus of Nazareth, one of their own country, to be such an extraordinary Person as his works bespoke him to be, they would say, “It was not he, but one of the old prophets.“

II. He enquires what their thoughts were concerning him; “But who say ye that I am? v. 15. Ye tell me what other people say of me; can ye say better?” 1. The disciples had themselves been better taught than others; had, by their intimacy with Christ, greater advantages of getting knowledge than others had. Note, It is justly expected that those who enjoy greater plenty of the means of knowledge and grace than others, should have a more clear and distinct knowledge of the things of God than others. Those who have more acquaintance with Christ than others, should have truer sentiments concerning him, and be able to give a better account of him than others. 2. The disciples were trained up to teach others, and therefore it was highly requisite that they should understand the truth themselves: “Ye that are to preach the gospel of the kingdom, what are your notions of him that sent you?” Note, Ministers must be examined before they be sent forth, especially what their sentiments are of Christ, and who they say that he is; for how can they be owned as ministers of Christ, that are either ignorant or erroneous concerning Christ? This is a question we should every one of us be frequently putting to ourselves, “Who do we say, what kind of one do we say, that the Lord Jesus is? Is he precious to us? Is he in our eyes the chief of ten thousand? Is he the Beloved of our souls?” It is well or ill with us, according as our thoughts are right or wrong concerning Jesus Christ.

Well, this is the question; now let us observe,

(1.) Peter’s answer to this question, v. 16. To the former question concerning the opinion others had of Christ, several of the disciples answered, according as they had heard people talk; but to this Peter answers in the name of all the rest, they all consenting to it, and concurring in it. Peter’s temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mark ix. 38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude,Joh 14:5; Joh 14:8; Joh 14:22. So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the church of Rome ascribes to him. They will needs advance him to be a judge, when the utmost they can make of him, is, that he was but foreman of the jury, to speak for the rest, and that only pro hc vice–for this once; not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion.

Peter’s answer is short, but it is full, and true, and to the purpose; Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Here is a confession of the Christian faith, addressed to Christ, and so made an act of devotion. Here is a confession of the true God as the living God, in opposition to dumb and dead idols, and of Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, whom to know is life eternal. This is the conclusion of the whole matter.

[1.] The people called him a Prophet, that Prophet (John vi. 14); but the disciples own him to be the Christ, the anointed One; the great Prophet, Priest, and King of the church; the true Messiah promised to the fathers, and depended on by them as He that shall come. It was a great thing to believe this concerning one whose outward appearance was so contrary to the general idea the Jews had of the Messiah.

[2.] He called himself the Son of Man; but they owned him to be the Son of the living God. The people’s notion of him was, that he was the ghost of a dead man, Elias, or Jeremias; but they know and believe him to be the Son of the living God, who has life in himself, and has given to his Son to have life in himself, and to be the Life of the world. If he be the Son of the living God, he is of the same nature with him: and though his divine nature was now veiled with the cloud of flesh, yet there were those who looked through it, and saw his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Now can we with an assurance of faith subscribe to this confession? Let us then, with a fervency of affection and adoration, go to Christ, and tell him so; Lord Jesus, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

(2.) Christ’s approbation of his answer (v. 17-19); in which Peter is replied to, both as a believer and as an apostle.

[1.] As a believer, v. 17. Christ shows himself well pleased with Peter’s confession, that it was so clear and express, without ifs or ands, as we say. Note, The proficiency of Christ’s disciples in knowledge and grace is very acceptable to him; and Christ shows him whence he received the knowledge of this truth. At the first discovery of this truth in the dawning of the gospel day, it was a mighty thing to believe it; all men had not this knowledge, had not this faith. But,

First, Peter had the happiness of it; Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona. He reminds him of his rise and original, the meanness of his parentage, the obscurity of his extraction; he was Bar-jonas–The son of a dove; so some. Let him remember the rock out of which he was hewn, that he may see he was not born to this dignity, but preferred to it by the divine favour; it was free grace that made him to differ. Those that have received the Spirit must remember who is their Father, 1 Sam. x. 12. Having reminded him of this, he makes him sensible of his great happiness as a believer; Blessed art thou. Note, True believers are truly blessed, and those are blessed indeed whom Christ pronounces blessed; his saying they are so, makes them so. “Peter, thou art a happy man, who thus knowest the joyful sound,” Ps. lxxxix. 15. Blessed are your eyes, ch. xiii. 16. All happiness attends the right knowledge of Christ.

Secondly, God must have the glory of it; “For flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee. Thou hadst this neither by the invention of thy own wit and reason, nor by the instruction and information of others; this light sprang neither from nature nor from education, but from my Father who is in heaven.” Note, 1. The Christian religion is a revealed religion, has its rise in heaven; it is a religion from above, given by inspiration of God, not the learning of philosophers, nor the politics of statesmen. 2. Saving faith is the gift of God, and, wherever it is, is wrought by him, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for his sake, and upon the score of his mediation, Phil. i. 29. Therefore thou art blessed, because my Father has revealed it to thee. Note, The revealing of Christ to us and in us is a distinguishing token of God’s good will, and a firm foundation of true happiness; and blessed are they that are thus highly favoured.

Perhaps Christ discerned something of pride and vain-glory in Peter’s confession; a subtle sin, and which is apt to mingle itself even with our good duties. It is hard for good men to compare themselves with others, and not to have too great a conceit of themselves; to prevent which, we should consider that our preference to others is no achievement of our own, but the free gift of God’s grace too us, and not to others; so that we have nothing to boast of, Psa 115:1; 1Co 4:7.

[2.] Christ replies to him as an apostle or minister, Mat 16:18; Mat 16:19. Peter, in the name of the church, had confessed Christ, and to him therefore the promise intended for the church is directed. Note, There is nothing lost by being forward to confess Christ; for those who honour him, he will honour.

Upon occasion of this great confession made of Christ, which is the church’s homage and allegiance, he signed and published this royal, this divine charter, by which that body politic is incorporated. Such is the communion between Christ and the church, the Bridegroom and the spouse. God had a church in the world from the beginning, and it was built upon the rock of the promised Seed, Gen. iii. 15. But now, that promised Seed being come, it was requisite that the church should have a new charter, as Christian, and standing in relation to a Christ already come. Now here we have that charter; and a thousand pities it is, that this word, which is the great support of the kingdom of Christ, should be wrested and pressed into the service of antichrist. But the devil has employed his subtlety to pervert it, as he did that promise, Ps. xci. 11, which he perverted to his own purpose, ch. iv. 6, and perhaps both that scripture and this he thus perverted because they stood in his way, and therefore he owed them a spite.

Now the purport of this charter is,

First, To establish the being of the church; I say also unto thee. It is Christ that makes the grant, he who is the church’s Head, and Ruler, to whom all judgment is committed, and from whom all power is derived; he who makes it pursuant to the authority received from the Father, and his undertaking for the salvation of the elect. The grant is put into Peter’s hand; “I say it to thee.” The Old Testament promises relating to the church were given immediately to particular persons, eminent for faith and holiness, as to Abraham and David; which yet gave no supremacy to them, much less to any of their successors; so the New-Testament charter is here delivered to Peter as an agent, but to the use and behoof of the church in all ages, according to the purposes therein specified and contained. Now it is here promised,

1. That Christ would build his church upon a rock. This body politic is incorporated by the style and title of Christ’s church. It is a number o the children of men called out of the world, and set apart from it, and dedicated to Christ. It is not thy church, but mine. Peter remembered this, when he cautioned ministers not to lord it over God’s heritage. The church is Christ’s peculiar, appropriated to him. The world is God’s, and they that dwell therein; but the church is a chosen remnant, that stands in relation to God through Christ as Mediator. It bears him image and superscription.

(1.) The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; I will build it. The church is a temple which Christ is the Builder of, Zech. vi. 11-13. Herein Solomon was a type of Christ, and Cyrus, Isa. xliv. 28. The materials and workmanship are his. By the working of his Spirit with the preaching of his word he adds souls to his church, and so builds it up with living stones, 1 Pet. ii. 5. Ye are God’s building; and building is a progressive work; the church in this world is but in fieri–in the forming, like a house in the building. It is a comfort to all those who wish well to the church, that Christ, who has divine wisdom and power, undertakes to build it.

(2.) The foundation on which it is built is, this Rock. Let the architect do his part ever so well, if the foundation be rotten, the building will not stand; let us therefore see what the foundation is, and it must be meant of Christ, for other foundation can no man lay. See Isa. xxviii. 16.

[1.] The church is built upon a rock; a firm, strong, and lasting foundation, which time will not waste, nor will it sink under the weight of the building. Christ would not build his house upon the sand, for he knew that storms would arise. A rock is high, Ps. lxi. 2. Christ’s church does not stand upon a level with this world; a rock is large, and extends far, so does the church’s foundation; and the more large, the more firm; those are not the church’s friends that narrow its foundation.

[2.] It is built upon this rock; thou art Peter, which signifies a stone or rock; Christ gave him that name when he first called him (John i. 42), and here he confirms it; “Peter, thou dost answer thy name, thou art a solid, substantial disciple, fixed and stayed, and one that there is some hold of. Peter is thy name, and strength and stability are with thee. Thou art not shaken with the waves of men’s fluctuating opinions concerning me, but established in the present truth,” 2 Pet. i. 12. From the mention of this significant name, occasion is taken for this metaphor of building upon a rock.

First, Some by this rock understand Peter himself as an apostle, the chief, though not the prince, of the twelve, senior among them, but not superior over them. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, Eph. ii. 20. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 14. Now Peter being that apostle by whose hand the first stones of the church were laid, both in Jewish converts (Acts ii.), and in the Gentile converts (Acts x.), he might in some sense be said to be the rock on which it was built. Cephas was one that seemed to be a pillar, Gal. ii. 9. But it sounds very harsh, to call a man that only lays the first stone of a building, which is a transient act, the foundation on which it is built, which is an abiding thing. Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question.

Secondly, Others, by this rock, understand Christ; “Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church.” Perhaps he laid his hand on his breast, as when he said, Destroy this temple (John ii. 19), when he spoke of the temple of his body. Then he took occasion from the temple, where he was, so to speak of himself, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of that; so here he took occasion from Peter, to speak of himself as the Rock, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of Peter. But this must be explained by those many scriptures which speak of Christ as the only Foundation of the church; see 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 2:6. Christ is both its Founder and its Foundation; he draws souls, and draws them to himself; to him they are united, and on him they rest and have a constant dependence.

Thirdly, Others by this rock understand this confession which Peter made of Christ, and this comes all to one with understanding it of Christ himself. It was a good confession which Peter witnessed, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; the rest concurred with him in it. “Now,” saith Christ, “this is that great truth upon which I will build my church.” 1. Take away this truth itself, and the universal church falls to the ground. If Christ be not the Son of God, Christianity is a cheat, and the church is a mere chimera; our preaching is vain, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins, 1 Cor. xv. 14-17. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. 2. Take away the faith and confession of this truth from any particular church, and it ceases to be a part of Christ’s church, and relapses to the state and character of infidelity. This is articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia–that article, with the admission or the denial of which the church either rises or falls; “the main hinge on which the door of salvation turns;” those who let go this, do not hold the foundation; and though they may call themselves Christians, they give themselves the lie; for the church is a sacred society, incorporated upon the certainty and assurance of this great truth; and great it is, and has prevailed.

2. Christ here promises to preserve and secure his church, when it is built; The gates of hell shall not prevail against it; neither against this truth, nor against the church which is built upon it.

(1.) This implies that the church has enemies that fight against it, and endeavour its ruin overthrow, here represented by the gates of hell, that is, the city of hell; (which is directly opposite to this heavenly city, this city of the living God), the devil’s interest among the children of men. The gates of hell are the powers and policies of the devil’s kingdom, the dragon’s head and horns, by which he makes war with the Lamb; all that comes out of hell-gates, as being hatched and contrived there. These fight against the church by opposing gospel truths, corrupting gospel ordinances, persecuting good ministers and good Christians; drawing or driving, persuading by craft or forcing by cruelty, to that which is inconsistent with the purity of religion; this is the design of the gates of hell, to root out the name of Christianity (Ps. lxxxiii. 4), to devour the man-child (Rev. xii. 9), to raze this city to the ground.

(2.) This assures us that the enemies of the church shall not gain their point. While the world stands, Christ will have a church in it, in which his truths and ordinances shall be owned and kept up, in spite of all the opposition of the powers of darkness; They shall not prevail against it,Psa 129:1; Psa 129:2. This gives no security to any particular church, or church-governors that they shall never err, never apostatize or be destroyed; but that somewhere or other the Christian religion shall have a being, though not always in the same degree of purity and splendour, yet so as that the entail of it shall never be quite cut off. The woman lives, though in a wilderness (Rev. xii. 14), cast down but not destroyed (2 Cor. iv. 9). Corruptions grieving, persecutions grievous, but neither fatal. The church may be foiled in particular encounters, but in the main battle it shall come off more than a conqueror. Particular believers are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, 1 Pet. i. 5.

Secondly, The other part of this charter is, to settle the order and government of the church, v. 19. When a city or society is incorporated, officers are appointed and empowered to act for the common good. A city without government is a chaos. Now this constituting of the government of the church, is here expressed by the delivering of the keys, and, with them, a power to bind and loose. This is not to be understood of any peculiar power that Peter was invested with, as if he were sole door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, and had that key of David which belongs only to the Son of David; no, this invests all the apostles and their successors with a ministerial power to guide and govern the church of Christ, as it exists in particular congregations or churches, according to the rules of the gospel. Claves regni clorum in B. Petro apostolo cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes–All we that are priests, received, in the person of the blessed apostle Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven; so Ambrose De Dignit. Sacerd. Only the keys were first put into Peter’s hand, because he was the first that opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, Acts x. 28. As the king, in giving a charter to a corporation, empowers the magistrates to hold courts in his name, to try matters of fact, and determine therein according to law, confirming what is so done regularly as if done in any of the superior courts; so Christ, having incorporated his church, hath appointed the office of the ministry for the keeping up of order and government, and to see that his laws be duly served; I will give thee the keys. He doth not say, “I have given them,” or “I do now;” but “I will do it,” meaning after his resurrection; when he ascended on high, he gave those gifts, Ephes. iv. 8; then this power was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the rest, Mat 28:19; Mat 28:20; Joh 20:21. He doth not say, The keys shall be given, but, I will give them; for ministers derive their authority from Christ, and all their power is to be used in his name, 1 Cor. v. 4.

Now, 1. The power here delegated is a spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to the kingdom of heaven, that is, to the church, that part of it which is militant here on earth, to the gospel dispensation; that is it about which the apostolical and ministerial power is wholly conversant. It is not any civil, secular power that is hereby conveyed, Christ’s kingdom is not of this world; their instructions afterward were in things pertaining to the kingdom of God, Acts i. 3.

2. It is the power of the keys that is given, alluding to the custom of investing men with authority in such a place, by delivering to them the keys of the place. Or as the master of the house gives the keys to the steward, the keys of the stores where the provisions are kept, that he may give to every one in the house his portion of meat in due season (Luke xii. 42), and deny it as there is occasion, according to the rules of the family. Ministers are stewards,1Co 4:1; Tit 1:7. Eliakim, who had the key of the house of David, was over the household, Isa. xxii. 22.

3. It is a power to bind and loose, that is (following the metaphor of the keys), to shut and open. Joseph, who was lord of Pharaoh’s house, and steward of the stores, had power to bind his princes, and to teach his senators wisdom,Psa 105:21; Psa 105:22. When the stores and treasures of the house are shut up from any, they are bound, interdico tibi aquacric et igne–I forbid thee the use of fire and water; when they are opened to them again, they are loosed from that bond, are discharged from the censure, and restored to their liberty.

4. It is a power which Christ has promised to own the due administration of; he will ratify the sentences of his stewards with his own approbation; It shall be bound in heaven, and loosed in heaven: not that Christ hath hereby obliged himself to confirm all church-censures, right or wrong; but such as are duly passed according to the word, clave non errante–the key turning the right way, such are sealed in heaven; that is, the word of the gospel, in the mouth of faithful ministers, is to be looked upon, not as the word of man, but as the word of God, and to be received accordingly, 1 Thess. ii. 13; John xii. 20.

Now the keys of the kingdom of heaven are,

(1.) The key of doctrine, called the key of knowledge. “Your business shall be to explain to the world the will of God, both as to truth and duty; and for this you shall have your commissions, credentials, and full instructions to bind and loose:” these, in the common speech of the Jews, at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. Now the apostles had an extraordinary power of this kind; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden, as divorce; and the apostles were empowered to declare this to the world, and men might take it upon their words. When Peter was first taught himself, and then taught others, to call nothing common or unclean, this power was exercised. There is also an ordinary power hereby conveyed to all ministers, to preach the gospel as appointed officers; to tell people, in God’s name, and according to the scriptures, what is good, and what the Lord requires of them: and they who declare the whole counsel of God, use these keys well, Acts xx. 27.

Some make the giving of the keys to allude to the custom of the Jews in creating a doctor of the law, which was to put into his hand the keys of the chest where the book of the law was kept, denoting his being authorized to take and read it; and the binding and loosing, to allude to the fashion about their books, which were in rolls; they shut them by binding them up with a string, which they untied when they opened them. Christ gives his apostles power to shut or open the book of the gospel to people, as the case required. See the exercise of this power, Act 13:46; Act 18:6. When ministers preach pardon and peace to the penitent, wrath and the curse to the impenitent, in Christ’s name, they act then pursuant to this authority of binding and loosing.

(2.) The key of discipline, which is but the application of the former to particular persons, upon a right estimate of their characters and actions. It is not legislative power that is hereby conferred, but judicial; the judge doth not make the law, but only declares what is law, and upon an impartial enquiry into the merits of the cause, gives sentence accordingly. Such is the power of the keys, wherever it is lodged, with reference to church-membership and the privileges thereof. [1.] Christ’s ministers have a power to admit into the church; “Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them; those who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, admit them and their seed members of the church by baptism.” Ministers are to let in to the wedding-feast those that are bidden; and to keep out such as are apparently unfit for so holy a communion. [2.] They have a power to expel and cast out such as have forfeited their church-membership, that is binding; refusing to unbelievers the application of gospel promises and the seals of them; and declaring to such as appear to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, that they have no part or lot in the matter, as Peter did to Simon Magus, though he had been baptized; and this is a binding over to the judgment of God. [3.] They have a power to restore and to receive in again, upon their repentance, such as had been thrown out; to loose those whom they had bound; declaring to them, that, if their repentance be sincere, the promise of pardon belongs to them. The apostles had a miraculous gift of discerning spirits; yet even they went by the rule of outward appearances (as Act 8:21; 1Co 5:1; 2Co 2:7; 1Ti 1:20), which ministers may still make a judgment upon, if they be skilful and faithful.

Lastly, Here is the charge which Christ gave his disciples, to keep this private for the present (v. 20); They must tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. What they had professed to him, they must not yet publish to the world, for several reasons; 1. Because this was the time of preparation for his kingdom: the great thing now preached, was, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand; and therefore those things were now to be insisted on, which were proper to make way for Christ; as the doctrine of repentance; not this great truth, in and with which the kingdom of heaven was to be actually set up. Every thing is beautiful in its season, and it is good advice, Prepare thy work, and afterwards build, Prov. xxiv. 27. 2. Christ would have his Messiahship proved by his works, and would rather they should testify of him than that his disciples should, because their testimony was but as his own, which he insisted not on. See Joh 5:31; Joh 5:34. He was so secure of the demonstration of his miracles, that he waived other witnesses, Joh 10:25; Joh 10:38. 3. If they had known that he was Jesus the Christ, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. ii. 8. 4. Christ would not have the apostles preach this, till they had the most convincing evidence ready to allege in confirmation of it. Great truths may suffer damage by being asserted before they can be sufficiently proved. Now the great proof of Jesus being the Christ was his resurrection: by that he was declared to be the Son of God, with power; and therefore the divine wisdom would not have this truth preached, till that could be alleged for proof of it. 5. It was requisite that the preachers of so great a truth should be furnished with greater measures of the Spirit than the apostles as yet had; therefore the open asserting of it was adjourned till the Spirit should be poured out upon them. But when Christ was glorified and the Spirit poured out, we find Peter proclaiming upon the house-tops what was here spoken in a corner (Acts ii. 36), That God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ; for, as there is a time to keep silence, so there is a time to speak.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Caesarea Philippi ( ). Up on a spur of Mt. Hermon under the rule of Herod Philip.

He asked (). Began to question, inchoative imperfect tense. He was giving them a test or examination. The first was for the opinion of men about the Son of Man.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Mat 16:13

. And when Jesus came to the coasts of Cesarea Philippi. Mark says that this conversation took place during the journey. Luke says that it took place while he was praying, and while there were none in company with him but his disciples. Matthew is not so exact in mentioning the time. All the three unquestionably relate the same narrative; and it is possible that Christ may have stopped at a certain place during that journey to pray, and that afterwards he may have put the question to his disciples. There were two towns called Cesarea, of which the former was more celebrated, and had been anciently called The Tower of Strato; while the latter, which is mentioned here, was situated at the foot of Mount Lebanon, not far from the river Jordan. It is for the sake of distinguishing between these two towns that Philippi is added to the name; for though it is conjectured by some to have been built on the same spot where the town of Dan formerly stood, yet, as it had lately been rebuilt by Philip the Tetrarch, it was called Philippi (437)

Who do men say that I am? This might be supposed to mean, What was the current rumor about the Redeemer, who became the Son of man? But the question is quite different, What do men think about Jesus the Son of Mary? He calls himself, according to custom, the Son of man, as much as to say, Now that clothed in flesh I inhabit the earth like other men, what is the opinion entertained respecting me? The design of Christ was, to confirm his disciples fully in the true faith, that they might not be tossed about amidst various reports, as we shall presently see.

(437) “ On la nommoit Cesaree de Philippe;” — “it was named Cesarea of Philip.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE GREATEST QUESTION CHRIST EVER ASKED

Mat 16:13-28.

IT was as Jesus approached Caesarea Philippi, that He, with His little company, halted, probably to rest a few minutes from a weary journey, and possibly to prepare and take the next meal. While waiting He snatched opportunity of some further instruction for those first students in the true Christs College.

Like all great teachers He questioned, and like the wise teacher He prepared His questions with reference to their progress in study and understanding. The time of His decease at Jerusalem was not far away; and that it might be properly understood and sanely interpreted, they must properly understand Him and sanely interpret Him. Hence the question, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?

Beyond controversy, this is the greatest question that Christ ever asked! The question with Peters reply and Jesus remarks involves the three central facts of the New Testament Scriptures. These facts might take the form of themes and be expressed in three phrases, around which every word uttered from Mat 1:1 to Rev 22:21 clusters and circulates. They would be these: The Christ of God, The Church of God, and The Kingdom of God. The order of their statement is the order of their appearance in Scripture, and suggests also the program which inspiration follows in the development of the themes themselves.

THE CHRIST OF GOD.

He was the occasion of this question of the centuries. Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? Before that question all others pale, even the most important ones seem insignificant indeed.

To that question there are three answers that claim attention, at least upon the ground of age: The answer of natural reason; the answer of scientific research, and the answer of Divine revelation.

The answer of natural reason. Possibly the most ancient exponent of this was Satan himself. Whether he actually doubted the Deity of Christ, not recognizing Him when first he saw Him in the flesh, we do not know; but certainly it is that in the wilderness, following our Lords baptism, he called into question every essential feature of His Deity.

He questioned His power to work miracles and proffered Him a stone to be turned into bread as a test! He questioned His captaincy of the angelic host and dared Him to cast Himself down and give proof of their allegiance in the swiftness of their descent from Heaven to suspend Him in mid-air; and he questioned His inheritance of the earth or His final Lordship in the same, and asserted a self-ownership.

The leading modern exponent of this satanic rationalism was Strauss. In the last century, that great skeptic gave to the world his, mystical theory of Jesus, contending that no such person as pictured in the New Testament ever lived, save in the minds of the imaginative apostolate. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Peter, Paul and others materialized Him out of the star dust of their Messianic hopes and training, as one expressed the Strauss conception. In other words, by that infatuation which sometimes befalls men as a result of an inordinate affection for a natural leader, they magnified a plain peasant into a god of all grace and power, and by a process of corporate scheming, palmed Him off on the world as a supernatural being. The weakness of the modern mind and the intellectual incapacity of some modern ministers was never more clearly demonstrated than by the fact that Strauss irrational explanation has been so widely received.

The time came, however, when the more thoughtful doubters reached the logical conclusion that the disciples of Jesus were no more able to invent such a character as the Christ of the Gospels than they were to create the character itself. Beyond dispute, one colossal figure has crossed the centuries and that figure is Christ. Who is He? This fact gave rise to the second reply.

The answer of scientific research. That answer is in line with what some said even in Jesus time. Peter reports their opinion of Jesus after this manner, He was John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremiah or one of the Prophets. They had seen too much of Him; they had studied Him too carefully; they had examined His conduct and character too scientifically to join in the Strauss skeptic reply.

The true scientist conscientiously tries never to ignore facts. Even so long ago as Christs time, honest students saw that while He looked like a man, behaved like a man, He was both in appearance and accomplishment more than the ordinary man. They deemed that He was at least such as John or even Elias or Jeremiah. How modern that sounds! How much in line with the clerical skeptic of this day! He consents that Jesus was not an ordinary man, but seeks to explain Him by saying, He is only a man, yet He is the only man That paradox, however, while seeking a way of escape, put its author into much more perplexing questions still. We cannot overlook its utter lack of logic. The poet says:

If Christ were a man,And only a man, I say That of all mankind,I would cleave to Him,And to Him would I cleave alway.

If Christ were a man and only a man, He is a dead man; and those who lean on Him lean on one who long since failed. If Christ were a man and only a man, He was a deceiving man, for He said, I and my Father are One, and the deceiver is always an insufficient support. If Christ were a man and only a man, He is unworthy of worship, and to cleave to Him alway is a violation of the first commandment.

The skeptical scientist of the present moment likes to style himself an advanced thinker. He makes the same answer now that the scribes and Phariseethe learned men of two millenniums agomade then. His answer involves Mary in harlotry; Joseph in fornication; makes Jesus a bastard; leaves the Church without an explanation and the Kingdom of God without promise or prospect!

But that Christ was not content with such a reply is evident in the fact that He pressed His disciples for yet another answer, and by Peters lips it was voiced.

The answer of Divine revelation. Simon Peter said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus reminded him that that was the greatest thought he had ever had since his birth. It was not the flash of wit; it was not the expression of genius; it was not the speech of the clever revelation from God. Like all other good and perfect gifts, that knowledge came down from above. Peter was at his best when he made that reply. But the human voice is only at its best when it expresses the Divine mind.

Someone says, How do we know that this is the Divine mind? Our reply is Because it is in accord with the Divine Wordin accord with the prophecy, The seed of woman shall bruise the serpents head; in accord with the statement, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call His name Immanuel; in accord with the announcement of Gabriel, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus; in accord with the angels statement to Joseph, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which she has conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost; in accord with the Divine voice to Mary, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; for that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God; in accord with the life He lived; the death He died; the resurrection He accomplished; the ascension that occurred before the eyes of hundreds.

Ah, Peter, God made to you the revelation of the ages; He was, He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God! To deny that is to leave His birth, His life, His death, His ascension without explanation. To deny that is to dispute the history of the rise and growth and power of the Christian Church, and to deny that is to put ones self in opposition to the promised Kingdom to come, with this Prince of Peace in the place of power. Certainly one day men who still believe in the authority of the Sacred Scriptures will cease from denying the Virgin Birth, the attested Miracles, the matchless Words, the sacrificial Death, the certain Resurrection, the glorious Ascension, and even the promised Second Coming of the Christ; for if the Scriptures have any weight, any value, they testify to all these as they testify to Peters declaration that He was the Son of God.

So much then for the first portion of the text, the Christ of God. Let us turn now to the second portion of the text.

THE CHURCH OF GOD.

I say 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.

The Church of God rests upon the Divine Christ. It was not Peter upon whom the Church was built, or it would have crumbled when they crucified Him. It was not even Peters confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, for a mere statement is not a sufficient foundation stone. It was the fact to which Peter replied, namely, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, for facts are sufficient and stable. Upon that foundation-fact the Church stands, and upon that the Church will forever stand. You cannot build a church upon any other basis. You can construct a house and call it a church; you can gather the people into some sort of an assembly and call it a church; you can get the newspapers to say it is a church, but you do injustice to the biblical term. A house and an assembly do not necessarily mean a church. Where Christ is not honored as God, there can be no church. The Millennial Dawnites cannot build a church; they deny that Jesus is the equal of the Father, calling Him creature instead of Creator. Christian Scientist can never build a church; they deny that Christ is God and call Him either the Great Teacher or Truth. Unitarians can never build a church; they have for their airy fabric no foundation-stone. These, and others which might be mentioned, construct houses and call them churches, but they rest upon the sand and are destined to go down in that distressing storm which will surely sweep the earth, and illustrate for us the fact that other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ the Lord. One has said, When Milton speaks of the earths base as built on stubble he describes the attempt of those who set Christthe very Son of Godaside and then seek to build a church.

Superficial and thoughtless men are always liable to be deceived by appearances. One passes a street and sees a house built in churchy form and folks entering it with demure mien, and standing up together, read the Scriptures, and render songs, and passing out at its close in perfect decorum, and he says, That is a church. Not if it rests on other foundation than Christ, the Son of God. It may have the lines of a church but it is without its life.

Dr. Jefferson says, The difference between a pool and a spring is that a spring is fed from within while a pool: is fed from without. That is the very difference between the True Church and the counterfeit. Every counterfeit church lives as a parasite lives, by sucking its very existence as a pool does; it never overflows and refreshes the world as a spring does. Where did the Millennial Dawn movement get its membership? Whence do Christian Science churches bring their recruits? How does Unitarianism manage to live at all? None of them make converts from the world by seeing men and women regenerated, saved from sin; they draw upon other churches as a pool draws upon a fountain; and they have their existence only because the Church that has accepted Jesus Christ as the Son of God has power to make converts; power to overflow as a spring overflows; power to contribute to every piece of low ground about it as a spring makes contribution; power to fill up the pools and save them from utter and even foul stagnation by pouring fresh streams into them. It ought not to be difficult, then, for one to tell whether he is connected with a Church of Christ or with an institution that has stolen the livery of Heaven to serve the devil in.

But mark the second fact here stated concerning the Church.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The word hades translated hell is practically synonymous with the grave. How logical the suggestion; the grave, though its appetite be insatiable, can never conquer against the Church of God. It has claimed the bodies of the saints for centuries; it is claiming them now with every tick of the clock; it comes as a demon, determined to depopulate the Church. It gathers to its rapacious maw the minister today; it strikes down the deacon tomorrow; on the third day it will lay low the noblest woman that ever graced the membership of the local body of believers; and the day after it will throttle the life of the child that confessed Christ but yesterday. One who looks upon this devilish, devastating work might imagine that the Church of Jesus Christ would perish before this persistent enemy. But no! The birth rate of those begotten by the Spirit has forever exceeded the death rate of the redeemed; and we have the sure promise of the Son of God that it will forever remain so; indeed we baptize for the dead and replenish the Church.

Tertullian was one day addressing the Roman officials and he voiced that fact when he said, We are but of yesterday; and yet we have filled every place belonging to you, cities, islands, castles, towns, assemblies, your very camps, your tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum; we leave you your temples only.

Truly of Christ, the Head of the Church, it has been written He walks down the centuries with the tread of the Conqueror, and though nineteen hundred years have passed since He died on the Cross, in all these centuries He has been lifting empires off their hinges, and turning the stream of history into new channels. Emerson was right, therefore, when he said, His name is ploughed into the world. Renan was right when he remarked, His life has been made a cornerstone in the building of the race. Lecky was right when he declared, The simple record of three short years of His active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists. He who conquered in the regions of the Sea of Galilee and called to Himself the thousands by the great Atlantic, and on the shores of the great PacificHis influence is felt in every continent of the world, and His conquests increase with every passing day. It must be evident even to the unthinking that He is making good to His Church His Word, The gates of hell shall not prevail against thee. I pity the men who have linked their fortunes to a failing enterprise. I find a justifiable pride and an unspeakable pleasure in the fact that I linked my life to Jesus Christ, and allied my fortune with that of an institution, the success of which is as sure as the Word of God, and the sweep of which is as wide as the world itself.

Premillennialists have been charged with a declaration of the failure of the Church. It is a false indictment. In the Divine program the Church has a place; and it is filling it, and will not fail. But that place is not the final place in the Divine scheme of the worlds redemption. That belongs rather to

THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

Is not the progress marked in this Scripture both marvelous and suggestive? The Christ of God, first; the Church of God, second; the Kingdom of God, last.

Listen:

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.

From that time forth began Jesus to shew 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.

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 f 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.

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 (Mat 16:19-28).

From this concluding Scripture, three suggestions:

Christ has authority in the Kingdom of God. It is well known that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, as employed in the New Testament, refer to one and the same period of time and describe the same Divine institution; one of them possibly suggesting the heavenly character of the Kingdom and the other the Divine government of the same. Christ who is Head over all to the Church by Divine appointment, is also Lord of the Kingdom. As the man who carries all the keys to the house is master of the same, so Jesus of Nazareth God manifest in the fleshis to be the natural Master in that Kingdom where all potentates shall fall before Him and all nations shall serve Him.

As one reflects upon this text, he wonders if there is not this further suggestion here. You will remember that Paul teaches that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1Co 15:50), and immediately explains by reminding us that when the Kingdom comes it will be made up of incorruptible and immortal men who through His reappearance have conquered against death, and have been changed in a moment from mortal to immortal, and men who though dead, by the same event shall have been brought back in body, changed from the corruptible to the incorruptible, and of these two classes the Kingdom of God is constituted (1Co 15:51-57)Christ Himself is the King who brings men from the bondage of mortality to the freedom of immortality, and from beyond the bars of death to the liberty of an everlasting life; and He fits them alike for place, privilege and power in the Kingdom. Is not that the very significance of what John saw in the Patmos vision? On the part of Christian believers there is universal agreement that he had a vision of Jesus in His glory, and when he saw Him he looked upon

One like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire;

And His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters.

And He had in His right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and His countenance was as the sun shineth in His strength.

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the First and the Last;

I am He that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore. Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death (Rev 1:12-18).

I have the keys of hell. The word means hades or the gravethe place of the dead and of death. Yes, He holds the keys to both; He can bring the Elijahs out of the prison house of mortality; and He can bring the Lazaruses from beyond the bars of corruption; and when these types have been multiplied in the last living, or buried believer, the Kingdom of Heaven will have come; not to be inherited by flesh and blood, as the Church of God is constituted, but to be made up of the immortal (1Co 15:50), and the incorruptible (1Co 15:55), as God has ordained from the first, and as His ruling Son shall finally order.

In that Kingdom He will share office with the saints. To Peter, at first, He said, I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, but at that moment He was speaking to Peter as a representative only, Peter as spokesman for the disciples. Turn but a single page in your New Testament and Jesus is speaking to His disciples, and to the whole company of them He said, 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 (Mat 18:18). Dr. John Monroe Gibson in the Expositors Bible, commenting upon this passage, says, When the Masters voice shall be silent, the voice of the rock disciple shall have the same authority to bind and to loose, to regulate church offices as of He Himself when with them. But unfortunately for such a comment, it misses the main point of both prophecy and history. Historically Peter had no such power, else Paul would not have successfully withstood him concerning his mistake; and from the Scripture standpoint let it be understood that this was never spoken at all with reference to the Church. When the statement was made to Peter, the Kingdom was the subject of discussion; and when the promise was made to all the disciples, the Kingdom still remained the subject of which the Master was speaking. Scripture has a marvelous habit of harmonizing with Scripture, and in these sacred pages you will never find the Church and the Kingdom confused or used interchangeably. Peter was given no special power in the Church! The Papacy, therefore, has missed the whole point of the Masters promise, and in imagining that the keys of the Church were hung at the girdle of Peter, has indulged in a monstrous assumption, involving at least two mistakes. The first is that this promise was ever restricted to Peter; it was first spoken to him, but only a little later it was given to all the disciples (Mat 18:18). Among His brethren Christ is no respecter of persons.

The second mistake is to apply it to the Church when it was promised for the Kingdom. Having gotten the correct perspective, behold how Scriptures harmonize! Even the Old Testament Prophets declare for the day of the Lord that saviours and judges shall come upon Mount Zion; the New Testament tells us how this will be fulfilled, for Christ promised those who were to follow Him in the regeneration that they should reign with Him, and His Apostolic company enjoyed special premise in this matter (Luk 22:30). To them Jesus said,

Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations.

And I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me;

That ye may eat and drink at My table in My Kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This Scripture provides no basis whatever for Papal priesthood and none whatever for the Catholic confessional. It relates to that day when judgment will have come to the world, and when the incorruptible saints shall share with Jesus in determining whose sins are remitted and whose are retained; who shall be bound and consigned to everlasting punishment; and who shall be received into eternal life (Mat 25:46), The biblical distinction between the Church period and the Kingdom period brings to instructed believers a blessed suggestion. Concerning the Church no believer has a right to be discouraged; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But, anticipating the Kingdom, every instructed believer should be buoyant with the assurance that it will prevail against death and hades, for when the Kingdom shall come death will have no more dominion over Gods people, and the believers grave will be instantly robbed of its inmate; and the immortal and incorruptible, robed in the glory of new life, shall shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Mat 13:45).

It is a remarkable speech with which this sentence is followed and this study is closed;

Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ.

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.

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 (Mat 16:20-28).

The Kingdom completed, Christ will efface His official self. Here we have a suggestion that becomes a symbol, a statement that takes on the proportions of a type. Immediately He set about trying to prepare His disciples for that effacement, telling them that He must go into Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Peter could not comprehend either such an end for His Lord or such a paling of his personal and professional glory, and his rebuke was Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee. The Masters answer, 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, was true to every fact. Peter represented the others doubtless in his low view of the coming Kingdom and Christs supremacy therein. He thought it to be of the earth, earthy, and that it would be wrought by human wisdom and implements of warfare.

Jesus seeks to correct this view by showing that a cross versus a canon, and self-sacrifice versus a sword, was the way to victory in the Kingdom. It is not only the way chosen for the servant, but the way that the Master has chosen for Himself. Joseph Parker teaches that Christs statement, What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul, was not intended for disciples but applied by Himself. It was an answer to Peters suggestion that He turn aside and escape the destiny which He came to fulfil; a proposition that He instantly repudiated. Self-sacrifice was not to be escaped by Him; and official effacement would in no wise be the end of His glory, the glory which He had with the Father from the foundation and in which He should continue to share for all eternity; but not in His own name. He wanted the glory to be given to God, the Father. His whole plan is that that should be the final effect of His ministry. In the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul, writing by the pen of inspiration, tells us that when He has rendered the last service He came to perform, namely, that of having put down all rule and all authority and power, having abolished death itself, which is the last enemy, then, when all things shall be subdued unto him, when all saints and all angels will be ready to break forth in praises beyond anything He has heard or known in the eternity of the past, at that time He will efface Himself again, having turned all over to God the Father, that God may he all and in all.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 16:13. Coasts.Parts (R.V.). I.e. neighbourhood. There were various inhabited places in the locality (see Mar. 8:27). Csarea Philippi.Probably on the site of the Old Testament Baalgad (Jos. 11:17), at the foot of Hermon, built by Philip the tetrarch, and distinguished by his name from other Csareas (Macphersons Bible Dictionary). This conversation at Csarea Philippi is universally regarded as marking a new era in the life of Christ. His rejection by His own is now complete. With the very small band He has gathered around Him He withdraws to the neighbourhood of the Gentile town of Csarea Philippi; not for seclusion only, but, as the event shows, to found an EcclesiaHis church (Gibson).

Mat. 16:14. And they said.Some, entertaining the opinion suggested by the fears of Herod, say, that Thou art John the Baptist; others, adopting the Jewish notion of the advent of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah, say that Thou art Elias; others, in accordance with the prevalent tradition that Jeremiah was to come and reveal the place where the sacred vessels were concealed (2Ma. 2:1-7), say that Thou art Jeremias; and others, generally and Indefinitely, that Thou art a prophet, perhaps the herald of the Messiah (Gloag).

Mat. 16:17. Bar-jona.Bar is Aramaic for son; cf. Bar-abbas, Bar-tholomew, Bar-nabas. For flesh and blood, etc.Not man, but God; flesh and blood was a common Hebrew expression in this contrast (Carr).

Mat. 16:18. Thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this rock (petra), etc.The only natural interpretation is that which refers the rock, on which Christ builds His church, to St. Peter himself. This is the opinion adopted not only by the Romanists, but by most recent critics and commentators. It is certainly the one most agreeable with the connection and the sense of the passage; and is assuredly not to be rejected, merely because it appears to militate against our preconceived opinions. There is in the passage an evident play upon words; a paranomasia which is not seen in our version; the in the first clause refers to the in the second; so that the words might be rendered: I say unto thee that thou art indeed a rock (), and upon this rock () will I build My church. It is assuredly most natural to refer the emphatic pronoun this to the rock previously mentioned; that rock was St. Peter, being his name, and the rock afterwards mentioned is a manifest allusion to that name. The whole beauty and force of the allusion would be lost, and the meaning of the passage rendered obscure, if we did not adopt this interpretation. Similar allusions to names are common in the Old Testament. As when God said to Abraham, Thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made thee (Gen. 17:5); and to Jacob, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men and hast prevailed (Gen. 32:28); so here, in precisely the same manner, it may be said: Thy name shall be called Peter; for on this rock will I build My church. The interpretation, then, most agreeable with the connection of the passage, the natural meaning of the verse, the force of the allusion to the name Peter, and the grammatical structure, is to refer the rock on which the church was built to St. Peter (Gloag). On these words mainly rest the enormous pretensions of the Roman pontiff. It is therefore important:

1. To remember that it is to Peter with the great confession on his lips that the words are spoken. The Godhead of Christ is the keystone of the church, and Peter is for the moment the representative of the belief in that truth among men.
2. To take the words in reference:

(1) To other passages of Scripture. The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph. 2:20), on Christ Himself (1Co. 3:11).

(2) To history. Peter is not an infallible repository of truth. He is rebuked by Paul for Judaising. Nor does he hold a chief place among the Apostles afterwards. It is James, not Peter, who presides at the council at Jerusalem.
(3) To reason. For even if Peter had precedence over the other Apostles, and if he was Bishop of Rome, which is not historically certain, there is he proof that he had a right of conferring such precedence on his successors (Carr). The gates of hell (hades, R.V.) shall not prevail against it.Death is the entrance into hades, and therefore the gates or entrance of hades denote death. The expression may accordingly denote that death will not destroy the church of Christ. The church will never become extinct (Gloag).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 16:13-19

A culminating point.The Saviour is once more at the outskirts of the land. This time He has gone to the north of it, to the parts of Csarea Philippi, near the sources of Jordan. It can hardly be, however, that He should thus continue to absent Himself from the proper sphere of His work (Mat. 15:24). Some day the dangers which threatened Him there would have to be faced, if only for the sake of that very work which had led Him to shun them for a time. How would it be, when He did face them, with regard to His disciples? Apparently His present object is to prepare them for this. Knowing so fully, as He presently shows that He does know (Mat. 16:21), all that is to happen so soon to Himself, He would first establish them in their faith. And this He does, first, by eliciting from them what they have to say about Him; and then by informing them, secondly, of what He has to say about them.

I. What they have to say about Him.This is brought out, on the one hand, in the way of report. They knew His usual name for Himself. He had called Himself constantly the Son of man. Who did men say that He was? (Mat. 16:13). The answers given are one in substance, though they vary in form. Some identify Him with His predecessor, the Baptist. Some with the Baptists predecessor, Elias. Some with that prophet Jeremiah who is said to have been looked upon by the Jews as the greatest of the prophets. While others again only regarded Him as a conspicuous and undoubted revival of the old spirit of prophecy, without identifying Him with anyone in particular. All practically agree, therefore, in pronouncing Him equal to any before. There are no men like men of God in any age of the world. There are no men amongst such to whom Jesus had not been compared. That, in substance, is their report (Mat. 16:14). The same is brought out, on the other hand, in the way of confession. This report of theirs, though striking enough so far as it went, did not yet go, for all that, so far as it ought. The Saviour, therefore, inquires further,But who say ye that I am? (Mat. 16:15). The answer is given by that one of their number who usually speaks out for the rest (Mat. 16:16). He does so, to begin, in a way which marks the depth of their faith. It is not of that which they think or supposenor even of that merely which they hold or believebut of that which they regard as undoubted, and which is, therefore, to them, in short, nothing less than a factthat this witness proceeds to speak: Thou art the Christ. How brief, how emphatic, how unqualified, and, therefore, how undoubting this confession of faith! He answers next in a way that shows the clearness and definitenessand that in two waysof their faith. Their faith in the office of the Saviour:Thou art the Christthe Anointed Onesuch as never any, therefore, so fully before. Their faith in His nature. Of all life the life of God Himself, is the intensest and highest. To that life no other stands in so intimate a relation as Jesus. Thou art the Son of the living God (Mat. 16:16). Do all the creeds together say more than this, as a matter of fact?

II. What the Saviour has to say about them.This we learn from what He says to that one of their number who had just spoken for all in answer to His question, Who say ye that I am? Taking him thus as a sample of all, He speaks, first, of the present. He declares with unusual fervour how great is the blessedness of being enabled to make such a confession as that. All that we have just seen in it the Lord sees in it too. It is indeed, in its way, the very summit of truth. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonahblessed art thou, who soever thou art, who hast reached such a height. Never, as it were, had any fathers son a happier standing than this. The Saviour next, in a precisely similar spirit, proceeds to speak of the past. Not by any mere human power had that happy disciple been brought to that height. Not flesh and blood, but the wisdom which made them, had taught him these truths. He has acknowledged Christ as the Son of the Father. He has been taught to do so by the Father Himself. Finally, the Saviour addresses Peter with regard to the future. Having received so much, he was to give as much in His turn. First of all mankind, in this solemn way, to make this confession, he was to be first in other ways too. As his very name signified, e.g. he was to be the first stone in that edifice of the church which the Saviour was then intending to build (1Pe. 2:4-8), which was to be also so emphatically His church (observe My in Mat. 16:18) because built upon Him as its only foundation (1Co. 3:11), and against which, therefore, all the powers of the unseen world, though often attacking, should never prevail (Mat. 16:18). Also, as being such, this Peter was afterwards to be the first man authorised to proclaim to mankind, whether Gentiles or Jews, the terms of admission into that heavenly kingdom, and to lay down the requisites to be demanded of those who sought admission thereto (see Act. 2:37-42; Acts 10; Act. 15:7). The first so to do, but not the only one (Act. 15:13-29); nor yet in all things the chief (1Co. 15:10). First in order, in short, if not first in everything, because first to confess.

Certain things, therefore, even in this disputed passage, would appear, in conclusion, to be clear. One is that we see here, in the strictest sense, the first beginning of the church of Christ in the world. The holy church throughout all the world doth acknowledge Thee. The first beginning of that wide acknowledgement is what we read of in this place. Another is that none but those who make such a confession, as well in life as by the lips, really belong to that church. A third would seem to be that all those who really do make such a confession do belong to that church (Eph. 6:24). A fourth certainly is that we can only make such a true confession by help from above (see above, also 1Co. 12:3). And a last is that there shall never be wanting a true succession of such true confessors whatever the times that pass over the church, and whatever the powers that rise up against it. Here, in short, began a confession which is never to end.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 16:13-19. The Divine Christ confessed.I. The preparation for the confession.Our Lord is entering on a new era in His work, and desires to bring clearly into His followers consciousness the sum of His past self-revelation.

II. The contents of the confession.It includes both the human and the Divine sides of Christs nature.

III. The results of the confession.They are set forth in our Lords answer, which breathes of delight, and we may almost say gratitude. His manhood knew the thrill of satisfaction at having some hearts which understood, though partially, and loved even better than they knew.A. Maclaren, D.D.

Mat. 16:13-17. What think ye of Christ?Our Lords Divine wisdom is seen as well in the questions He put as in the answers He gave.

I. Our Lords question reminds us that at the very beginning there were various and conflicting opinions concerning Him.

II. We learn from our Lords question that amidst the diversity of opinion we must look well to our own belief. Whom do ye say that I am?

III. We learn from our Lords question that He counts correct opinions of Himself to be of great importance.

IV. Amidst the diversity of opinions concerning Him, there was one which our Lord emphatically commended, and the possessor of which He pronounced to be blessed. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.Charles Vince.

Mat. 16:13-16. What men say of Christ.Christ did not ask this question:

1. For information.
2. Nor because He desired the applause of men.
3. Nor because He intended to form His course according to the reply.
4. But because He desired to ground His disciples in the deepest faith. It was a kind of catechising to photograph and engrave the fact upon their hearts. The answer to His question suggests the following things.

I. People held different opinions concerning Christ.Some say, etc. These different opinions were very natural. There was something like every one of these men in Christ. I should like to speak here in praise of Christ. All the virtues, all the graces of the ancient spiritual men met in Him.

II. The opinions held of Him were high and honourable.Only some five or six people in the whole history of literature have spoken disrespectfully of Him.

III. High as these opinions were they fell short of the reality.
IV. It is important that we should have this high estimate of Jesus Christ.Thos. Jones.

Mat. 16:13. Who is Christ?I want to show that Christ in the gospel is the resting-place where the heart of man can find repose; not because we there at once learn all that we want to know, but the greatest questions are there set at rest; and there we may ultimately find the key to interpret all the problems that have so long and so painfully agitated the thoughtful mind. Two phrases, full of deep significance, Christ applied to Himself; Son of God and Son of man; and different as may be the precise meaning of the term Son in these two applications of it, the two phrases point in the same directionviz., that Christ is the best and completest revelation of both God and man.

I. Son of God.How did men conceive of God without Christ? We know quite well how they did, and how we should if we were left once more without a gospel. The human mind wavered, and was cast about in painful perplexity between mere abstractions that could not move the heart, and gross ideas, that corrupted the heart. The men of genius, the philosophers, who knew quite well that no idol, no material thing, could represent God, lost themselves in the abstractions of their own minds, or confounded the Deity with the powers of nature, or tried to rest in the Athenian belief in the unknown God. The mass of men, incapable of rising to such conceptions, found gods in every material object, and then came to shaping gods for themselvesending, at last, in a low, sensual, and debasing worship. Men of shrewd intelligence, with too much sense really to believe in any sensual religion, and too little devotion laboriously to think of God philosophically, took refuge in a universal scepticism, until they came to doubt, not only whether God could be known, but whether it was possible to know anything at all, when the highest Object of knowledge seemed so inaccessible. Now, in the midst of all this confusion, superstition, gross folly, and unattainable abstraction, when the mind of man seemed rapidly sinking into the most dreary despair, Christ stood forth, and said to the world, I can tell you what God is; I am the Son of God; he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. How, then, shall we understand this phrase, Son of God? Doubtless Paul has given us the best interpretation of it. In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Suppose we had heard of such a thing as loving generosity, but had never seen a generous action. Our own feeling of love might tell us something, but whatever we may be conscious of in our hearts, we do not really know its meaning till it appears in the life. Never, then, having seen an action of self-denying love, never having put forth a hand to help a fallen brother, or to feed a hungry brother, how little would the word love convey to the mind. It would be only an abstraction. But if, while trying to imagine what love might mean, we should see an act of splendid generosity, how instantly would the meaning of love, in all its depth and tenderness, be revealed to us; and we might then comprehend the power of this principle throughout the universe of intelligent creatures. This is true of everything; it is life alone that we can understand. Only in living does any principle of heart and mind become intelligible. Just what this explanatory action is to the inexplicable principle, just that is Christ to God.

II. Son of man.By the universal consent of mankind, mans own poor life does not tell him what man is. Yet till Christ came there was no other source of knowledge accessible to the masses. We may be perfectly sure that when any thoughtful mind looked on human lifethen as nowit could not possibly appear as if manthe racewas answering the end of his creation. How little can we tell the passionate earnestness with which the best men longed, for ages, that some one would arise and tell them what life meant and why man was created! That One came at last. I am the Son of man. Christ said, here let your questionings, your agonising doubts, your dreary scepticism, end. Human life is meant for what I make it; man in his real nature is what I show you. I am the Light of the world. By Me if any man walk, it shall not be in darkness. His universal precept to menFollow Merightly understood, can mean nothing less than that every thing in His human life is possible to His followers.S. Edger, B.A.

Jesus at Csarea Philippi.In its original name of Panium, as in its modern equivalent Banias, has been preserved the memory of the great god Pan who, with the nymphs, had his shrine there and whose empty, shell-bound niche is still shown in the recess of the grotto. But now, face to face with that embodiment of all heathen religions, was brought the King of everlasting life; and as the mummy crumbles with its first exposure to the air, so must all the discrowned deities of Olympus go to dust before the incoming of the true Messiah. Here then of all places it was fittest that Christ should establish in the minds of His disciples the supremacy of His own character and claimsC. E. B. Reed, M.A.

Mat. 16:18. The church: its Builder and its safety.

I. The church.This is the first place in the New Testament in which we meet with this much used and much abused word. What did it mean when Christ used it? Remember that He was speaking to a few poor, plain men, and these men evidently understood it. The word which we have translated church means simply a number of people called together. Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, where we find it again, it is translated assembly, and the revisers have not attempted to change it. By common consent we have now enlarged the meaning and imported the idea of religion into it, and may regard it as a number of people united for the worship and service of God. We read of churcheschurches in cities, churches in towns, and more than once we read of the church that is in thy house; and so with perfect correctness we speak of the Methodist church, the Baptist church, the Episcopal church. Let us, however, beware that we do not apply the definite article to any of our churches; the word belongs only to the church of which Christ speaks. A part is not the whole; the regiment is not the army. Christ speaks of His church. What is this? The glorious title belongs to no earthly organisation, but to all true believers on earth and in heaven. The church is Christs special property, the gift of His Father and the object of his tenderest love.

II. The Builder of the church.I will build My church. The church is frequently referred to in the Scriptures as a building. Hence we read of stones, workmen, house, and temple. Of this glorious structure it had been foretold by Zechariah that Christ should be the Builder. He had said that the Messiah should build the temple of the Lord and bear its glory. Here Christ claims the prophecy as having been spoken of Him, and says, I will build My church.

1. It is His to prepare the material of which the building is composed.The church is His workmanship.

(1) Look at the two corner-stones. See the first, Simon Peter by name; who but the Omnipotent could have made a cornerstone of him? A stone? By nature he was but a handful of sand, which a maidens breath can scatter to the winds; but Christ touched him and petrified him into a rock that neither earth nor hell could move. Here is the second, Saul of Tarsus, a human volcano, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against all that called on the name of Christ, but at a word from Christ he is changed into a whole burnt-offering, counting not his life dear unto him so that he may win Christ. And as we gaze upon them, we may hear them gratefully saying: By the grace of God we are what we are.

(2) Look next at the first course of stones in the building. You have them described in 1Co. 6:9-11.

(3) Let us again glance at the building itself, as it rises before us. On this side I see a lot of Kingswood colliers, who could not open their mouths without blasphemy; but Christ touches them, and blasphemies are changed to praise. On that side I see a lot of Fijian cannibals, whose very name was a terror to those around them; but Christ touches them, and they love one another with pure hearts fervently. On the other side I see a lot of African Hottentots, who had sunk so low that our scientific men refused to own them as brethren; but Christ touches them, and they become sons of the living God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Yes, every stone in the building is a miracle of grace, and as we gaze upon it we can only say: This is the Lords doing, and marvellous in our eyes.
2. It is His to provide the labourers.It has pleased God to save man by man, to make us co-workers with Himself, that the excellency of the power may be of God. There is a great variety of work to be done.

3. It is His to complete the erection.It is strange that any of Gods servants should talk about Christianity being a failure and Christ being defeated. What, hath He spoken and shall He not do it? True, as with earthly structures, there will be hindrances to the progress of the building, but He knew His ability to overcome them all. Sometimes the storms of persecution howl around the church, and men have to die instead of work, and it hinders building. Sometimes the frost of unbelief sets in, and mens hands get so cold that they cannot give, and their tongues so stiff that they cannot speak, and their knees so cramped that they cannot pray, and that hinders building. Sometimes the fog of error steals around, and everything gets disproportionate, and men imagine that because they dont see what their fellow-workmen are doing, they are doing nothing, and those who are at work cant see what they are doing, and this hinders building. Sometimes there is a strikeJudah vexes Ephraim, and Ephraim envies Judahand the workmen quarrel with each other, and this hinders building. The great Master sees all this, and though for a while He may hide Himself, it will be but for a moment. Does the storm howl? He says, Peace, be still, and there is a great calm, and the church has rest, and is multiplied. Does the fog blind? At the breath of His mouth it is scattered, and men see clearly. Does the frost set in? He, the Sun of Righteousness, pours His warm rays upon them, and the winter is soon past and gone. Is there a strike? He takes the two sticks into His hand, and they become one.

III. The safety of the church.The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Men talk about the church being in danger. A more foolish cry was never raised. The church is the most precious thing in the universe. It is the bridethe Lambs wife. His love is towards it, and His omnipotent arm is ever around it. The church on earth is as safe as the church in heaven.Charles Garrett.

Christs commendation of Peters confession.A writer quoted by Stier says, The demonstrative (this rock) can just as little have the force of isolating the faith and the confession of Peter from his person, as it would be justifiable to refer the promise to the person of Peter apart from his faith; or, as another puts it more succinctly, The word of Peter is the heart of Peter; it is he himself.

The character of Peter.As the world counts rock, rock was no character-name for this favourite of Jesus, with whom He chose to live as His daily and nightly friend. Immovableness, solidity of character to the outward eye, Peter had none. But the outward eye judges falsely. Peter was clearly neither a great pioneer, nor a great theologian, nor a great scholar; but he was a great child, and for his fitness to express this one permanent power of the life of faith he was the foremost of the Twelve.Mary Harrison.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.The traveller on the Highland Railway can hardly fail to be struck, as he journeys north, with the unusual sight of a picturesque and well-kept flower-garden blooming in the angle of ground formed at the junction of two railway lines. The helpless flowers thrive there in spite of the terrible forces that come so near them on every side. If you were to put an untaught savage inside the garden hedge, and let him hear the screaming engines, and see the files of carriages, or the trucks laden with coal, timber, and iron, converging towards this fairy oasis, he would be ready to say, these beautiful things will be torn to shreds in a moment. But behind the garden fences, there are lines of strong, faithful steel, keeping each engine, and carriage, and truck in its appointed place; and though the air vibrates with destructive forces, the pansy, primrose, and geranium live in a world of tremors, not a silken filament is snapped, and not a petal falls untimely to the earth. In the very angle of these forces the frailest life is unharmed. To all these possibilities of destruction the steel puts its bound. So with the fine spiritual husbandries that foster faith in the souls around us. That faith sometimes seems a thing of hair-spun filaments, a bundle of frailties, a fairy fabric of soft-hued gossamers trembling at every breath. The arrogancies of sacerdotalism menace it. The avalanche of nineteenth century atheism is poised over it. The air hurtles with fiery hostilities. The mechanisms of diabolic temptation encroach on every side upon our work. Public-house, gaming club, ill-ordered home threaten disasters, of which we do not like to think. The air quivers with the anger of demons. Yet the work is Gods, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the very angle of these demoniac forces the work shall thrive, for the hidden lines of His protecting power are round about it. I, the Lord, do keep it; I will water it every moment; lest any hurt it. I will keep it night and day.T. G. Selby.

Mat. 16:19. The keys.

1. The kingdom of heaven does not mean heaven. Yet the failure to mark this obvious distinction has given prevalence to the foolish notion that St. Peter is porter at heavens gate, and admits souls to paradise.
2. The kingdom of heaven does not mean the church. Attention to this distinction would have made short work with the Papal claim to the power of the keys, and would have saved our Protestant divines a great deal of discussion regarding the power of the keys in the church and the hands in which that power is vested. But what is meant by the keys? The phrase is metaphorical, and the meaning is to be found by comparison of this and other Scriptures. It certainly indicates power.

I. Administrative.The keys of a palace are entrusted to the major-domo. The key of the house of David is said in Isaiah to be laid on the shoulders of Eliakim, a trusty counsellor (Isa. 22:20-22). The mention of keys suggests stewardship, not lordship. So a power of administration in the kingdom of heaven was assigned to Simon Peter, as the first of the Apostles. It is from this that divines have described the light to exercise church discipline as the power of the keys, distinguishing it from the jurisdiction of civil rulers, which is enforced by the power of the sword.

II. Didactic.Jesus reproached the lawyers of the time for having taken away the key of knowledge. They hindered the enlightenment of their nation. On the other hand, a scribe well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven had been likened by Him to a householder with command of a treasury. We infer that the Lord promised to Simon Peter the keys by which he would have access to the treasure of wisdom and understanding in the kingdom of heaven, and so be able to teach with clearness and authority. This interpretation is confirmed by the words which follow: And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. Not whomsoever, but whatsoever. The saying refers to points of doctrine or practice which might come into dispute. Among the Jewish Rabbis to bind meant to forbid or declare forbidden; to loose meant to allow or declare allowed. We understand, therefore, that the Apostles were authorised to teach and guide their fellow-Christians, showing what things were forbidden and what allowed, indicating what rites and ordinances were superseded, and how debatable questions should be settled in the new community. In fact, the power to bind and loose was just the function of directing the judgment and practice of the new-born, inexperienced church, and ordering its beginnings of thought and life according to the mind of Christ. But while he shared the power to bind and loose with all his colleagues, there is, in the Acts of the Apostles, a very special ascription of the power of the keys to Simon Peter. The door of faith was opened first to the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts 2; Acts 3; Acts 4); next to the Samaritans, a kind of intermediate people (Acts 8); and finally to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So was the gospel given to the whole world, and in each instance it was the hand of Simon Peter that held and turned the key.D. Fraser, D.D.

On earth and in heaven.Go into an observatory and watch some astronomer as he is following the transit of a star. His telescope is so adjusted that an ingenious arrangement of clock-work is made to shift it with the transit of the star. His instrument is moving in obedience to the movement of the star in the heavens. But the clock-work does not move the star. The astronomer has made his faultless calculations; the mechanic has adjusted his cranks and pendulums and wheels and springs with unerring nicety, and every movement in the telescope answers to the movement of the star the far-off heavens. The correspondence rests on knowledge. And so when the things that are bound on earth are bound in heaven. Every legislative counsel and decree and movement in a truly Apostolic and inspired church answers to some counsel and decree and movement in the heavens. But then the power of discerning and forecasting the movements of the Divine will and government rests upon the power of interpreting the Divine character, and applying its principles of action, as that character is communicated to us by Jesus Christ.T. G. Selby.

Binding and loosing.To bind up sins as in a bundle, says Lange, implies coming judgment, while sins forgiven are described as loosed. It is, however, maintained strongly by other critics that the sense of the words is altogether different. Lightfoot has cited a triple decade out of thousands of instances of the Jewish use of this expression binding and loosing. To all manner of ceremonial regulations about leaven, festivals, starting on a voyage, or even so small an act as looking into a mirror, the formula is appended, the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looses it, in the sense of prohibition and permission; so that he paraphrases our Lords words thus: If thou askest by what rule that church is to be governed, when the Mosaic rule may seem so improper for it, thou shalt be so guided by the Holy Spirit that whatsoever of the laws of Moses thou shalt forbid them shall be forbidden; whatsoever thou grantest them shall be granted, and that under a sanction made in heaven.C. E. B. Reed, M.A.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Section 41
NEAR CAESAREA PHILIPPI JESUS TESTS HIS DISCIPLES

(Parallels: Mar. 8:27 to Mar. 9:1; Luk. 9:18-27)

TEXT: 16:1328

13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man ?Isaiah 14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not-prevail against it. 19 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. 20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.

21 From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. 22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life? 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. 28 Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose Jesus examined the convictions of His disciples at this time? In this way? In this particular place?

Can you suggest what might have been the reason Jesus was praying before He tested His men? What would have been the subject of His prayer, the concern that drove Him to His knees before the event that follows? (Luk. 9:18)

What was there about the ministry of Jesus, or His personality or message, that caused people to remember John the Baptist? Elijah? Jeremiah, or one of the other ancient prophets? Why were there so many opinions held about Jesus? Could they not admit that He was the Messiah and be done with it?

Why do you think it should have been Peter to answer Jesus question? Did not the other apostles believe this too?

Why should Jesus be so thrilled with Peters conclusion that He was Gods Son and Messiah? Had not these same Apostles made similar statements before this?

What does it mean to confess Jesus as the Christ and Son of God in the twentieth century?

Is not God being partial to Peter, since He revealed this majestic truth to him? Had God revealed it to anyone else before this? If so, to whom? How?

Almost all commentaries notice the play on words in Greek where Jesus said, You are Peter (Ptros) and on this rock (ptra) I will build my church . . . (Mat. 16:18) Centuries of church history have witnessed the bitter debates that have raged around those two words and their meaning. The Catholic interpreters have argued that this linguistic play on words proves that Jesus intended to constitute Peter as first pope and hierarchical head of the Church. Protestants, generally, see the differences in grammatical gender a real difference in meaning between Ptros (masculine) and ptra (feminine). Do you not agree that Jesus should have been more careful in His use of words at such a critical moment in His teaching about the true foundation of the Church? Could He not have foreseen the difficulties such a play on words would cause? Now, if you think that He WAS careful and that there is no difficulty here, would you explain Jesus play on words? To do this, you will need (1) to clarify why Jesus says You are Peter. Did not Peter already know his symbolic name? (Cf. Joh. 1:42) Then, why bring his name up now, if Jesus did not intend to make some allusion to it? Then, (2) you will need to show how the word rock (ptra) is or is not related to Simons name Peter (Ptros).

Since Jesus used the word church to describe what it is that He intends to construct, what do we learn about His plans? What did He mean by that word? How does it differ from His other expression: the kingdom of God?

What was so vital about Jesus assurances that even death itself (Hades) could not hinder His Church? Why mention it to these disciples at precisely this time?

How can Jesus practically hand over the keys to Gods kingdom to human beings like Peter and expect that what they permit or require of others will be precisely what God wants?

Why should so marvelous a truth as that confessed by Peter be hushed up by Jesus right on the heels of its pronouncement? Why would it have been politically most inexpedient to publish Jesus Messiahship during this portion of His earthly ministry?

What does the precision with which Jesus predicts His demise and resurrection tell you about Him?

What was so wrong with Peters rebuking Jesus? What do you think prompted him to do it?

How do you think Jesus must have felt to have His solicitous friend express his concern in this way? What was so viciously diabolical about the fact that Peter lovingly rebuked the Lord?

Why was it so important that the Master expose Peters anxious consideration to such scathing criticism? Where had he gone wrong?

Why do you think it was so important that Jesus demand the death to self of all who would follow Him? First, why was it important to demand it of those followers during that particular historical moment? Second, what connection is there between self-renunciation and repentance and salvation, if any?

Is not Jesus using double-talk when He promises that those who lose their life for His sake will actually find it, while those who would save their life will lose it? Or is there some deeper paradox involved here? Explain.

Is not Jesus being a bit impractical to suppose that the average man on the street is even vaguely concerned with gaining the whole world? Who among the common people is even bothered with this problem? Or is this really what Jesus was thinking? What is this whole world He had in mind?

How can a person forfeit his life in gaining the whole world?

List some of the things that people are already giving in exchange for their life.

What part of man is referred to by the expression life, or soul? In other words, what is really at stake in losing or gaining it? Use other language to describe just what it is in each of us that is threatened by bad choices or saved by the right decision in the area mentioned by Jesus.

Why would anyone want to be ashamed of Jesus or His message?

Is not Jesus just being vindictive to threaten anyone who is ashamed of Him with repayment for what he has done?

Matthew reports that Jesus disciples would live to see the Son of man coming in His kingdom, while Mark says they will see the kingdom of God come with power, but Luke only mentions the kingdom of God. Which of these three is rightthat is, what did Jesus actually say? Could He have said and meant all this? If so, what did He mean? How do the three different phrases relate to each other?

What do you think Jesus intended to accomplish by promising that some of His disciples would live to see the Messianic Kingdom arrive in power? How would this statement tend to take some of the sting out of previous demands for blood, sweat and tears?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Leaving Bethsaida Julias in the company of His disciples, Jesus continued His journey on north toward the villages in the district of Caesarea Philippi. On the way there, while Jesus was away from the crowds, praying by Himself with only His disciples around Him, He quizzed them: Who are people saying that I, the Son of man, am?
Some say you are John the Baptist, they began. Others think you are Elijah. We have also heard some say that you are Jeremiah or one of the ancient prophets come back to life.
But what about you? He persisted, Who do you think I am?

Simon Peter replied, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
Then Jesus continued, What a fortunate man you are, Simon, Johns son! You did not get that information from any purely human source. Rather, it was my heavenly Father who revealed this truth to you. Now, I too have something to say about you: you are what your name Peter impliesa rock. Further, your name symbolically suggests the kind of rock upon which I will found my congregation of the new Israel, the Church, and death itself will be powerless against the Church. Further, Peter, I will give you the right to open Gods Kingdom to men: what you forbid men to do will be what God wants forbidden. Whatever you permit people to do will be what He wants permitted.
But then Jesus gave the disciples strict orders not to reveal to anyone that He was the Messiah. Further, it was from this very period that Jesus began to impress upon His followers the divine inevitability of His going to Jerusalem where He would go through a great deal of suffering and be repudiated by the Jewish supreme court, the hierarchy and the theologians, and finally be murdered. However, He continued, three days later I will arise from the dead! He made this statement quite bluntly without any reserve.
At this, Peter took Jesus to one side and began to take Him to task, May God in His mercy spare you this fate, Lord! Nothing like this must ever happen to you!
But when Jesus turned, He saw His disciples. So He reprimanded Peter in their presence: Get moving, Satan-like adversary! Behind me! Presuming to direct me, you have become but the trigger of a trap! Once a precious rock, you are now a stone to cause me to stumble! Once instructed by God, you now follow human thinking. You may have expressed a popular viewpoint, but you have totally missed Gods!
Meanwhile a crowd was gathering, so Jesus summoned these people to join His disciples to hear Him say: Anyone who plans to be MY student must give up all right to himself, disown himself, leave his own ambitions behind, yes, say of himself, I never knew him,! Day after day he must shoulder his cross, yes, say of himself, Crucify him! Crucify him! He must come with ME, wherever I wish to lead him. The prudent are damned: whoever cares more for his own safety than for my service is lost! But anyone who will let himself run the risk of losing everything he ever thought dear, giving up his right to it for MY sake and for the Gospel, that man is the only one who is really safe and can really protect his life and save his soul!
In fact, in the balances of eternity, what advantage is there for someone to conquer everything he aims for, only to find that it cost him his SOUL?! Or what could a man give that would buy his soul back, once it is irretrievably lost?
If anyone feels ashamed of me or my message during these days of faithlessness and sin, I, the Son of man, will be ashamed of him when I return! In fact, I will come in my GLORY, in the GLORY of my Father with the GLORIOUS, holy angels. Then I will give each man what is coming to him on the basis of what he decided and did.
However, I can assure you that some of you very people standing here today will live to see it. You will see me coming in my Kingdom, yes, Gods Kingdom! And when it comes, it will come with POWER!

SUMMARY

Jesus tested the Apostles concerning their personal grasp of His mission and message. Peter, responding for the Twelve, showed deep understanding by confessing Him to be Gods Son and Messiah. Overjoyed, Jesus made truth incarnate in human personality the basis of His new community and Peter a principle spokesman in it. When Jesus then made the bold declaration of His coming suffering and resurrection, Peter, horrified, rebuked Him. After reprimanding His friend, the Lord pointed out that all true followers must expect to undergo whatever is the lot of their Master, Although there is suffering and shame ahead, there is also victory in the end and hope for the near future; Jesus reign will soon have its powerful, glorious beginning.

NOTES

A. THE GOOD CONFESSION (16:1320)

1. The disciples questioned about public opinion. (16:13)

Mat. 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi . . . Should we attach any special significance to His choice of sites for this critical conversation? Concerning Caesarea (= Paneas) Plummer (Matthew, 224) observes the following coincidences:

The name Paneas came from the grotto of Pan, which represented the elemental worship of the old inhabitants, close to which Herod the Great had built a temple in honour of the Emperor (Josephus, Antiquities, XV, 10, 3; Wars, I, 21, 3); and this represented the most modern of heathen cults. Thus, just where Judaism touched both the worship of nature and the worship of man, Jesus called upon His disciples to answer for mankind and for themselves as to what His claims upon the conscience were as against the claims of these conflicting worships.

These coincidences are interesting, but not essential, since Mark (Mar. 8:27) locates the following conversation as taking place on the way to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (eis t kmas K.t.Ph. ka en t hod), and Matthew loosely places the event somewhere in the district of Caesarea Philippi (elthn . . . eis t mre K.t.Ph.). This observation weakens the surmise that they were necessarily standing in sight of the city of Caesarea, supposed figurative basis for Jesus remarks at Mat. 16:18-19.

The timing of this event is more significant than the place. The Twelve had now completed nearly two and a half years of daily, close personal association with Jesus, learning from Him. By this time they must have formed a mature opinion of His true identity. This test came approximately six months before the cross.

This calculation is based on the following data: this conversation occurred at least one week before the transfiguration (Mat. 17:1; Luk. 9:28). A trip to Capernaum took place thereafter. (Mat. 17:24) There were discussions and a sermon at Capernaum. (Matthew 18) Then Jesus brothers say, Why not go to feast of Tabernacles? (Joh. 7:2-3) Later, Jesus attended that feast (Joh. 7:14) in the fall, six months before the last Passover on which He died.

This exam was prepared in the prayers of Jesus. Luke (Luk. 9:18) reminds us that He was praying, and out of these supplications came these critical questions. How His heart must have ached as He considered the consequences of this test, earnestly pleading that they be given the grace to decide rightly. At that moment the Lord prayed alone, only His Twelve being around Him. Although a crowd began forming later (Mar. 8:34), some arrangement for privacy may have been made, similar to that in Gethsemane. (cf. Mat. 26:36-39; Mat. 26:42; Mat. 26:44) Not only would He pray for their good confession despite His rejection by the majority in Israel, but also that they would accept His revelations concerning His humiliation at Jerusalem.

What motivated Jesus to question His disciples in this way? The possible motives are many:

He must deal with the undeniable pressure brought upon His disciples by the opposition. The antagonism is growing among leaders who everywhere attempted to undermine His teaching and authority. Part of the low opinions voiced about Jesus, and reported by the Twelve (Mat. 16:13-14), may well be the tangible results of hostile undercurrents that viciously undercut His claims. Such unbelief must be met solidly, lest its intimidation begin to tell upon His precious nucleus of followers (cf. Mat. 16:12) The site chosen for this examination is remarkable only for its distance from the center of orthodox Judaism: Judea and Jerusalem. This factor is more understandable when we notice its position in Jesus travels abroad, or else on the periphery of the Holy Land. (See notes on Mat. 15:21.) He has been deliberately avoiding frontal conflicts with the hierarchy since His collision with the Pharisees over traditions. (Mat. 15:1 ff) The refusal to cater to the sign-seeking critics abruptly concluded that interview too. (Mat. 16:1-4) So, whereas the choice of THIS particular district for the examination may not be particularly significant (i.e. Caesarea Philippi, as opposed to Damascus or Pella or some other semi-Gentile center), its distance from the pressure-points of His opposition is. Further, He had been giving His disciples every opportunity to grow in information and experience, so that they would be able to withstand the tension of opposition, because they could not long remain unaffected by the majority rejection of their Master.

These men who will become the divine missionaries to carry Jesus Kingdom to the ends of the world must now face their semi-final exams. If the unexamined life is not worth living, the untested faith is doubly so, because it is in graver danger of presuming to be above trial. Precisely because the disciples cannot envision the approaching cross, the Lord must reveal His approaching death, and He understands how difficult this will be for them to accept. Therefore, He must first sound their commitment to Him by testing how far they are willing to identify Him as Gods Ambassador and Revealer, Gods Messiah and Son.

How did He proceed? He asked his disciples saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? For maximum contrast between their own personal commitment to Him and the popular evaluations, He first focuses their thinking on what others were saying, before laying the vital question on the table. Tolbert (Good News From Matthew, 141f) rightly analyzes the first question:

The question about the opinion of others is, however, a basic question of tremendous importance to ones own faith. The disciples did not live in a vacuum. They lived in a society where people held many conflicting opinions about Jesus. They needed to be aware of the options. They needed to recognize that they had to live out their own faith among people who did not agree with them.

Although He deliberately helps them to bring their own thinking into sharp focus by first eliminating all lesser theories about His identity, this does not mean, however, that many disciples, previous to this, had not already begun to form some very solid conclusions about Him. (Cf. Joh. 1:49; Joh. 3:2; Joh. 4:42; Luk. 5:8; Joh. 6:14; Joh. 6:68-69)

The Son of man (see on Mat. 8:20) Although He had used this title in connection with divine prerogatives (see on Mat. 9:6), its relative indefiniteness as a Messianic title makes it appear here that He intends to keep His humanity before the disciples. In fact, had Son of man been completely unambiguous, He would have been loading His questions in favor of His Messiahship, and thus predetermining the disciples answer. There would be no point in asking, Who do men say that the Christ (= Son of man) is?, if He expected Peters actual answer. Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 43) notices this:

. . . The expression Son of man, often a synonym for Messiah, is often reduced in value to a simple pronoun. [i.e. I, HEF.] That this is the case in the present text is evident from the fact that Jesus could not have asked what the crowds thought of the Messiah, because, in that case, the answer would have been different. He asked, rather, what they thought of Him. (Cf. also Mar. 8:31 and Luk. 9:21 with Mat. 16:21.)

2. Public Opinion (Mat. 16:14)

Mat. 16:14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. And these are just the GOOD opinions! There had been other choice expressions: Beelzebul! (Mat. 10:25); Blasphemer! (Mat. 9:3) Glutton and drunkard, a friend of sinners! (Mat. 11:19) Jesus townspeople at Nazareth had marked Him down as nothing more than the carpenters son, but were left without a satisfactory explanation of His wisdom and mighty works. (Mat. 13:54 ff) The speculations now reviewed by the Twelve quite vividly represented the confusion rampant in Galilee in that period. (Cf. Mat. 14:1 f = Mar. 6:14 ff = Luk. 9:7 ff) As usual, public opinion is divided:

John the Baptist: the fear of Herod. (Mat. 14:1-11, see notes.) Anyone who really knew the life-style of the two men would never have confused the ascetic John and the perfectly normal Jesus. (Mat. 11:18 f, see notes.) However, it is right to remember the similarity in the fundamental doctrines taught by both, at least at the beginning of Jesus ministry. (Cf. Mat. 3:2; Mat. 4:17)

Elijah (Cf. Mal. 4:5; Joh. 1:21) This view, although based upon prophecy, was an ignorant conclusion, because John the Baptist had personally fulfilled all that Malachi had intended. (Cf. Mat. 11:14) Later, even the inner Three needed repeated instruction to clarify the issue. (Mat. 17:10-13)

Jeremiah (Cf. 2Ma. 2:1-8; 2Ma. 15:13-14; 2Es. 2:17 f) Whereas these books are not Scripture, yet they report traditions known to the Jews of Jesus day, who, in turn, would be encouraged by such statements to think of Jesus as the Jeremiah. Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 44) expands this:

Although the Jewish legend sees him as having hid the sacred fire, the altar and the Tent of meeting in a cave before the sack of Jerusalem, Jeremiah never assumed an important position in Jewish apocalyptic. (2Ma. 2:1-8) It was logical, however, for the common people to think that Jeremiahwho had already appeared in a vision to Onias to give him a gold sword (2Ma. 15:3-16)should reappear before the Messiah, to reveal the cave and return to the Hebrews the objects necessary for worship.

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 143) sees Jesus characteristic denunciation of the sins of the age, combined with the genuine sorrow He felt for His people, as suggestive to some that He were Jeremiah.

One of the old prophets has arisen. (Luk. 9:19; cf. the exact words of Herods courtiers, Luk. 9:15) This indefinite suggestion shows a perplexity about Jesus that may reflect the hopes of 1Ma. 14:41 : . . . until a faithful (genuine?) prophet should arise (from death?) hos to anastnai proften pistn. Or, is it only Lukes intention to clarify for his Gentile readers, to whom resurrection would be a new concept, how it could be thought that an ancient prophet long dead could return to earth? Its very indefiniteness makes this last alternative sound like the usual 14% of the population that is always undecided!

The confusion evident in current speculation about Jesus true identity has a dual basis:

The time and opportunities to know Jesus better differed from person to person according to the amount and kind of exposure to Him they had enjoyed. Jesus travels throughout Palestine evidently permitted only some teaching and some miracles in any given place. Although what He gave them should have sufficed, nevertheless, people, whose tenaciously held preconceived notions do not permit them to admit the evidential force of His words and works, require more time and situations to permit Jesus loving self-giving to infiltrate their barriers of prejudice and convince them. This, of course, does not excuse their lack of hunger and thirst for righteousness and truth that would have spurred them to get to the bottom of the problem.

Jesus multifaceted ministry presented varying aspects of His true identity. Thus, in Jesus the true prophet, men could discern uncommon greatness that convincingly reminded them of the GIANTS of Old Testament history. But, even so, to refuse these evidences of His supernatural identity and His messianic claims as incredible, however well established they might be, is to say: We do not believe.

While there was something in Jesus that reminded them of something mighty in each of the prophets mentioned, yet there was something in the people themselves that blocked their comprehension from going any further! The opinions listed are high, noble and respectful. Yet, however complimentary any of these theories may have been intended to be, to say anything less about Jesus than confess His rightful position as Gods Son, the Messiah of Israel and Lord of the universe, is to damn Him with faint praise! Everyone must decide about Him whereinsofar the evidence permits, but to continue demanding proof in the face of conclusive evidence, or to refuse to admit that His credentials substantiate His claims, is to defame Him, and deny His claims to deity. (See The Deity of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, Vol. I, 185; Joh. 5:17 f; Mat. 9:3-6)

So, when Jesus lay this first question before them, He was pushing them to face the following hard realities:

That an abyss separates them from the contrary and conflicting views of their own countrymen. To continue this way will mean the loss of their friendship, support and popularity.

That the judgment others pronounce upon Jesus must have no effect upon their decision. Their choice may be painfully and rigidly personal. Public opinion, itself divided, cannot be trusted to give a united, unequivocal answer on this vital issue. Therefore, the well-known differences of interpretation among the scholars do not dispense anyone from making his own personal research to find for himself the truth about Jesus. After all, everyone must finally answer the question: But who do YOU say that I am? The divergent interpretations exonerate no one from committing himself personally.

That the most favorable estimations, whereby many ascribed to Jesus prophetic authority, actually rejected Him. It is absolutely unpardonable that anyone should honor Jesus as a prophet, while rejecting the declarations He made regarding Himself. In fact, they did not embrace His claims as the words of a true prophet. Otherwise, they would have admitted the Messianic claims He made. These statements were treated with the same indifference one would show to those of a common imposter or of someone unbalanced. Thus, the esteem for Jesus, that does not lead to submission to His word as the prophetic voice of God, must be considered a rejection.

3. Jesus pushes the Apostles to confess their personal position. (Mat. 16:15)

Mat. 16:15 And he saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? Having given them opportunity to consider the alternatives and form a mature judgment. He now directs the critical question to His men. Even without one direct suggestion on this occasion, He is giving His students all the help to do well that He can. Whereas they had undoubtedly compared notes among themselves before this moment, still they had not been pressed to commit themselves so deeply as now. Whereas all earlier confessions were prompted by the spontaneous reaction of some disciple to some evidence of Jesus greatness, the solemn moment has now arrived for them to answer a question Jesus had never asked before, but toward which all His activities had been directed.

These are men who had enjoyed superior opportunities to know about Jesus, having been His close associates for more than two years now. They had eaten and slept and ministered with Him. Because of their personal attachment to Him as itinerate Teacher, they had sacrificed family, comforts of home and business to be His understudies. What they conclude from these associations with Him is of more than academic importance and interest to the reader. In fact, the earlier half-hidden hints and proofs of Jesus Messiahship and supernatural character have all been leading up to this chapter. What have these closest observers of the Jesus-phenomenon to say about Him?
Note that Jesus cannot make the best use of people who have no clear idea about His identity. Only those who have defined for themselves their personal experience of Him in a clear, intelligent conviction can proclaim it with boldness and enthusiasm.

4. The Apostles Answer Given By Peter (Mat. 16:16)

Mat. 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Critics spend pages arguing which form of the good confession is the original wording, and which has been worked over according to the editorial theology of the author: Matthews, which is the fullest expression; or Marks, which is the briefest; or Lukes? The most obvious explanation is that Matthews account is the most complete, while that of Mark and Luke represent the abbreviated versions. Carver (Self-interpretation of Jesus, 107) wryly comments:

Sometimes the obvious explanation is the most intelligent. There is no more vicious principle in Biblical criticism than that, among various accounts of an incident or reports of a speech, the briefest is most likely to be accurate (i.e. perfectly verbatim, HEF). The briefest is always condensed, as indeed the fullest must be.

Others had confessed Jesus before this moment:

John the Baptist (Joh. 1:34) and Nathaniel (Joh. 1:49) called Him Son of God.

Andrew, Peters brother (Joh. 1:40 f) exclaimed: We have found the Messiah!

Samaritans recognized Him as Christ and Savior of the world. (Joh. 4:25; Joh. 4:28 f, Joh. 4:41 f)

All who had called Him Son of David thereby admitted His Messiahship. (Mat. 9:27; Mat. 12:23; Mat. 15:22)

Even the Apostles themselves had confessed Jesus before this hour. After Jesus walked on the water and calmed the storm (Mat. 14:33): Truly, you are Gods Son!

After multitudes deserted Jesus to follow Him no more, Peter affirmed, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God. (Joh. 6:68 f)

But this confession is far more critical than those preceding it, since it indicates to what extent the Twelve, at this point in their experience, have committed themselves to the foundation-belief of the Kingdom, that message they must proclaim throughout their ministry as His emissaries. Always and everywhere it must be Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, Gods Son and foundation of our faith. McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 411) notes another distinction between this confession and other, earlier statements which . . .

. . . had been under the pressure of miraculous display and strong emotion. Hence they were rather exclamatory guesses at the truth, and differed from this now made by Peter which was the calm expression of a settled conviction produced by the character and miracles of Jesus.

The Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter affirms two distinct truths about Jesus, a fact indicated by the repeated use of the article. Son of God does not stand in apposition to Christ, as if explaining something about Christ. Christ refers to His office as the one whom God anointed (Greek = christs = anointed), whereas Son of God refers to His divine nature. (Cf. Joh. 1:1; Joh. 1:14; Joh. 1:18; Joh. 5:17 f; Joh. 10:36; Luk. 22:67-71) Christ declares the belief that He was anointed with the Holy Spirit to the messianic office (Cf. Act. 10:37-38), and underlines His humanness, since the Christ must be the human son of David. (See on Mat. 1:1-17; Luk. 1:31 f) Son of God affirms Jesus spaziotemporal generation by the Father in the womb of the Virgin. (Luk. 1:32; Luk. 1:35; Gal. 4:4) Even if Peter imperfectly comprehended the full significance of his own words, it is unfair to him for some to affirm that he could have understood absolutely nothing of the high concepts he was later inspired to reveal in his apostolic ministry. Nothing positive may be affirmed about how much Jesus had revealed about Himself to this inner group of disciples beyond the well-substantiated self-revelations made before this encounter. (See on Mat. 16:17.) That is, did He reveal to them the circumstances surrounding the Virgin Birth that we have learned from Matthew 1 and Luke 1? Even if these revelations had not been given, Peter could have based his affirmation of Jesus divine Sonship on the following evidences: Joh. 5:17 f, Joh. 5:25; Joh. 10:36; Mat. 3:17 and par. Joh. 1:29-34; Mat. 8:29 and par. Account must also be taken of the disciples own Jewish culture which would have predisposed them to entertain the notion that the Messiah might also be the Son of God.

There are the Messianic texts of Scripture that picture the great Servant of Javeh as the eternal Father, mighty God, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days, etc. (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2) Would devout hearers of the law and prophets, read to them every Sabbath, fail to attempt the harmonization of Gods great promises to come personally to bless and heal His remnant, with those promises to send His Servant, the Son of man? (cf. Mal. 3:1 f; Zec. 9:9-16; Dan. 7:13 f, etc.)

Despite the live possibility that some portions of the book of Enoch were actually. post-Christian interpolations, if even some of the texts that speak of a supernatural Messiah be of pre-Christian authorship, hence undoubtedly Jewish thinking, then those few do demonstrate the conclusion that the divine Sonship of the Messiah formed a real part of the contemporary Messianic belief among the Jews.

The problem with citations from Enoch is the problematic dating of its Son of God sections. Is 2Es. 2:47 of Christian origin? In 2Es. 7:28 f the voice of God speaks of my Son the Messiah (cfr. also Mat. 13:32; Mat. 13:37; Mat. 13:52; Mat. 14:9), R. H. Charles considers Enoch 105:2 to be of Chasidic or Pharisean authorship: The Lord bade them to . . . testify: . . . I and My Son will be united with them . . .

The hypothesis that contemporary Jewish messianism could think of the Christ as divine is perhaps also supported by the virulent reactions of the clergy when Jesus claimed to be the Son (of God) in a unique sense (Joh. 5:17 f; Joh. 10:24-39; Joh. 19:7), or even Son of man (Joh. 12:23-34).

Although Peter did not derive his understanding of Jesus Messiahship from his own cultural milieu (Mat. 16:17), still, the intellectual climate in Israel favored consideration of the Messiah as divine. The deliberateness with which this question of His identity is approached on this occasion argues for the conclusion that the high view of Jesus identity expressed by Peter is his genuine conviction, because it stands out in contrast to the lower estimates made by public opinion. The only stratagem remaining to discount Peters understanding is to deny any historical validity to this entire account, a tactic actually used by some.

You are the Christ, said Peter, not an anointed of God. The definiteness of his expression rightly encourages Gresham (Christian Standard, 1965, 108) to affirm:

For a Jew to say, You are the Christ, means more than the average man can realize. The term Christ or Messiah means the anointed one, and in its Messianic use, it catches up into its ultimate significance all the typical offices God set in Israel, guaranteed by special anointing. Thus, Aaron and his sons were anointed and designated high priests (Leviticus 8). Prophets were anointed (1Ki. 19:16), signifying the approval of the Lord concerning their message. Kings were anointed (1Ki. 19:15 f; 1Sa. 16:13) by the prophet of God, indicating whom God would have rule over His covenant people, In light of this background, the Jew believed that the Messiah would fulfill all these relations and offices perfectly, adequately and universally.

The great confession was, and is, a confession of content. If we would stand with Peter and express the conviction of our hearts as he, we must believe that Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the prophetic office of God, bringing that final Word from God in His own person and through His work (See Heb. 1:1-3; Joh. 1:18; Joh. 14:7-10; cf. Deu. 18:15-18; Luk. 24:19; Act. 3:22; Act. 7:37) If we would give adequate answer to our Lords query, Who do you say that I am? we must affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is our only high priest, who in His own body made adequate sacrifice for inquity and uncleanness, and who now continues His priestly work at the Fathers right hand (See Hebrews 7-10; cf. Psa. 110:4; Rom. 8:34) If we would confess that Jesus is the Christ in the meaningfulness of its first context, we must submit to His kingly power and enthrone Him as Lord of our lives (Mat. 28:18; Php. 2:6-11; cf. Psa. 2:6; Zec. 9:9; Mat. 21:5; Luk. 1:32 f; Eph. 1:20-23; Rev. 11:15; Rev. 12:10; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:11-16)

The content of this confession must include these items: Jesus of Nazareth is Gods truth-revealing prophet, sinful mans adequate high priest and sacrifice, and the worlds ultimate monarch.

While it is true that Peter did not always do honor to his great confession made here (see on Mat. 16:22), his inconsistency does not change anything either of the sincerity with which he voiced or of the truth to which he gave assent. Any discussion of Peters understanding must always weigh into the balance Jesus satisfaction with Peters affirmation and His identification of its source. (Mat. 16:17)

To entitle Jesus as the Christ of God (Mar. 8:29; Luk. 9:20) is to admit that His representation of Gods intentions for Israels Messiah is the correct one, regardless of how drastically His humble life of service contradicted human preconceptions. By implication, we recognize that His attitudes and activities must guide and judge ours, since our commitment to Him as Gods Anointed means that we bow before both His conceptual revelations as well as those acted out in His life-style as Servant of the Lord. (See on Mat. 16:24.)

Peter honors the Father of Jesus as the living God; because He stands in direct contrast to dead idols (cf. Jer. 10:6-10; Hos. 1:10; Isaiah 40) The God revealed by Jesus His Son is real, alive and active! (Cf. Joh. 6:57; Rom. 9:26)

5. Jesus Joy and Promises to Peter (Mat. 16:17-19)

Mat. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. The beatitude-formula means to represent the one described as particularly happy or well-off. (Cf. on Mat. 5:3-12) Blessed art thou: You are happy indeed! or How favored you are! Blessed are you, Simon, even though your understanding of the content of your grand affirmation is severely limited! Blessed are you, even though you can hardly imagine all that it means for me to be the Christ or Son of God, as God intends these terms. By comparison to all that you will later understand about these high concepts, what you have just said is but baby-talk expressing a childs understanding. But blessed are you, because your confession is true and sincere, and backed by all the authority of God.

Blessed art thou is but the echo of Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear . . . Many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (Mat. 13:16 f) This is why Jesus commendation of Peter is not totally unique, since the same blessedness is available to anyone open to receive the information God provides him through the life-character and prophetic credentials of Jesus the Nazarene. The Lord singles out Peter as a remarkably happy man because he has believed the testimony of all the evidences that God had worked through the miracles and prophecies of Jesus, hence was really a solid believer. If faith, then, is the trust of testimony to the reality of the facts about Jesus, then anyone today who believes the same facts on the testimony of the eyewitnesses who accurately report them to us, can share in this blessing by making the same declaration of faith.

Simon Bar-Jonah: why refer to him in this way? Is Jesus striking a contrast between what would have been Peters personal views as a man and what had to be the result of his observing Gods revelations given him?

Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 60), discussing this address, argues:

Simon is called Barjona, an epithet which is probably equivalent to revolutionary, in the sense of one who is desirous of eliminating the Roman oppressors, a sympathizer with the Zealots and, hence, a Galilean longing for national liberty, Given this his nationalistic tendency, Peter could not have spontaneously imagined that Jesus, to whom such ideals were foreign, could have really been the expected Christ. That had to be the fruit of a particular divine revelation.

In support of his interpretation, he cites the Hebrew root jnh in the sense of violent, oppressor (Jer. 46:16; Jer. 50:16; Zep. 3:1; Psa. 123:4; Exo. 22:21, etc.), seeing a correspondence between the modern Hebrew birion and Barjona. Accordingly, he would see Peter as a son of the violent or a Zealot sympathizer if not actually one of them. Not only would this agree with his impetuous character, but it would throw into greater relief the complete dissimilarity between his human views and the high, spiritual Messianic concept he had just confessed.

On the other hand, Blass-Debrunner (Grammar, 53 (2)) explains lon as a hybrid Hellenized name which has been abbreviated from Ion(n)es for the even longer Hebrew form Iochanan, and therefore equal ot Ionnou of Joh. 1:42; Joh. 21:15-17. Arndt-Gingrich agree (386). From this standpoint, Hendriksen (Matthew, 644) sees Simon, son of John as a

. . . reminder of what he was by nature, simply a human son of a human father. He was a man who of himself could not have contributed anything worthwhile, just one human being among many. This reminder is going to be followed shortly (Mat. 16:18) by an affirmation of that which by grace this same Simon Bar-Jonah had become, namely a worthy bearer of the name Cephas (Aramaic) or Peter (Greek).

Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee. Flesh and blood = human in contrast to divine. (See Gal. 1:16; 1Co. 15:50; Eph. 6:12; cfr. Sir. 14:18; Sir. 17:31 f) But, is the humanity involved here that of Jesus or of others?

Barnes (Matthew-Mark, 169) applies the expression to Jesus own humanity. They had not comprehended His proper dignity by the lordly appearance of His human nature or worldly rank and stature, surrounded with external pomp and power as a man. These were not His insignias of Messiahship, so it was obvious that they had not recognized Him on the basis of His human splendor. Rather, despite His lowly appearance and lack of resemblance to all that they had expected, they still had glimpsed His glory in His miracles, His matchless life, His teaching in harmony with the Old Testament and the prophecies that were coming true in Him.

The grand conclusion reached by Peter and the others who shared it had not been decided by taking samples of public opinion, although, as our text proves, it had not been made in isolation from it. The Twelve expressed what contemporary messianism thought of Jesus the true Messiah (Mat. 16:13-14), and, ironically, in the wake of the contemporary messianic understanding, themselves rebuke Jesus for talking in such a way as would overthrow their theories about His Messiahship (Mat. 16:22 f).

How was the glorious truth revealed exclusively by my Father who is in heaven? The expression, flesh and blood has not revealed it, in antithesis to my Father, must not be construed as excluding Jesus ministry, as if His own humanness (flesh and blood) should be thought to eliminate His ministry from consideration as the source of the revelation. Rather, Jesus argued that all His words and works were derived directly from the Father (Joh. 5:17-36; Joh. 8:28; Joh. 10:25; Joh. 14:10 f), and that what He revealed was adequate to lead them to believe. To suppose that His own incarnation in and of itself is inadequate to produce faith without unusual supernatural insight is to misunderstand the purpose of His coming. Had not Jesus toiled for over two years to produce this very conviction in His disciples? Why should His patient struggle with their ignorance and misunderstanding all be forcibly down-graded, forgotten or ignored in the flash of a special miraculous revelation to the mind of Peter? No, the only explaining the great confession is to admit that they were seeing what God in His Old Testament Word and in His Son, the living Word (Joh. 1:1; Joh. 1:14; Joh. 1:18), had been saying to EVERYONE. Carvers reconstruction (Self-interpretation of Jesus, 108) bears further consideration:

He has been very patient with these men while they were discovering Him. He did not begin by telling them He was the Christ, the Son of the living God and asking them to follow Him in that exalted capacity. . . . He waited for His personality (and His supernatural signs, HEF) to compel in them an exalted interpretation. They began following Him as teacher to find that He was The Teacher. At first He was for them a prophet, to become The Prophet, and in the end, the Maker of Prophets. They began following a friend of sinners to find themselves heralds of the Redeemer from all sin. Jesus asks only that men will get acquainted with Him and then accept what they find Him to be.

A useful research project at this point would be to study the life of Peter or John as they are brought into contact with Jesus for the first time, with a view to study their individual growth in faith. Notice should be taken of Jesus claims and deeds recorded up to this time, This method will reveal in precisely what ways God revealed the Messianic dignity of Jesus to Peter through His word and work. We should come to the same conclusions he did and by the same method. This means, further, that Peters affirmation on Pentecost proves that ANY HEBREW witness of Jesus ministry could have arrived at his own personal conviction of Jesus Lordship by recognizing Gods power operative in Jesus of Nazareth. (Act. 2:22) This does not, however, base the final conclusion upon the sole reliability of human reason as distinguished from divine revelation, but rather upon the right use of human intelligence to conclude that a faithful God is actually revealing Himself through Jesus. Peters own conclusion, then, is neither irrational nor absurd, being correctly arrived at by the proper use of his own intelligence. But it is not based upon human intellect alone. It admits the Lord Gods revelations in the Old Testament concerning the nature of the Christ, and then goes on to identify the fulfilled reality in Jesus of Nazareth.

This revelation of the Father to Peter is not an instantaneous, personal inspiration unavailable to everyone else. See notes on Mat. 13:16, since the historical context of the great Sermon in Parables (Matthew 13) explains how this glorious truth could be revealed to disciples like Peter, while, at the same time, it lay hidden from so many of Jesus contemporaries who said so far less about Him than was really true, however high their esteem for Him. So, if this revelation of Jesus be unavailable to anyone, it is his own fault! (Cf. Mat. 11:25-26 in context!) Further, as illustrated in Mat. 13:17, all the intimate disciples were seeing Jesus for what He really was, and received the same approval as Peter here. Although it is Peter who formulates the great confession, he is quite probably the spokesman of the belief held by the entire group. (Cf. Joh. 6:68 f: WE have believed . . .)

Further, when Peter later acted in direct opposition to a correct application of his confession, his misunderstanding was not corrected by an immediate flash of supernatural inspiration, but by Jesus stern rebuke and patient teaching. (Mat. 16:23-28)

My Father: notice that, far from correcting anything supposedly erroneous in Peters answer, the Lord affirms His own deity by making His own that expression of unshared Sonship. (Cf. Joh. 5:17 ff)

Mat. 16:18 But I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Before continuing our interpretation of this section, we must ask . . .

IS THIS PASSAGE A HOMOGENEOUS PICTURE?

In their effort to interpret problematic language in this text, some commentators see Jesus language as painting one, unified picture which consists in one homogeneous, extended rhetorical device in which each of the various elements mentioned combine to complete a scene to be explained more or less literally. They see the following elements:

Jesus is the builder.

He is about to build His Church (assumed by some to be a city-kingdom).

The foundation of His Church is a great rock to be identified.

Simon Peter is to be the gate-keeper to this Church (city-kingdom?) by using the keys.

The keys Peter uses are those which permit entrance into the Kingdom.

The gates (symbol of a citys power) of the city-kingdom of death will be unable to withstand the assaults of Christs Church.

A bit of circumstantial evidence seeming to confirm the above rhetorical construction comes from the topography. Because this conversation occurred near Caesarea Philippi, a city enjoying a strategic location on the solid rock foundation of the foothills of the Lebanon mountain chain, its very configuration would have furnished Jesus with a powerful, visual illustration of His words. Thus, the Apostles would have comprehended instantly that the Church-image He intended was that of a city-kingdom founded upon a solid mountain base.
If this be the proper reconstruction of Jesus language, then certain internal conclusions follow:

If Jesus is the Builder, He Himself cannot be regarded as the foundation rock of the Church.

If Peter is bearer of the keys, he would not be thought of as the foundation either.

Therefore, the foundation of the Church must be something other than these two persons whose position in the picture is clearly established.

All that is left in the picture to serve as the Churchs foundation is Peters confession, or perhaps something else.

Whatever may be claimed for the above-mentioned extended metaphor, all must admit that it is not without weaknesses, significant among which are the following:

Jesus nowhere affirms His intention to present a homogeneous picture similar to that constructed by the logic of its interpreters.

The Hebrew mentality back of this conversation (recorded in Greek) has importance for our decision about how to interpret the passage, because, if the presumed imagery of the unified picture is nothing but a series of independent Hebraisms, then the supposedly unified picture disintegrates. Each single Semitism, in that case, must be interpreted according to its own literary type, but not necessarily linked with the others, as the unified picture concept would require. That a genuinely Hebrew mentality lies back of this conversation is evident from the following expressions: Bar-Jonah (if thought of as an Aramaic variant of the Greek son of John), flesh and blood, kingdom of heaven (instead of kingdom of God), binding and loosing, and the typically Hebrew word-play based on a name (even in Greek!)

The presumption that a conversation in Aramaic stands back of the text of our Greek Matthew cannot be established merely by the presence of Hebraeo-Aramaisms translated into Greek, since no one at this late date can determine objectively who did the translating: Jesus Himself as He spoke, or Matthew as he wrote.

Consider also the Hebraisms involved in the following objections:

The rhetorical fiction of the two city-kingdoms takes little or no account of the play on Peters name in connection with the rock foundation upon which the Church should be built.

Also, the Church, in the presumed imagery of this section, is never called a city-kingdom in this context. This must be assumed to complete the picture. The expression gates of Hades need not suggest the gates of the kingdom of heaven. Nor need the keys of the Kingdom promised to Peter, imply that they are for use in opening the Kingdoms gates, but even if so, that would not depend upon this figure, but upon their own literary connection.

Again, no explanation is given of the switch from the image of the construction of a city-kingdom upon a mighty rock foundation to the image of a man binding and loosing certain objects. (Mat. 16:19) A change of figure in the very verse that speaks of the consignment of the keys of the kingdom of Peter weakens the reconstructed rhetorical device supposedly intended by Jesus.

Are the functions of bearer of the keys and foundation-stone mutually exclusive? Only if we superimpose an invented rhetorical device upon the text.

Further weaknesses appear in the way the data have been organized into what appeared to be an air-tight metaphorical picture. The error can be exposed by simply furnishing another image that utilizes the same language-data:

Christ is the Builder, or Founder, of His Congregation, or Assembly (ekklesa).

Peter the believer is a basis (= foundation stone) in that living congregation.

The gates of death (= the city of the dead) is powerless to imprison that congregation within its walls:

Both in the sense that Christ would burst those gates, rising from the dead to establish His congregation of believers.

And in the sense that the Church too would crash deaths gates from within and come forth, victorious over death.

In this alternative picture, the Church is seen as having real existence only in Christ who must Himself enter the gates of the city of the dead, the grave. According to this construction, then, we must not think of the Church as a great city-kingdom on the outside of Hades and warring against the latter kingdom. In fact, Jesus said nothing about that in this text. Rather, we must understand the Church as in Christ (a thoroughly Pauline concept), having real existence only in relation to Him. This means that the Church was in Hades with Christ during the time of His death, just as really as Christ was within the gates of Hades. If He intends also a future prophecy regarding the Church in a time after His resurrection, then, He means that the Church would enjoy all the benefits of victory over death by resurrection.

Because of the above-mentioned weaknesses in the former rhetorical reconstruction, the method followed in this study will be the consideration of the idiomatic expressions used by Jesus, taken individually and not as part of a rhetorical whole, except as each expression by its nature demands.
In the history of the exegesis of this text, positions have been taken that, in some cases, have produced grievous consequences in the Body of Christ. In the case of most questions afflicted with extreme stances, the truth usually lies somewhere near the middle, roughly halfway between the extremes. The exegetical history of our text has seen its interpreters divided into about three major groups: those who see Peter the man as the Rock-foundation of the Church, those who see Peters confession as the Rock, and those who affirm Christ to be the Rock. Is it not possible that, for good and sufficient reasons, the truth may well lie somewhere near the middle between these extremes? This is no plea for that indifferentism, that middle-of-the-road-ism, that refuses to choose between hard alternatives. In fact, the choice of a mediating position is often one requiring no little courage, because it is then exposed to the fiery objections from the contenders for the extreme positions. This, however, is not mediation for mediations sake, but becauseat least in our present casethe truth appears to lie between the above-mentioned positions. For sake of clarity, these positions will be dealt with in the following order:

Peter is not intended:

God the great Rock of Israel is meant.

Christ Himself is meant.

The faith that formed the content of Peters confession is meant.

Peter is intended:

Peter the man is made earthly Head of the Church.

Peter the believer, symbol of all who confess this truth, is meant.

I. PETER IS NOT INTENDED

You are Peter, a man of rock, worthy of your name, because you have given expression to the revealed truth of my Messiahship and divine Sonship. Your name suggests a symbolic name for what shall be the Rock upon which I establish my Church.
Those who reject Peter as the intended reference notice the distinction in gender between the words Jesus used. Jesus referred to Peter by his masculine name, Ptros, but identified the Churchs foundation by using a feminine noun, ptra, thereby distinguishing the two. Further, Ptros, it is pointed out, refers to a stone, in general contrast to ptra, bedrock, a great rock cliff, etc. Thus, whatever is represented by the term ptra is certainly not Ptros! Peter, accordingly, is but a small stone incapable of supporting the Church. The sure foundation must be sought elsewhere.

Because this view is based entirely upon the Greek record of Matthew, its opponents notice that it would be seriously weakened if it be admitted that Jesus were speaking Aramaic at the moment, and that our author rendered in Greek the sense of the Aramaic. The supposition is that the nice distinctions of the Greek are not respected in Aramaic which adopts the same word for Peter (Cephas) as for rock (Cefa). Proponents of the view then answer that the Holy Spirit guided Matthews selection among the Greek synonyms, deciding upon that word in Greek which correctly represented the mind of the Lord. Thus, no appeal can be made to a supposed Aramaic original of the text in question, since the final Greek original of Matthew bears the divine stamp of that Apostles inspiration and consequent authority.

It is further argued by those who reject the man Peter as intended by Jesus word-play, that had Jesus intended to establish the Church on Peter, He would not have been so ambiguous. Instead, He would have affirmed: and on YOU I will build my Church.

A. GOD, THE GREAT ROCK OF ISRAEL, IS INTENDED.

In favor of this view three points are noted:

The confession of Peter mentions the name of God. (the living God)

Jesus also mentioned the Father who is in heaven as the source of Peters confession.

In the Hebrew Biblical literature God is pictured as the great mass of rock that protects and blesses Israel. (Deuteronomy 32; 2Sa. 22:32 = Psa. 18:31)

Against this view, it must be noticed that, while God the Father is part of the larger literary and historical context, there are other possibilities much closer to our text. The expression upon THIS rock, unless compelling reasons demand otherwise, would be badly applied to words or phrases too far away.

B. CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE INTENDED ROCK

In favor of this view the following evidences are cited:

Christ is pictured as the Rock or as a Foundation in other texts. (1Co. 3:11; 1Co. 10:4; Luk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; 1Pe. 2:4-8)

Mention is also made of the difference in gender and meaning between Ptros and ptra, a factor which facilitates a reference to someone other than Peter.

Against this view the following objections should be registered:

This view introduces confusion into the imagery presumed to be essential to Jesus rhetoric. That is, if Jesus is the Architect of the Church, how can He properly be considered to be the stone foundation also in the same metaphor?

If, according to many, it be assumed that the Church be pictured in our text as a great city-kingdom founded upon a rock foundation, then none of the above-cited texts are of any use, because they all involve quite different rhetorical images. When Paul laid Jesus Christ as the Churchs foundation at Corinth (1Co. 3:11), another image is involved: that of an artificial foundation for a temple. (1Co. 3:9-16) Paul put (theka) the foundation that now lay (kemenon) there. Nothing is said about digging down to the rock, because the figure is another. Nor can 1Co. 10:4 help the theory, since the Rock that followed (akolouthoses ptras) them was the Christ, was a rock at various places in the desert from which Moses drew water, hence no symbol of a fixed, unmovable foundation for the Church. In the other texts He is no longer the foundation stone, as required by this view, but the corner-stone.

Ptra, used in reference to Christ does not necessarily refer to a massive rock foundation, since Peter calls Jesus the stone (lthos) of stumbling and the rock (ptra) of offence. (1Pe. 2:8) In our rhetoric, do men normally stumble over massive mountains of rock, or, rather, against rocks of more modest proportions?

If the distinction in meaning between Ptros and ptra be thought important, why not be consistent and notice also the distinctions between Greek words in the above-cited texts where Jesus is called a stone (lthos), foundation (themlion), rock (ptra), cornerstone (akrogoniaon)? Do not these different words intend also to indicate distinct meanings? If so, then why unite them with ptra against Ptros? If not, then why pit Ptros against ptra?

Even if it is true that the divine basis of the Church cannot be a man as such, but only the Christ (cfr. 1Co. 3:11), we must ask the question: is Jesus presented in our text as the foundation of the Church directly, or only indirectly through the confession of Peter, just as is true for all the Apostles in Eph. 2:20?

C. PETERS CONFESSION IS THE ROCK

In favor of this view, the following points have been noted:

The difference in the Greek words is noted: Ptros = a stone; ptra = a solid rock foundation. It is as if Jesus had said, You are Peter, truly a man of stone, and upon what makes you that, i.e. the truth you have just confessed, I will found my Church. Though a man of rock yourself, you are but a small stone compared to the solid, massive, bed-rock foundationi.e. my messianic dignity and my divine Sonshipupon which I establish my Church.

The validity of this view is further based contextually upon the imagery supposed to be in Jesus mind. Thus, if Jesus is the Builder of the Church-Kingdom and for which Peter is but the keyholder, then the Rock must be something other than these two. Having identified all other parts of this (supposed) picture, one is driven to conclude that the confession of Peter is itself the Rock.

The appropriateness of the imagery used to represent the ideas communicated would be ruined, were it supposed that such a momentous institution as the Church should be pictured as established upon so human a foundation as the man Peter. Regardless of the preciousness and lofty conception of Peters conviction, Peter the man is still human. Contrarily, the glorious proposition to which he gave voice stands above all that is human (flesh and blood did not reveal this). Rather, this mighty truth is of divine origin (my Father in heaven).

Further, the resurrection faith preached by the Apostles centered around their conviction of the Messiahship and Lordship of Christ, not around the shallow glory and secondary importance of the man Peter, Thus, only the truth confessed is an appropriate, stable basis for the Church.

Against this view the following objections should be noticed:

Jesus adopted the pronoun THIS (tate), not that (ekene), upon THIS rock, a demonstrative that points, not to something further back in the context, such as the confession of Peter made a few minutes before, but to something more immediate. In that case it would have been more logical to say, upon THAT rock. (ep ekene t ptra)

The validity of making such wide distinctions in the Greek words Ptros and ptra will be discussed under II. Peter Is Intended,

The question of appropriateness of imagery may turn out to be subjective taste, if it can be demonstrated that another different view arrives at the same goal of rendering the true meaning of this text by providing equally appropriate alternatives.

The faith preached by the Apostles after Jesus resurrection was not merely intellectual assent to the right view of Jesus Lordship and Messiahship. Rather, they labored to produce that fine balance so well expressed by Paul: Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Col. 1:27) This is truth alive in human personality, a larger expression of the confession Peter voiced. So, the cold, naked confession, considered alone, is actually a weaker basis for human transformation than previously imagined, hence, less appropriate as the Churchs basis, at least in this sense.

II. PETER IS INTENDED

Before entering into a consideration of the applications to be made of the data pointing to Peter, let us first examine the data.

The contextual data: the near context is tightly focused upon Peter:

The blessing upon Peter by name for his confession. (Mat. 16:17)

The word-play made upon the name of Peter. (Mat. 16:18)

The particular mission of Peter. (Mat. 16:19)

Taken together, these factors recommend that we apply to Peter the intervening material whereinsofar this is possible.

The mechanical guideposts as signs of meaning:

Jesus begins Mat. 16:18 by saying: And I say to you (kag d soi lgo) as if happy to confess Peter for what he is, even as Peter had confessed Him according to His true identity. Peter had said, You are the Christ, the Son of God. Now Jesus says, You are Peter. Much earlier the Lord had said, You are Simon son of John. You shall be called Peter. (Joh. 1:42) Here, on the other hand, He affirms, You are Peter, even now what the name implies. So, the double confessions, i.e. that of Peter and this of Christ, leads the reader to notice Peter in some special way.

Another mechanical detail drawing attention to Peter is the word THIS ROCK (tate t ptra). Should Jesus have meant to refer to some object outside the immediate sentence, He would have said THAT ROCK (ekene t ptra). Unless some reference to Peter is intended, further clarification is needed in the sentence to turn the gaze of the reader away from Peter and toward some other unnamed object.

The Greek nouns Ptros and ptra are not so mutually exclusive as usually defended by apologists. Everyone will agree that ptros, taken as a common noun (not a name), may mean a small stone in contrast to ptra, a great rock cliff.

(1)

Nevertheless, in its own linguistic history, ptros has been used as a synonym of imperturbability or hardness (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 334). Reference is even made in Euripides (Medea, 28) to the rock-cliff of Thorikia (ho Thorkios ptros) according to Rocci, 1494. Therefore, at a significant point in their spheres of meaning, ptros and ptra can have overlapping connotations, i.e. they can both mean rock-cliff, ledge of rock.

(The same phenomenon occurs in Italian where sasso means a pebble, but Gran Sasso dItalia means the Great Massif of Italy, a tract of the Appennine range that most looks like high mountains!)

(2)

Further, even ptra can sometimes indicate a rock of modest proportions. Both Paul (Rom. 9:33) and Peter (1Pe. 2:8) cite the parallel use of lthos and ptra, appearing in Isa. 8:14. (See note at I. B., 2, c. above)

See Salvonis citations (Da Pietro al papato, 63, note 9) of Homer, Odyssey, 9,243; Hesiod, Theogonia, 675; Widom of Solomon, Mat. 17:19 LXX = Mat. 17:17. The exchange of these nouns is affirmed in the second century after Christ by the anatomist Claudius Galeno (XII, 194)

In English the same phenomenon occurs in the word rock: just how big is a rock? It can refer to anything from a rock to throw at rabbits, to the Rock of Gibralter. Only the context can determine the size of the rock in question.

So, if the Greeks used ptros and ptra with some of the same liberty, and sometimes interchangeably, then our interpretation of these words in our text must be determined from the context, and not so much from a mechanical use of wooden definitions.

Regardless of the external measurements of the object to which each word ptros and ptra is supposed to refer, they are, after all, composed of the same material, a fact that cannot help but cause the mind to connect the two in some intimate way.

Jesus had surnamed Simon Cephas-Peter at their first encounter. (Joh. 1:42) What motivated the Lord to do that? If He meant for this characterizing label to indicate some essential quality of the man, to what side of Peters make-up and especially to what phase of his future work in the Church would He be referring by calling him a little rock, pebble or stone? And did He not, rather, by prophetic insight, name him Cephas-Ptros in view of his latent capacity for faith and the rock-like spiritual power he would personally contribute to the stability of the Church?

In fact, we are so accustomed to the Apostles new name that we forget that, originally, it needed to be translated for the common readers of Johns Gospel (Joh. 1:42). To sense the original flavor of that scene, we should render it in English: You shall be called Cephas (which means Rock), However, prior to Jesus naming Simon Cephas-Ptros, how common was this expression as a normal masculine name? In fact, if Cephas-Ptros were NOT a common name in our literature and among the Jewish-Greek speakers of Palestine, then attention would be immediately called to the root significance of that common noun made into a proper name. In this case, only with time would it become commonly known as a proper name because of the fame of the Apostle and used in all the normal situations and combinations common to proper names, e.g. Simon Peter. However, Edersheim (Life, II, 82) cites, as proof that the name Ptros is Jewish, the father of a certain rabbi (Jos bar Petros), without, however, identifying the date of his source, Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 158a, line 8 from bottom. Unless this source is undoubtedly pre-Christian, then the name could have entered Jewish culture from Christian sources rather than vice versa.

Ptros, as a name, can scarcely be pre-Christian. (Arndt-Gingrich, 660) But the prior question, of course, is whether CEPHAS were known as a proper masculine name before the first century, since Piros, as it first appears in the NT at Joh. 1:42, only furnishes the Greek translation for Jesus Aramaic choice. Cephas, etymologically linked with the masculine noun ceph (= rock) which is used only twice (Job. 30:6 and Jer. 4:29), does not appear in the OT as a name, but is clearly based upon it. (Gesenius, 410 and Scerbo, 139, both link it with NT Cephas.) Further, whereas it was formerly thought that Cepha were a feminine noun, Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 62, note 4) indicates that now, however, the critics, on the basis of the Palestinean Targums and Samaritan Targum, recognize it as a masculine noun and therefore applicable to a man. Now, whether or not our Greek text reflects an Aramaic conversation, it nevertheless mirrors the Aramaic word-play that Jesus Himself deliberately set up by naming Peter Cephas. Whether or not the conversation took place in Greek or Aramaic makes absolutely no difference, because the final result is the same:

(1)

If Jesus said only two Aramaic words in His Greek sentence (i.e. You are Cephas and upon this cepha I will build my Church.), the very change from second person (You are) to third person (upon this) points to two concepts, not just one. The pun shows the intimate link, while the change of person shows the distinction.

(2)

If Jesus spoke the whole sentence in Greek exactly as recorded by Matthew, then, He renders Simons name in Greek Ptros, while using the feminine ptra to underline the characteristic in Peter upon which He would establish His congregation. Thus, in Greek we have not only the change of persons (from second to third), but also the change of gender to indicate the distinction. Nevertheless, the etymological affinity of the two words, brought out in the word-play, establishes the intimate link between their concepts.

Foster (Middle Period, 235) distinguishes Ptros from ptra as also Cephas from cepha. On the latter pair he argues that coining a mans name from a feminine word cepha automatically makes it a different word with a different signification. But this emphasis fails to recognize that the very act of coining a proper name from a common noun instantly calls attention to the common noun, regardless of which language is used.

This is, of course, increasingly less true the farther the new name travels from its original source. Many common names have meanings that originally characterized the person so named. For example, Harold is an old Norse word meaning Powerful Warrior, army leader. Edward is Anglosaxon for a trusted steward, a guardian of property. Fowler is English for a hunter of wild fowl. So far are we from the origins! The actual names of the current labor union leaders in Italy, rendered in English, are Mr. Crooked, Mr. Badly-made and Mr. Little (Sigg. Storti, Malfatti e Piccoli)!

So, Rock or Rocky calls attention to rock, not vice versa. The net result of these considerations is that, when Jesus made His famous pun, His hearers mind easily would run from Ptros to ptra and back in a close, natural identification in terms. But, if something about Peter is the object of Jesus thought, what conclusions may be drawn therefrom?

A. PETER THE MAN IS MADE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH, VICAR OF CHRIST.

In favor of this view, the following points are argued:

Granted that all NT doctrine exalts the primacy of Christ in heaven and on earth, this primacy properly requires human expression on earth during the physical absence of Christ. This principle of representation of God by human officials is illustrated in OT religion, the typical preparation for the new, in its high priest, its prophets and its kings. Because Jesus is their typical fulfilment, but physically absent, and because the Holy Spirit is present only invisibly, human need for divine representation is met by Christs human delegate, or vicar, who acts on His behalf. But any human delegate must have proper credentials to identify him as such. Mat. 16:18 f constitutes the necessary proof of the transmission of this authority and establishes Peter as Christs Vicar. In this position, Peter and his successors upon whom episcopal hands have been laid, become the lineal self-projection of Christ Himself in the world. Because of certain historical circumstances, the bishop of Rome is the lineal successor to the Chair of Peter.

The leading position of Peter in the apostolic group and in the life of the early Church is striking confirmation of the authority with which he is invested in this text.

Beyond what has already been written on The Supremacy of Peter (Vol. II, 274ff), the following objections to this expression of the Roman Catholic position are raised:

Jesus did not say, You are Peter and upon YOU I will build my Church, but rather upon this rock, a fact that, while admittedly linking Peter and the ptra, points away from Peter the man to some characteristic that he and the Churchs foundation share in common.

Joh. 20:21 furnishes the following precious elements of proof to the contrary:

(1)

Jesus self-projection in the world is not to be accomplished by a single vicar, but by a plurality of disciples: As the Father has sent me, even so send I you (plural: hums). Many NT texts explain that the mission of the total Church is but the extension of Jesus activity in the world. (Cf. Joh. 12:26; Joh. 14:12-20; Mat. 28:20; Rom. 12:4-8; 1Co. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:23; Eph. 4:4; Eph. 4:12-16; Eph. 5:30; Col. 1:27-28; 1Jn. 4:17)

(2)

Jesus commission was given on this occasion to both apostolic and non-apostolic disciples present. Peter was not alone, as other Apostles were present. (Joh. 20:19-21) If this is the same appearance recorded in Luk. 24:13 (cf. Joh. 20:19), two of the non-apostolic disciples are mentioned: Cleopas and his friend. (Luk. 24:18) It was while these latter were retelling Jesus Emmaus-Road appearance to them that He Himself appeared to the Eleven. (Luk. 24:36)

(3)

The gift of the Holy Spirit is breathed indiscriminately upon them, not just upon Peter. (Joh. 20:22)

(4)

The solemn promise is made that mens sins would be forgiven or retained through THESE disciples. (Joh. 20:23)

Jesus established no hierarchy on earth and deliberately blocked any possibility of its later development by men claiming divine approval. (Mat. 20:25-28; cf. Luk. 22:24-30; Mat. 23:8-12) The very character of Christian libertyi.e. the freedom to act responsibly without surrendering ones right to decide by turning it over to the despotism of hierarchical legalism or to a Teaching Authority (Magisterium)eliminates the need for a continuous judicial or legislative hierarchy. (See Special Study after Mat. 15:20 : How to Avoid Being a Pharisee; cf. also Mat. 23:8-12 where Jesus outlawed glorification of any teaching authority.)

None of the other Apostles interpreted any part of this verse as establishing Peter over them in any hierarchical sense, Their debates about their own relative importance prove that this point had not been settled by Jesus in this text and situation. (Cf. Mat. 18:1 ff) The request of James and John for places of honor,a request which, intentionally or involuntarily, would cut Peter out,may also indicate that they did not interpret His words as placing Peter on such a throne as that of the Holy See. (Mat. 20:20-28) The New Jerusalem has only twelve apostolic foundations, none of which is described as more important than the others. (Rev. 21:14; Rev. 21:19 ff) There were fully 12 judgment thrones, not just one for Peter. (Mat. 19:28)

Peter himself, to whom any personal dictatorship was foreign, saw his position as that of a fellow elder charged with not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1Pe. 5:1-5) The Apostle, especially charged with the responsibility to Feed my lambs, pictures His Lord as the Shepherd and Guardian (Bishop) of your souls (1Pe. 2:25) and the chief Shepherd. (1Pe. 5:4)

Whatever may be affirmed for Peter in this text (Mat. 16:18), in no sense is he either the real Founder (I will build) nor the Owner (my Church). These fundamental roles are filled only by Christ Himself. (Eph. 1:22; Eph. 4:11-15; Eph. 5:23 ff)

Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 80) points out that . . .

. . . the context refers to a particular point in the history of the Church, i.e. its establishment: I will build my Church. It is therefore in that precise moment that Peters activity must take place . . . a fact which excludes both the function of Head and the continuance of such a function for the entire history of the Church.

Again, Salvoni (ibid., 123125, 146150, 153) shows that the early Church did not recognize in this passage a hierarchical superiority of office for Peter, because the church at Jerusalem was more prone, after Peters departure from Jerusalem (cf. Act. 12:17; Gal. 2:11; 1Pe. 5:13), to follow the leadership of James the Lords brother. How could the Judaizing element of the Jerusalem Church justify their glorification of James, if everyone knew that Peter had been appointed Vicar by Christ? Also, those in the post-apostolic Church who tended to glorify John among the Apostles do not see Peter as Head of the universal Church or of the Apostolic college. If Peters episcopal primacy was clear from the beginning, how is this phenomenon to be explained?

The major misunderstanding represented by the papal view is its uncanny lack of fundamental sensitivity to the spiritual nature of Christs kingdom. What are authorized representatives and vicars worth, if they ignore the nature of Jesus kingdom and the type of influence He desires to be expressed in the world, i.e., spiritual transformation by moral methods, as opposed to materialistic manifestations, mechanical rule or hierarchical authority? Of what use are living authorities, when men will obey or reject the authoritative voice of the Apostles and Prophets now dead, and when men may be judged on the basis of their response to these, just as well as by their response to living authorities?

The attitude of Paul toward Peter is especially revealing:

(1)

He stoutly denied that his apostleship depended upon any man, especially upon those who preceded him chronologically in the apostleship at Jerusalem. (Gal. 1:11-17)

(2)

He rejected the popular estimate of the so-called pillars, since God shows no such partiality, and affirmed that he received nothing essential from them. (Gal. 2:6-10) Note that Paul mentions the Three of Jerusalem as reputed to be pillars, but does not affirm that they are pillars. Next he sets them in this order: James before Peter, then John. How could Paul have talked like this, had Peter really been proclaimed head by Christ and His Vicar?

(3)

He shared a world mission at least as great as that of Peter (if not actually greater numerically!), the only real difference being that Peters mission was to one nation (the Jews), whereas Paul was entrusted with that to all nations (the Gentiles). (Gal. 2:7-10)

(4)

Paul had no fear to oppose Peter resolutely when he saw him move away from the Gospel truth. (Gal. 2:11)

(5)

When there arose at Corinth a division honoring Peter, Paul did not for once admit that it was essential to belong to Peter in order to belong to Christ, as if Peter should have been recognized as Christs vicar. Rather, he thundered that one must belong only to Christ. (1Co. 1:12 ff) Later, Paul affirmed that the Apostles, Peter included, are but simple servants of the Christians. (1Co. 3:4-5; 1Co. 3:21-23)

The entire New Testament doctrine that sees Christ as now enjoying the primacy in heaven and on earth militates against any concept of Peter or anyone as the substitute of Christ. (Cfr. Ephesians, Colossians, and the once-for-all quality of Christs sacrifice and the permanence of His high-priesthood in Hebrews.) The Roman Catholic position fails to understand that God has exalted Christ as Head of the Church, that in EVERYTHING He might be pre-eminent. (Col. 1:18)

B. PETER IS PICTURED AS TYPICAL OF ALL WHO CONFESS THIS TRUTH.

It is as if Jesus had said, In you, Peter, I have just hit solid rock, just the kind of rockthis divine truth alive in human personality,upon which I will found my congregation of the new Israel. Thus, He makes Peter typical of all in whom this divine truth is found, and out of whom He could construct His Kingdom.

Beyond the arguments listed above under II. PETER IS INTENDED, consider the following arguments in favor of this interpretation of the symbolism inherent in the words Ptros and ptra:

Only this view explains adequately the word-play made upon the name of Peter.

(1)

Only this view explains why Jesus did not say, You are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my Church. The Church is not to be constructed upon Peter the man as its only foundation. Rather, Jesus affirmed: You are Rock and upon this rock I will build . . . i.e. upon that quality in you, as the first confessor, which makes a good base for the Church: truth alive in the human personality of Peter who recognized Jesus for what God knew Him to be.

(2)

The rock upon which the Church is built, then, is not just bare truth nor mere humans, but upon that fine combination of the two which we call Christians. Peter, by his bold confession of the conviction of his heart, proved himself to be the first disciple, the first Christian, deliberately tested and found solidly in harmony with all that God was revealing to men through Jesus.

(3)

Only this view adequately explains the use of the masculine and feminine nouns, Ptros and ptra. If it be true that ptra refers to the larger mass of rock and ptros to the smaller, the the union of these two ideas in the same sentence draws attention to the fact that the one rock (Ptros = Peter) standing before Jesus, is a splendid specimen of the sort of rock (ptra) upon which He could finally begin building His Church. The Ptros comes from the ptra! They are of the same material, a fact that draws attention to what they have in common. Jesus did not say, You are Peter, BUT upon this rock, but You are Peter AND upon this rock, a fact that unites and coordinates the ideas. Peter is but a symbol of that upon which the Church is built: divine truth alive and incarnated in human personality.

The rhetorical error of those who do not see Peter as the symbol of the rock, is their unproven assumption that Jesus intended to indicate a rock mountain, when it is conceivable that He really intended a rock for construction, After all, how big is a rock (ptra)? (See Greek citations on ptra, ptros under II) Only the superimposition of the subjective picture (illustrated earlier) sees the Church as a City-Kingdom situated on a mountain, whereas Jesus mental picture might be that of a temple built upon a series of stones constituting a foundation which itself is laid upon solid rock. But since Jesus expressed no mental image other than that of a congregation (ekklesa) constructed upon a definite basis (ep tate t ptra), perhaps we would do well to dispense entirely with mental images projected back into Jesus mind!

In order properly to interpret the rock upon which the Church is to be built, we must ask a question usually assumed already to have been answered: what does it mean to build upon? (okodomeso ep . . .) If it means to establish something upon something else as its foundation or basis, then we must realize that there are as many bases for a concept as grand as the Church as there are standpoints from which it may be viewed.

(1)

The Church has a theological basis: justification by faith in the all-sufficient sacrifice of the divine-human Christ.

(2)

The Church has also a functional basis: the conversion of individuals by submission to Christ, and their empowering by gifts of the Holy Spirit (both ordinary and special) whereby the whole body effectively builds itself up toward maturity and does Christs work in the world.

(3)

The Church has a historical basis: the mighty acts of God realized in time and space in the person of Jesus and the Apostles, as well as in the preparation made by the prophets and the Law.

(4)

The Church has a spiritual foundation also: its goals and methods, as well as its incentives, take their form from their Designer, God, Who is spirit, not carnal nor material.

(5)

The Church has an economic basis upon which it operates: its possessions are freely shared because viewed as Gods property to be responsibly administered by individual stewards.

(6)

The Church has a personal basis: rather than function as a power block to achieve its goals, it begins with the creation of new men and women who, because of the truth incarnate in them and because of what this makes them become and do, are capable of being the body of Christ in the world.

(7)

The Church has a social basis: not limited to a vertical, individual relationship to God, the Church not only draws her members from the world, but converts them and returns them to function in the world to leaven society.

Now, UPON WHICH OF THESE (or other) BASES DID JESUS BUILD HIS CHURCH? The total New Testament answer is, of course, ALL OF THEM. But to which did He refer in our text? Too long we have presumed that He meant to indicate only the theological or Christological foundation, when He may well have meant the PERSONAL basis or foundation. It is the conviction of this writer that the latter is the case.

Should it shock anyone that God or Christ should found His Church upon men like Peter, let the following observations be made:

(1)

Other passages clearly reveal that it is NOT UPON MEN ALONE that Christ founds His Church.

(a)

Everything depends upon the fulfilment of the plan of God.

(b)

Without Christ, nothing would be possible, because He carried out Gods part on earth.

(c)

Further, it is precisely by means of the proclamation of the truth of the messianic dignity and divine Sonship of Jesus, that the Church was created, is edified and brought to maturity.

(d)

However, without the spontaneous participation of MEN, there could be no Church, because the Church (ekklesa) is, by definition, an assembly constituted of MEN, i.e. of believers in whom the confession of Peter is a living conviction.

(2)

It does not please God to see truth reduced to a fleshless abstraction, nor men living without truth. Gods ideal is to incarnate truth in the heart of a man, so that by means of this perfect incarnation, Gods intentions for creating man might be realized.

(a)

When God set His plan in motion to redeem the human race, He incarnated His truth in a Man, Jesus Christ.

(b)

Similarly, when Jesus Christ set in motion His plan to establish His Church, He sought some men in whom His truth had become a living reality. And He found it first in the person of Simon Peter. (And many others too: John 17)

From this standpoint, the man Peter is no longer of any help to those who would establish an ecclesiastical hierarchy upon him. In fact, that which renders Ptros like ptra is the same thing that makes all other believers into living stones. (1Pe. 2:4-5) For ptra Edersheim (Life, II, 83) coins the useful English paraphrase: that which was the Petrine in Peter. As a result, the only primacy (firstness) left for Peter, therefore, is the chronological primacy expressed in the honor to make the first proclamation of the faith that he, as the first, had confessed. As a result, what was Petrine in Peter earned him the joy to be the first stone in the chronological order to be laid in place. Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 65) has it:

To the chronologically first confessor Jesus entrusts an important part in the building of the Church, in the sense that He leaves to him the announcement of the fundamental decisions regarding entrance into the Church, thus rendering the Apostle a sort of permanent base, in as much as all believers who want to enter the family of God will have to own the profession of faith made by Peter and obey the norms that he will sanction once for all time: baptism without circumcision. . . . Peters function is an activity or condition connected with the establishing of the Church, a fact which would happen only once in the history of the world. Once the Church had been founded, it would rest upon Peter only in the sense that Simon Barjona, by means of the inspired passage in Matthews Gospel, continues to proclaim that his confession of faith is indispensable to enter into the Church. The fleshly human Simon will die; but the confessing Simon is eternally alive in the sense that the Holy Spirit wanted his confession of faith to be part of the eternal gospel message. To hear the name of Peter is equivalent to hearing once more the voice of Simon who confesses Jesus messiahship and divine Sonship, an act that must be imitated by anyone who intends to enter into the great family of God, which is the Church.

For this reason, none of the arguments against Peters assumption of earthly headship of the Church can be thought valid against his being considered symbolic of all genuine Christians. In fact, this latter view sees Peter as equal to those of whom he is but the symbol here. The man Peter is unimportant, because the assembly of Christ cannot be founded on the basis of a single individual alone. But it is based upon him and all like him insofar as this divine truth confessed make them what they are: the living stone out of which the new spiritual house is to be built. (1Pe. 2:4) Should it surprise some that the Church should be founded upon men in whom the implications of this great confession are fully and freely displayed, then Jesus words could be paraphrased in another way: The basis of the Church I found, Peter, will be your type of people, i.e. believers who confess what you just said.

This interpretation has the advantage of uniting all the best elements of the other interpretations:

(1)

Since God is the Rock of Israel, then Peter, by his acceptance of Gods revelations, becomes intellectually one with God by sharing with Him, despite his own humanity, that truth which he now confessed.

(2)

If Christ is the Rock-foundation of the Temple of God, then Peter by his admission of Jesus true identity and mission, becomes, by that act, the same kind of material out of which that Temple is to be builtfrom the laying of its foundation to the glorious completion of every part. (1Co. 3:11; Eph. 2:20-22; 1Pe. 2:4-8)

(3)

If the truth of Peters confession is the Rock-foundation, then Peter, by virtue of his conviction, identifies himself with that truth, which, in the final analysis, Christ Jesus had taught him. Peters union with the truth, or the truth in Peter, had made him the Rock he was. Because he had built upon the rock (cf. Mat. 7:24 f), his construction partook of the same solid, durable character as the rock of Christs word and work he had now confessed. He had become the truth he believed.

Whether this is the only proper interpretation of the phrase in question or not, it is none the less true that Jesus Christ has no Church at all, except that group of believers in all centuries in whom this confession Peter made is real. This view sees no one as truly part of Christs Church who is not thoroughly what Peter was that day, when, despite adverse public opinion about the Christ, he staunchly stood firm for his bold, good confession.

While it is certain that the Church began on Pentecost, the Church nevertheless became a live possibility only when a human being recognized Jesus real identity and committed himself to it personally and publicly. This is why Peter is the first foundation stone. Jesus could begin to build His Church or assembly (ekklesa) once one human beingin this case, Peterhad correctly analyzed and accepted His true identity. However immature and failing Peters faith may have been, it was a definite beginning point from which Jesus could begin. You cannot build a pack of wolves until you have at least a pair of wolves, nor can you build a church (assembly) until you have some believers to assemble either. But one is a beginning, the foundation of what follows. Carver (Self-interpretation of Jesus, 109f) says it well:

There is buoyant rapture in His reply that we can appreciate only if we think of this as marking the realization in Peter of what He has all these years been seeking to develop in men. What He missed so sadly in the soliloquy (Mat. 11:20-30, i.e. No one knows the Son except the Father HEF) He finds now in this man, Here, at last, is one man in whose experience He has become the Christ, the Son of God. . . . What He has achieved in Simon, He can accomplish in any other man, in all men. . . . Jesus has come to remake humanity, in the individual. Now He has an example. He has succeeded. . . . Gods revelation which has become Simons conviction is His opportunity for starting afresh in His program. He has some material now that He can use . . .

Collateral support for this interpretation comes from Jesus own personal teaching style. He habitually began from a concrete situation to illustrate an abstract truth. (Cf. Luk. 13:1-5; Mat. 18:1-4) To exalt the truth of His teaching, He presented Himself as the Way, the Truth and the Life. (Joh. 14:6) When He needed to reveal difficult truth, His imagination produced suggestive parables based upon concrete objects or events. (Mat. 13:1-53) The urgent need to repent in the light of limited opportunity and immanent doom is pictured by a sterile fig tree granted one more year of care. (Luk. 13:6-9) Similarly, it would be natural for Jesus, desiring to teach the necessity of confessing the faith by anyone who would enter Gods Kingdom, to speak of its first confessor, Simon Rock, as symbolic of the rock foundation of the Church.

Within the larger cultural context of Jesus contemporaries, His symbolism used here was not a novelty incomprehensible to His hearers. Isaiah (Isa. 51:1 f) had exalted Abraham and Sarah as the rock from which you were hewn, the quarry from which you were digged. The prophets argument is this: in the same sense in which a rock apparently sterile, can be rendered fertile by Gods blessing, so Abraham and Sarah, ancestors of the people of Israel, are symbols of what God can do. So, it was not unheard of in Hebrew literature to refer even to men as the rock, in harmony with the immediate intention of the Biblical writer himself. (We must not create false parallelisms here, however, between Abraham the rock and Simon the Rock, which would miss the point of both Isaiahs and Jesus words. All that is affirmed here is the existence, in Hebrew literature, of similaralthough not identicalreferences to men as rock and symbolic of some truth to be taught.)

Weaknesses of the view taken here:

If Peter is really symbol of every Christian, then the Church (in the sense of the congregation of the Christians) is both the foundation and what is founded thereupon. We have, thus, a confusion in figures.

Answer: If the word Church be taken, not in its connotative sense (The Christians taken together as a body), but in its denotative sense (assembly, convocation, congregation), the problem disappears. Thus, according to this view, Jesus is saying, Upon such Christians as you, Peter, I will base my assembly.

Does not this view, which sees Peter as merely the first stone (Ptros) of the same material as the rock construction (ptra) for which there would be many living stones (lthoi zntes), commit the same error rejected in the view that sees Christ as the ptra? In fact, use is made here of texts (e.g. 1Pe. 2:5) which mix distinct Greek words: ptra, lthoi. If such use were wrong in the one hypothesis, is it not also in the other? Answer: No, in rejecting the Christ = ptra view, we rejected only variant Greek words as they were by that view applied to Christ to prove Him to be the foundation stone, because its proponents laid great stress on the ptros-ptra distinction, without, at the same time, recognizing similar distinctions in words thought to sustain their hypothesis.

What is to be gained if this latter hypothesis be accepted?

If Peter, in his capacity as a confessing believer, really represents the rock, then we are better able to grasp the ideal Jesus sets before us: divine truth must be incarnated in human personality.

In that glorious moment Peter had shown himself to be all that Christ had come to earth to create: a believer, a man who knew to whom he must go for leadership back to God and who sincerely trusted that Guide. Although he was but one Rock (Ptros), he was of the right material (ptra) to serve as a proper basis for the great congregation (ekklesa) to be established.

Even though Peter did not always live consistently with his confession, however, because the truth was truly in him and he in the truth, he was able to become that useful servant of the Lord that we witness in the New Testament.

The heart-searching question for the reader, then, is: Are we too Rock, that is, persons in whom the truth God revealed in Jesus is truly incarnate? Or does it remain a dead letter on our lips?

If Peter here (Mat. 16:18) and the other Apostles and Prophets elsewhere (Eph. 2:20 f) can serve as foundation for the Church of living God, it should cease to shock anyone that God depends upon men for the carrying out of His plan for the foundation, growth and progress of His Church, His Kingdom in the world. (Cf. Psa. 8:2! Mat. 21:14-17; Mat. 11:25 f; 1Co. 1:18-31; 2Co. 12:7-10)

What a glorious truth: the great God of heaven, absolutely independent of everything and everyone, sought a basis in human beings to accomplish His purpose to conquer evil and bless humanity!

And, although the Church is composed of men who are new creatures, redeemed, full of the Spirit, they are still MEN IN WHOM THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS CHRIST IS A LIVING REALITY!

I will build my church. What is meant by church in this very first mention in the Gospels, will be amplified in the Epistles. Nevertheless, several characteristics of this new creation lie on the surface:

Its futurity: I will build. The new community of believers in Jesus Christ was yet to be inaugurated. Although Jesus had already set in motion a grass-roots movement in His popular ministry, He was not beguiled by His own popularity. He knew that the crisis of the cross and the demands of discipleship would thin out the well-wishers and the hangers-on. The Church must be born at the cross: without that sacrifice there could be no forgiveness, no Gospel and no Church, so, until Jesus had conquered sin and death, He could not build His Church. Whereas the same terms of salvation apply to men of any continent or time-period, i.e. faith in and obedience to whatever God requires of each, nevertheless, the fruition of Gods plans revealed in the new Israel through the proclamation of redemption in Christ Jesus was yet future.

Consequently, rather than search the Old Testament for the source of the Churchs life, as this is to be expressed in what she confesses and by her formal structure, we must look to the (then yet future) birth of Jesus Church on Pentecost (Acts 2) and the expressions of its life and practice that follow that date.

Its ownership: My Church. This fact is notoriously forgotten in congregational squabbles and in many theological circles, where both the doctrine and practice that the Lord desires goes unexpressed and is bypassed in favor of decisions based upon church traditions, convenience, local acceptability, unacknowledged power structures, fears and perhaps also unhistorical exegesis of Scripture. (Scott Bartchy)

While His personal ownership of the Church-Kingdom would not necessarily exclude national Israel, the fact that Jesus sees that a distinctive congregation is essential, i.e. separate from, and even opposed to, the nominal descendants of Abraham, suggests that these latter will have rejected the God-given Messiah and His Kingdom. Its futurity and its distinctive ownership combine to affirm that the concept Jesus has in mind did not then exist in the form of national Israel, and that He is dissatisfied with that nation as such. For the thinking disciple who follows this idea to its logical conclusion, Jesus must mean that, if any in national Israel are to be part of HIS movement, they must do so upon HIS terms which, incidentally, had already begun to stir up the determined opposition of almost every religio-political power block in Judaism! Rather than rejuvenate the elements already available in standard Judaism, He intends to form a new people of God destined to take the place of those who rejected Him.

Its sense of community: Church. It is to be an ekklesa: an assembly, reunion or gathering, summoned together, away from the public at large, for the purposes of Christ.

Since Church (ekklesa) means assembly or congregation we may ask: does Jesus have in mind the congregation of the Lord, as this expression connotes the whole nation of Israel, especially when gathered together for religious purposes? (Cf. the LXX version of Deu. 31:30; Jdg. 20:2; 1Sa. 17:47; 1Ki. 8:14; Deu. 4:10; Deu. 9:10; Deu. 18:16; Act. 7:38) If so, He means ekklesa in the sense of the New Israel of God. (cf. Gal. 6:16)

Such a convocation, by virtue of its purpose and character, intentionally condemns all divisive attitudes, however they are expressed: as full-grown schisms or by individual sulking.

For further notes on the relationship of the Church to the Kingdom of God, see the Special Study after Mat. 13:53; The Kingdom of God. There it is argued that the Kingdom is the effective reign of God in all of its expressions. The Church, therefore, is to be distinguished only as that congregation of Christian believers who have willingly submitted to the Kings good government. The Church, as a concrete movement, expresses the intention of Gods Kingdom, and is in the Kingdom, and the Kingdom is active in and through the Church, Nevertheless, the Church is not the only expression of Gods Kingdom by which the universe is governed, even if, for Jesus purpose in our text, it is the most significant, tangible manifestation of Gods rule among men, This explains why Jesus can promise Peter the keys of the kingdom immediately following this announced determination to build His Church, since Jesus knows that His Church, rightly understood, submits to Gods Kingdom. The obedience to the terms of salvation preached by Peter instantly submits the believer to the rule of God (Kingdom) and makes him an integral part of the congregation (ekklesa), or Church of Christ.

I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (. . . ka plai hdou ou katischsousin auts) To what does it refer? It (auts) is feminine, so refers directly to church (ekklesa), also feminine.

Hades is the realm of the dead, or death itself. In the Old Testament, as also in intertestamental Jewish literature, the expression gates of Hades is a common figure for the dwelling of the dead. (Cf. Isa. 38:10; Psa. 9:13 = LXX Psa. 9:14; Psa. 107:18 = LXX Psa. 106:18; Job. 38:17; cf. Wis. 16:13; 3Ma. 5:51. See also Psa. 49:14 f = LXX Psa. 48:15f; Hos. 13:14; Psa. 16:10 = LXX Psa. 15:10) The origin of the figure and its connotative flavor is explained variously.

The gates of oriental cities were the place where the judges held their deliberations, in which justice was done, and from which, naturally, the citys warriors poured to carry out the counsels of the citys elders. Sometimes plots were organized and conspiracies planned there. It was at the gate of Samaria that Ahab king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah decided their ill-fated raid upon Ramoth Gilead. (1Ki. 22:10-12) The city gate also served as city court to resolve local questions, because the citys elders sat there. (Rth. 4:1-11; Psa. 127:5; Jer. 1:15; Jer. 14:2)

While these explanations are interesting, it is far more probable that Jesus intends gates of Hades in its idiomatic completeness, without reference to all the usual functions of city gates in the oriental world. The picture involved in gates of Hades,if indeed Jesus intended any mental image, is that of a city called Hades, the place of disembodied spirits, within whose gates one is imprisoned by death. Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 70) suggests that the plural gates may perhaps be explained by the fact that originally it was thought that many gates, one after the other (as in modern prisons), closed the entrance to Hades, through all of which one must pass to enter and from which there could be no return. If this plural, gates, intends only to reinforce the figure (cfr. Arndt-Gingrich, 16, on Hades), then it indicates the monstrous power of death within whose walls the Church of Christ would be locked, but could not be held, because those gates would be thrown ajar by the power of the Risen Christ. It is in this sense that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church, a fact that has worked out historically in various ways:

The personal death of Jesus Christ in no way hindered His plan to establish His Church or come in His Kingdom as planned. (Cf. Mat. 16:18; Mat. 16:28) Rather, unless He submitted to death to bring them into, being, there would have been no Church, no Kingdom of God on earth. His resurrection, predicted figuratively under the sign of Jonah (Mat. 16:4) and literally (Mat. 16:21), guaranteed that all that Death could do would not be strong enough (ou katischsousin) to thwart the Churchs being established. This truth is plainly echoed in Act. 2:24; Act. 2:31. (Cf. 2Ti. 1:10)

This affirmation is definite preparation for the confrontation with the disciples on the question of the necessity of Jesus going to Jerusalem. (Mat. 16:21 ff) Although they would imagine that His death would seal the doom of all hope of victory, He has already assured them here that death would have no power to hinder the glorious fulfillment of everything He planned for the Churchs realization. He would come forth victorious from the tomb, thus guaranteeing the triumph of the cause of righteousness. Their fears were unfounded.

Despite the death of His followers, the loss of each single member to death would not mean the death of the Church. Even if Jesus be not speaking directly of our suffering death, but rather of His own death, yet the fact that He would crash the gates of death in a victorious break-through guarantees the perpetual victory of His people. This is the minor interpretation, because it depends for its accomplishment upon the personal victory of the Lord over death, therefore His struggle with death is the more directly appropriate interpretation.

In a very real sense, the Church was as much in Hades as was Christ Himself. In fact, had He not conquered death, there would have been no Church. Metaphorically, then, we may say that the Church was born out of death, a fact surprisingly recalled in His later discourse: the way to life is through death. (Mat. 16:24-28)

While this passage, as we have seen, does not explicitly, reveal a war between two kingdoms, i.e. that of Jesus Christ against Satans reign of death (Heb. 2:14), in which the Church would sweep in conquest, nevertheless the result is still the same! The kingdom of death cannot at any time hold out against the power of the Church to break its bonds and come forth.

Some see this mention of Hades (death, grave) as a metonymy for Satans reign of death (cf. Heb. 2:14; Luk. 22:53; Joh. 8:44); hence, stands for all the conspiracies of the powers of evil combined: demons, Satan, and death. Accordingly, all these monstrous powers of wickedness and death would be brought to bear against the Church, without, however, succeeding in strangling or destroying it. (Act. 4:24-31; Joh. 12:31; Joh. 16:33; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 2:10 f; 1Co. 15:54-57)

How COULD the gates of Hades withstand Jesus and the Church, when the resurrected Lord Himself has the keys to the gates?! (Rev. 1:17 f) No, Jesus assures the disciples that His Church was not merely designed to last for awhile, like some school of thought or an ethical influence or a religious manifestation, but would continue beyond the grave and on into eternity!

Mat. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Before entering into a detailed discussion of the terms involved, it is well to remember our decision as to whether Jesus is carrying forward a supposed rhetorical figure or not. If so, then this verse must be interpreted in the light of that figure, but if not, then the terms used here will be interpreted in light of their usual sense and in context with the general subject under discussion. Because we failed to see the necessity to superimpose upon this text a rhetorical picture not explicitly stated in Jesus words (see reasons at Mat. 16:18), we shall follow the latter course.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED?

The expressions, keys of the kingdom and binding and loosing taken together in so close a context, are probably to be understood in the rabbinical sense of the right to teach authoritatively the truths of the Kingdom of God. It may have been by two steps that the rabbis appropriated for their ministry the glorious concept, of the keys of the kingdom:

It may refer to the office of royal steward. A key literally serves to open and lock doors. So the power of the keys consisted in providing (or excluding) access to and care of the royal chambers, and in the decision who was or was not to be received into the kings service. Keys, then, are a symbol of superintendence. Thus, authority and privilege are involved in the consignment of the keys, although not an authority or privilege independent of direct responsibility to the king himself. In fact, he who receives the power of the keys is not the king, but the trusted steward, or servant, of the king, since the keys continue to belong to the king to whom the steward is finally responsible. (Cf. Isa. 22:22; God is the real king of Israel; Rev. 3:7; Rev. 9:1; Rev. 20:1 ff)

By a splendid metaphor the rabbis (scribes) could refer to the responsibility of opening the royal chambers of Gods truth as possession of the keys of the kingdom. In this sense, as stewards of Gods truth, they were to be responsible for permitting popular access into Gods Kingdom, as proven by Jesus attitude toward the theologians (scribes, rabbis) who misused their exalted position. (Luk. 11:52; Mat. 23:13 = kleete, from kles, a key))

That Jesus disciples could become scribes is implicit in Mat. 13:52 and explicit in Mat. 23:34. That they would be stewards of the mysteries of God, is noted in Luk. 12:41 ff. (Cf. 1Co. 4:1-2) So, the power of the keys and binding and loosing may be but two forms of the same promise in the sense that keys would then be general teaching authority, while binding and loosing would be the specific sphere of its application. With Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 73ff) we should notice that the verbs . . .

. . . binding and loosing are two terms of rabbinic usage that assume opposite meanings according as they are applied to a prohibition or to an obligation. In the case of the prohibition, one binds when he prohibits someone to do something . . ., while he looses by lifting the prohibition, permitting what had heretofore been prohibited . . . In the case of the obligation, one binds by establishing something as an obligation, but one looses when he eliminates this obligation . . . The verb to loose can also acquire the sense of to pardon, i.e. to looose the guilt from the individual.

Consequently, consigning the keys to Peter is paramount to assigning him the responsibility for admission to, or exclusion from, the Kingdom-Church, Bindind and loosing, accordingly, refer to the task of expressing authoritatively those terms of salvation and damnation which would permit men to enter the Kingdom, or else be forever excluded therefrom.

THE AGENT UPON WHOM THE RESPONSIBILITY IS CONFERRED

I will give unto thee means to Peter, No reading of the text can ignore the singular: I will give to you (singular: dso soi) . . . whatever you bind (h en dses). The promise of the keys is not made to the Apostles, either by name or taken as a group per se.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Since it is assumed that there is a degree of officialness in this granting power to Peter, it must also be remembered that the nature of the office must be judged by its historical exemplification in the life of the man to whom it was intrusted. But the nature of Peters office, as this is recorded in Acts, mirrors that of a major prophet whereby God made His will known through this authorized, qualified spokesman, Then, having revealed Gods message, he had to submit to it personally and urge others to communicate it. Since God raised up none to occupy his specific function to reveal new truth or determine Christian orthodoxy and conduct, then the only office left is that which now faithfully communicates the faith once for all delivered to the saints, i.e. those who share the message in evangelizing and teaching.

Before rejecting the authority conferred upon Peter as referring to judicial, administrative and legislative powers, since it appears to make Peter rule the Church and establish the laws of pardon (cf. Foster, Middle Period, 237), it must be remembered that Christ never consigns responsibility to men without also providing the power necessary for its proper completion. So, if we admit that Christ knew that Peter would faithfully deliver the decrees of heaven as these were revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is the real administrator and legislator operating through Peter. Why fear such power when it is the Lord who not only decides to give it, who also decides to whom to promise it, but who also will govern its expression when He does confer it? Merely because we fear abuse of power, thanks to the myriads of illustrations available in Church history alone, does this justify our hesitation to let Jesus confer it upon Peter, especially if the Lord Himself is going to be the One pulling the strings? Key-bearing authority is no different from normal prophetic authority, as fearful as that responsibility is! Has it suddenly become impossible to trust the Spirit of Jesus to be able to control the exercise of key-bearing authority wielded by the fisherman-Apostle? Even in the later history of Peter, when he once got out of line in his personal practice, the Holy Spirit at work in Paul was present to correct his temporary aberration. (Galatians 2) Modern fear to concede the keys of the kingdom to Peter is an over-reaction to Roman Catholic argument which misuses Peter. But since the Lord established no such hierarchy or series of successors as the Roman clergy demands, why prohibit the Lord Himself from recognizing the rock-like quality of His Apostle and conferring upon him this honor? And then judge Peters ministry in retrospect: did he abuse what Christ here conferred upon him? Did he act the part of a pope? History has forever absolved him of that accusation! Had the Roman Church never abused this passage to exalt Peter to supreme authority over all other Christians, applying this text to what it was never intended to touch, no other meaning would have been sought for it. The fact that Jesus established Peter as a specially honored instrument for the first proclamation of the Gospel to the world, did not hinder Him from commissioning Paul. Perhaps we would worry less about the uniqueness of Peters commission, if we remembered Pauls. (Study Act. 9:15 f; Act. 14:27; Act. 22:13 ff; Act. 26:15-18)

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Regardless of whether the tenses involved here be considered a future perfect passive (What you bind on earth SHALL HAVE (already) BEEN BOUND in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth SHALL HAVE (already) BEEN LOOSED in heaven), or as a simple periphrastic future passive (as rendered in the common text), it is implied that Peter is to have such a very close relationship with God that he would know what God required or permitted. The resultant pronouncements of Peter will be precisely what God intends that he say. This is no esoteric, mysterious promise completely unconnected with everything that lies right on the surface of Jesus ministry and of the history of the early Church. In fact, during Jesus ministry, Peter had already been receiving precise and clear revelations of Gods will openly expressed in all that Jesus said. (Joh. 17:14) In fact, it was on the basis of these revelations that Peter made his confession (Mat. 16:17). Later, Jesus would promise His Spirit to empower the disciples to remember His entire message and to make revelations of future events (Joh. 14:26; Joh. 16:13), so that they could preach and set down in print for all future ages precisely that Gospel and doctrine that God bound or loosed in heaven.

So, if the power of the keys, understood as the right to teach authoritatively the truths of the Kingdom of God, be no less than the inspiration of the Spirit who would cause Peter to reveal precisely what God willed, then we would expect other passages to confirm this. Instead of confirming only Peter, other disciples are included in the same general work and empowered by the same supernatural provision. Peters unique opportunity or privilege is left intact, but others are added.

The authority to bind and loose is further modified by its being conferred also upon the Church. Although Mat. 18:18 is correctly analyzed as spoken directly to the Apostles personally present, conceptually, however, the emphasis is upon Christian cooperation within the congregation to settle difficult problems between believers and to correct sinners. Moreover, the major subject of the chapter is personal, not official, relation among the Apostles. Still, it is the assembly (ekklesa) which binds and looses.

Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 77) argues the illegitimacy of reference to Mat. 18:18 if used to weaken the fact that the keys were conferred upon Peter, since, contextually, the two texts (i.e. Mat. 16:18 and Mat. 18:18) refer to different situations. The former, rightly noticed by Salvoni, refers to Peters unique mission to open the Kingdom of Heaven to men by indicating to them what was necessary to enter it. The latter refers, rather, to church discipline by teaching how to act in the case of a sinner within the group (ekklesa). He also argues correctly that the binding and loosing have different functions in the two texts: in Mat. 16:18 Peter is to indicate what is obligatory or not for the believers, whereas in Mat. 18:18 the text deals with sins of the individual sinner to bind upon, or loose from him. While these distinctions are essentially correct, Salvoni fails to see that both texts represent one total function, that of teacher and the decision about what is to be thought and done about a given problem, be it entrance into the Kingdom or that of an unrepentant sinner. To the Church is confirmed this authoritative function.

See comment on Joh. 20:21. (Objections to the papal position, at Mat. 16:18, II, A, 2) Other disciples were present to hear the precious promise: Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (Cf. Luk. 24:33-49) From this it appears that, whereas Peter, because of his forthright confession, was privileged to be Gods first spokesman to reveal Gods great truth about salvation in Jesus Christ, others too were to participate in this general work.

Pauls treatment of prophetic gifts assumes that others than Peter or the Apostles were so gifted as to assume an authoritative teaching role in the Church. (1Co. 14:3 f, 1Co. 14:24 f; Eph. 2:20; Eph. 4:7; Eph. 4:11)

Neither Peter nor the other Apostles were called to be innovative theologians, creatively inventing new theologies to which God must set His stamp of approval. Rather, they are called to be witnesses of what God had revealed through Jesus the Christ. (Cf. Joh. 15:26 f; Joh. 16:13-15 where not even the Holy Spirit was to be innovative.)

Thus, the inspiration needed to bind and loose was promised, not to Peter alone, but also to other disciples as well.

But, to this view it may be objected that Peter is left with no uniqueness worthy of Jesus declarations that here clearly single him out for special responsibilities, if not also honors. In answer let it be affirmed that this promise, like any other prophecy of future realities, must be interpreted in the light of its undoubted fulfilment. Of this prediction we have the fullest historical illustration in the book of Acts and in the Epistles. This prophecy was fulfilled exclusively and completely when Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, carried out his unique function by being the first to express those terms whereby both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10) would be forever admitted or eternally excluded from Gods Kingdom. In so doing, he announced Gods Word on earth. Because of its normative character and finality, there is no further need for new Peters to arise to use these or other keys. The Kingdom, once opened to mankind by Peters proclamation or forever left inaccessible to those that reject his message, needs no further opening or closing. This is why we must dissent from Plummer (Matthew, 231) who decides that we may not assume that what Peter decides for the visible Church is binding on the Church invisible; or that what he decides for the visible Church of his day holds good for ever, however much the conditions may change . . . No, it is because of Peters inspiration that we MUST assume the definitive authority of his words, especially when he is absolutely the first Christian Apostle to enunciate the perfect universality of Christianity, the first Apostle to announce Christs Lordship, the first Apostle to tell both Jews and Gentiles how to be saved on Gods terms. Why NOT listen to Peter? What possible change of conditions could justify ignoring Peter today? It is Peter who, after describing Christian maturity, assures us: Be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall. So there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2Pe. 1:5-12)

Since binding and loosing appear in a context concerning the use of the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, then, as Salvoni (Da Pietro al papato, 73ff) has it, these expressions . . .

. . . must refer to something that is necessary or is not necessary for someone who desires to enter it. In the book of Acts which serves as a commentary on Christs prophecy, it turns out that it is Peter himself who once and for all rendered baptism obligatory for entrance into the Church (bound), while he dispensed with the obligation of circumcision (loosed).

Peters great mission during the early days of the Church, even before Pauls great contribution, was to establish the Church on a solid, international basis by liberating Christianity from the Jewish religion. (Act. 15:7 ff) By establishing the Christian plan of salvation (binding) and never once requiring any Jewish rite (loosing), he carried out his mission prophesied here. Although Peter definitely occupied a leading position in the life of the early Church during the period of its almost exclusively Jewish character, he was instrumental in giving divine sanction to the evangelization of the Gentiles. Thus, he actually laid the groundwork for acceptance of Pauls brilliant ministry to the Gentiles. Although Pauls apostleship was truly independent of Peters authority, his specific mission was prepared for by Peter. Salvoni (ibid.) notes:

In place of the doctors of the law (scribes) who with their doctrine hindered others from accepting Jesus as Son of God and from thus entering into the Kingdom of heaven, Jesus places the confessing Peter, so that, with his faith just demonstrated, he might open the Kingdom of heaven to anyone desiring to enter it. Not the Scribes, but the Apostles (here represented by Peter) will be the new heralds of the Word of God, the new prophets of Christianity.

The key-holding responsibility of Peter does not at all militate against his being considered symbolic of the foundation of the Church, as suggested in Mat. 16:18. Rather, to whom ELSE should Jesus more appropriately consign such an important responsibility as that of bearer of the keys, than to the first tested believer in whom the experience of Jesus as the Anointed Son of God is a real conviction? No amount of fear of falling into the Roman Catholic error can justify denying to Peter what Jesus really gives to him and recognizes in him! In fact, it is notorious how far the Roman Catholic Church, while formally glorifying Peter, so effectually ignores Peters teaching, in favor of her own dogmas! This is why the modern Christian must not balk at owning Peter as the retainer of the keys. Rather, we must be more truly Petrine than any Catholic ever thought about! We must accept the terms he revealed for entrance into (or exclusion from) Gods Kingdom, or miss it entirely! (Act. 2:36-40; Act. 3:26; Act. 4:12; Act. 5:29-32; Act. 10:42-48; Act. 11:17 f, etc.)

Should it be argued that any view that sees Peter as intended to be symbolic of the rock foundation of the Church, even as symbolic of every believer, proves too much, because, if that interpretation were carried forward into this verse (19), then, to every truly Petrine believer is consigned the keys and the authority of binding and loosing. To this it may be answered:

Sure, why not? After all, every believer in whom the conviction is real that made Peter the rock he was, really does use only the Petrine keys to open or close the Kingdom to anyone he contacts with the Gospel. And, since the Petrine keys are really those of the Holy Spirit (Mat. 10:20; Joh. 20:21-23; Luk. 24:46-49; Act. 2:1-4; Act. 2:14; Act. 4:8; Act. 5:3-4; Act. 5:9; Act. 10:19), all of the Spirit-filled Christians of the first century joyfully proclaimed the Gospel which the Spirit inspired Peter, first of all, to proclaim to the Jews on Pentecost and to the Gentiles later. Only those Christians who faithfully adhere to and faithfully proclaim THIS Gospel may consider themselves to be such. In any case, we are key-holders only in a secondary sense. (Cf. Act. 4:31)

On the other hand, NO Christian, other than Peter, received that unique, first privilege of proclaiming the terms of pardon to representatives of the entire world. He had been first to confess Jesus on the basis of a matured conviction and when specifically tested. Why should he not also be the first to proclaim Jesus? In this view, the only proper primacy left to Peter is not ecclesiastical primacy, but merely chronological.

HOW IS THIS AUTHORITY EXPRESSED?

Carver (ISBE, article Power of the Keys, 1794f) well outlines the hierarchical mentality and structural concern apparently innate in human beings, that is apparent in Church historys various answers to this important question:

The power of the keys was conferred to Peter alone.

The power committed to Peter was also conferred upon the other apostles, including Paul, discharged by them, and descended to no others.

The power was conferred on Peter officially and on his official successors.

The power was conferred on Peter officially and the other apostles officially, and to such as hold their place in the church.

The power belongs to Peter as representative of the church, and so to the church also is committed the same power, to be exercized in the following manner:

By the officials of the church alone.

By the officials of the church and those to whom they commit it.

By all priests and persons allowed to represent the church de facto.

By the church in its councils, or other formal and official decisions.

By the church in a less formal way than through formal, conciliar decisions.

By all members of the church as representing it without specific commission.

The power belongs to the Christian as such, and so the power is imposed upon, or offered to, all Christians.

This penchant for structuring a chain of command is neither sinful nor merely human, because God has also organized the heavenly order (Col. 1:16; Revelation 4, 5; 1Pe. 3:22; cf. Psa. 89:5-7) and structured human authority for mans benefit. (Rom. 13:1-7; Psalms 8) However, like most human mistakes, it is possible for man to take a good thing to an extreme, and want to establish precise limits where God established very few. We feel that we must be certain beyond the limits of reasonable certainty. For man, it is not sufficient that Christ should be Head over His Church, ruling it by His Word (1) authentically revealed once for all by a few authorized spokesmen, i.e. Apostles and Prophets, and (2) faithfully taught by a multitude of evangelists and pastoring teachers, and (3) obediently observed by everyone until Christ comes. Nor is a simple, congregational government judged by some to be adequate with its local rulers, the superintendents (bishops = elders = pastors). Man must have an iron-clad chain of command, with authorized officials and specific commissions to speak only after conference in formal councils, that decide either on matters that God said nothing about, or is thought to be unclear in what He did teach. Nothing is to be left up to chance, if man must be mathematically certain that he is right. For these reasons, the above-listed plethora of possible applications of this our text is quite seriously offered by serious, sincere students of church polity! Unfortunately, most of these expressions sadly miss the primary emphasis of Jesus which is light-years distance from establishing an official hierarchy so foreign to His fundamental approach to government. His emphasis is not upon uniqueness of power and privilege, but upon usefulness of duty and responsibility; not upon office, but upon function. It just does not seem to occur to us that power and privilege and office are of absolutely no use to the Lord, where the usefulness of duty, responsibility and function are absent. And for those theorists who hold that one can have both in equal measure and in equilibrium, let it be answered that nowhere in sacred Scripture is it recorded that Jesus conferred the papacy or its equivalent upon anyone. If there are no predecessors, there can be no successors! Besides, Jesus knows that He can expect usefulness, responsibility and function without instituting power structures and privileged offices to get them.

How is this authority expressed? Once Peters function had been completed, the Kingdom was open to all men. Other Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers lead men into the Kingdom by the gate opened by Peter. All of them together, Peter included, then busy themselves in the maturing the Christians and the committing the Word, now revealed, to faithful men who shall be capable of teaching others also. (2Ti. 2:2; Rom. 15:14)

If Peter is really symbolic of every Christian, then the exercise of this power belongs to the Christians as such. The Christian must be all that Peter was in the moment of his confession, the kind of rock of which all living stones built into the temple of God must be before God inserts them into His construction. Thus, the words addressed exclusively to Peter are to be thought of as addressed to him in his symbolic character as the first typical Christian. So, Peter has no special prerogative to hold the keys other than the chronological priority to use them. Carver (ISBE, 1794f) concludes that

The words were spoken to him only as the first who gave expression to that conception and experience on the basis of which Jesus commits the keys of the kingdom to any believer in him as the Christ of God. . . . The holder of the keys is any man with that experience that called forth from Jesus the assurance that Peter should have the keys. Such a man will be in fellowship and cooperation with like men, in a church, and the Spirit of Jesus will be present in them, so that their decisions and their testimony will be His as well as theirs. There is a corporate, or church, agency, therefore, and the man who would ignore that lacks the experience or the Spirit needful for the use of the keys. Yet the church is never to overshadow or exclude the individual responsibility and authority.

In the early Church are revealing examples of the non-official, but true, communication of the divine truth on the part of common Christians who, despite their unofficial position and perhaps also lack of miraculous credentials or special mandates, went everywhere preaching the word (Act. 8:4), starting churches wherever they went, opening the kingdom of God even to other races. (Act. 11:19-26) They accepted the priesthood of all believers (1Pe. 2:4-5; 1Pe. 2:9; Heb. 13:15 f; Rev. 1:5 b, 6), utilizing their individual gifts for the common good. (Eph. 4:7; 1Pe. 4:10-11; 1Co. 12:6-7; Rom. 12:3-8)

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OR RANGE OF THIS POWER?

This power confers no political authority over the kingdoms of the world. It is no mistaken antithesis that notices that Jesus said, not keys of the kingdom of the world, but keys of the kingdom of heaven. The reign of God is not of this world, (Joh. 18:36), although very much IN the world.

The power of the keys and binding and loosing is spiritual power to be used for making men godly. It is therefore a redemptive, sanctifying influence. No corruption of this influence, either by its abuse or omission, can lay claim to Christs support. Because it is also a liberating influence, all unauthorized binding of human opinions, conclusions and traditions upon the disciples is unjustified. Therefore, when any disciple, without divine authorization confirmed by prophetic credentials, attempts to invoke the power of the keys by binding their conclusions upon others, he has usurped the Lords authority and must be rebuked.

It follows that the power of the keys and binding and loosing, understood in the sense of teaching what God has revealed, is essential to liberate the Kingdom from evil men who try to take possession of it for their own purposes. Spiritual men must be equipped to exclude these usurpers.

The power of the keys and binding and loosing necessarily involves the teaching of the condition of entrance into the Kingdom and proper conduct in it. But this cannot mean the authoritative invention of necessary applications of divine principles where God has not revealed these. It must mean merely the appropriate and thorough proclamation of the revelations given once and for all by the Apostles and Prophets. The divine commission of the Church is always to teach them to observe (1) all that (2) I have (3) commanded (4) you. (Mat. 28:20)

6. Secrecy Required (16:20)

Mat. 16:20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. The reason for this extraordinary strict order (cf. Luk. 9:21) is woven into the fabric of the context in which it was given:

It was given at a time when the word Christ or Messiah would provide the spark to ignite the powder-keg, exploding in a bloody national uprising that would attempt to throw off Roman supremacy, end Roman occupation of Palestine, restore Jewish independence, attempt world dominion under a Jewish Messianic King, and bring in an era of unprecedented prosperity for Israel. This was the religio-political platform of the Galilean party of Zealots ready to revolt instantly, were they to discover a convincingly viable Messiah. All the genuine, spiritual aims of Jesus Kingdom would be totally ignored in the ensuing confusion. Six months earlier, tumultuous disciples had reacted to Jesus miraculous feeding of the multitude by exclaiming, This is indeed the Prophet to come into the world! and He barely staved off their ambition to take Him by force to make Him their kind of king. (Joh. 6:14-15) Another perhaps more impelling reason for this prohibition is that those very disciples themselves as yet so badly understood what they themselves had confessed in calling Him the Christ of God. Just how badly they misunderstood is vividly portrayed in the successive conversation. (Mat. 16:21 ff) Very likely they still considered their confession to be perfectly compatible with bloody revolution, national glory, hierarchical attainment and material prosperity. Without direct inspiration to override their own prejudices,which, because of this prohibition, we may assume He would not provide,what could they say publicly to explain what it meant to believe Him to be the Christ? Total silence on this subject is the only solution.

Further, what could be sufficient to correct the mistaken impressions that would be left in peoples minds by (presumably) off-key preaching by the as yet uninspired Apostles? Once a sack of feathers has been emptied into the wind, regathering them would be impossible. Jesus, therefore, is saving Himself and the Twelve the work of having to undo what wrong-headed zeal and bad timing would have caused.

Plummer (Matthew , 24) rightly sees that the popular, however misdirected, enthusiasm of the masses ready to crown Jesus and sweep Him into power, is a real temptation to Him. Satans wilderness suggestion to avoid the cross and still enjoy world power without suffering, is by no means dead, In whatever form, by whomever proposed, the opportunity to be the kind of Christ men wanted is the same sordid seduction.

Another significant motive for silence combines the previous ones. If the as yet imperfectly understood confession of His Messiahship were caught up as a revolutionary motto, it is conceivable that, were Jesus to be cast in the role of a political revolutionary, even the cross could become a sociological impossibility. Why should a national hero be executed by the Jews? But, since He never intended to be this kind of Christ, if events should precipitate to such a level, He would then have to change His course radically. And, since His sacrificial death to complete the expiation of our sins lay at the center of His mission. He must ruthlessly eliminate anything that would threaten to block this determination. (Cf. on Mat. 16:22 f; Mat. 17:9; Mar. 9:30 f)

The Triumphal Entry enthusiasm is no objection here, because at that point there was no time left for the development of revolutionary fervor before His crucifixion. In fact, the hot-bloods from Galilee, present at Jerusalem during the national feast, were only a portion of the total assemblage. Also, Jesus Apostles held their silence, not proclaiming Him openly as the Christ. Jesus Himself, too, did everything possible to make Himself available to His enemies to permit them to carry out their determination to destroy Him.

Only the resurrection and glorification of Christ could place the true nature of His Christhood in its proper perspective. What a commentary of men and events: God has taken 1500 years to teach Israel what He meant by this word Christ and yet the Jews had practically totally misunderstood the word! But before we proudly condemn, we must ask what He is trying to instruct us concerning the words Church, Kingdom, cross-bearing, and self-denial and many other concepts!

B. THE WAY OF THE CROSS (16:2128)

1. The Revelation of Jesus Approaching Death and Victory (16:21)

Mat. 16:21 This is no less a test of the Apostles commitment to Jesus than was the question asked earlier, for this declaration is but the trial by fire through which their commitment to Him must pass. It is one thing to confess sincerely that Jesus is the Christ, Savior and Lord. It is quite another thing to accept everything He says though it collides with our own understanding. The Apostles had brilliantly passed the first test. Would they do as well when their confession (as they understood it) was clearly contradicted by Him who was the object of their trust?

The crucifixion part of Christianity is unique, because, in His self-revelation, Jesus had the unique choice to reveal Himself first as the glorious Messiah of God, or first as the suffering, crucified Messiah. If He revealed the former first, His disciples would not be prepared for His death, but if He revealed Himself as born to die, they would not believe in His glory because of their inherited prejudices. His reserve regarding His sufferings had been maintained out of regard for their weakness. He waited, therefore, until Peters confession confirmed their relative readiness for this news. A critical reason for Jesus beginning now with a frank elaboration of His destiny to suffer is the three-way tension between the escalation of the oppositions plotting against His life, the disciples natural nervousness about it, and Jesus determination not to defend Himself. Foster (Middle Period, 240) sees that

To keep the apostles in ignorance of the fact that He did not intend to defend Himself would place the apostles at a great disadvantage. It would be harder to control them and to keep them from meeting violence with violence.

From that time began Jesus to show his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things. . . . There had been ominous, distant thunder warnings before, that hinted of the approaching storm that would finally burst on Calvary. (Cf. Luk. 2:34 f; Joh. 1:29 the Lamb of God to be slain? Mat. 2:19-22; Mat. 3:14; Mat. 9:15; Mat. 12:40; Joh. 6:51-57) Now, however, all allusion has been dropped, and the horrifying facts are bared in all their shocking realism: He began to show (deiknein = to show, indicate, make known, reveal, explain) He said this plainly. (Mar. 8:32) Until this crucial moment Jesus had been steadily building the disciples faith in Him, gradually divulging His heavenly mission so that they could sustain the shock which the cross must inevitably produce on their emotions. Now, however, they must learn the unexpected, unwelcome, even incomprehensible lesson that the concept of His death did not contradict the reality of His divinity and Lordship. Jesus began and He kept up the lessons (Mat. 17:22 f and parallels; Mat. 20:17-19 and par.; Luk. 17:25), because they must learn to live with the Divine Will, however temporarily uncomfortable it might be. Bruce (Training, 169) underlines the somber significance of going to Jerusalem:

Yes! there the tragedy must be enacted: that was the fitting scene for the stupendous events that were about to take place. It was dramatically proper that the Son of Man die in that holy, unholy city, which had earned a most unenviable notoriety as the murderess of the prophets, the stoner of them whom God sent unto her. It cannot beit were incongruousthat a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. (Luk. 13:33) It was due also to the dignity of Jesus, and to the design of His death, that He should suffer there. Not in an obscure corner or in an obscure way must He die, but in the most public place, and in a formal, judicial manner. He must be lifted up in view of the whole Jewish nation, so that all might see Him whom they had pierced, and by whose stripes also they might yet be healed. The Lamb of God must be slain in the place where all the legal sacrifices were offered.

He must go and suffer (de apelthen ka poll pathen) This prediction is not simply the astute recognition of an unavoidable disaster, but the announcement of a personal purpose in harmony with the decree of God (de pathen). This is best felt by comparing Mat. 16:21 with Joh. 3:14 f; Luk. 2:49; Luk. 4:43; Luk. 9:22; Luk. 13:33; Luk. 17:25; ?Luk. 19:5; Luk. 22:37; Luk. 24:7; Luk. 24:26; Luk. 24:44; Mat. 26:54; Act. 3:21; Act. 17:3; 1Co. 15:25. His predicted suffering and death is entirely voluntary, for who, in his right mind and intending to live out his normal life, would deliberately walk into a trap set for him, out of which he knew there could be no exit except through the tomb? Foster (Middle Period, 240f) justly concludes that

Jesus was seeking to cause His disciples to recognize the divine compulsion and plan behind His perplexing refusal to defend Himself and behind His approaching death. The enemies of Christ could not destroy Him. They would not be able to bring about His death unless it was Gods will that He go into their midst and suffer torture and death at their hands.

Although Jesus does not even name the cross directly here, it was clearly in His mind. In fact, His discourse which immediately follows shows how vividly the cross stood out in His thinking. Even if He must mention the reality of His death without indicating the method by which it would be accomplished, He has already given the disciples more in this first announcement than they can tolerate.

Jesus began to show his disciples that His enemies were already plotting the very course He now details for His men. (Cf. Joh. 5:18; Mat. 12:14 and par.) Whereas their plotting was yet somewhat nebulous in contrast with their final success in Jerusalem, Jesus precision marks Him as a Prophet of the first order. In fact, whereas any astute political observer could predict that, given the collision course on which Jesus was heading, the Jewish clergy would very probably do Him in, no one but God could foresee Jesus victory over them by His triumph over death.

Elders, chief priests and scribes: whether or not this expression is the normal technical designation for the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, it practically includes its every member: the men of reputation, representative constituents from various cities of Israel, the priestly caste and the theologians. There is no cushioning of the shock in the discovery that the most famous, most influential, most highly respected men in Israel would unite to inflict this suffering on their Master! Now it becomes even clearer why He had ordered His men to let them alone (Mat. 15:14). He had no intention to save face before that religious establishment, because it stood at cross purposes with Gods plans. Elders: the Hebrew Flusser (Jesus, 159) is plainly mistaken to plead that the Jewish Sanhedrin was not responsible for Jesus condemnation, since, according to his own apologetic purpose to exculpate the best men of Judaism, these elders must be only the elders of the Temple, hence, merely Sadducees. Matthew, however, (Mat. 26:3; Mat. 26:47) terms them elders of the people, not merely of the Temple. The whole Sanhedrin would be involved. (Mat. 26:59; Mar. 14:55; Mar. 15:1 hlon t sundrion; Luk. 22:66 the assembly of the elders of the people t presbutrion to lao) While it is unnecessary to perpetuate and unchristian to perpetrate further hatred of Jewish people, it is also unjust to exonerate those actually responsible for this judicial murder. To accomplish this latter, Flusser must discount the historical references to the fulfilment of Jesus prediction. To what state had so glorious a nation fallen when her wisest, holiest, most learned men should become the prime movers and responsible agents in the contemptuous execution of the One Hebrew whom God had chosen, qualified and sent to bless her in turning everyone away from his sins! (Act. 3:26)

He must be raised up the third day. What sort of King is He who so confidently promises His own resurrection shortly after His yet future death? Although Jesus students missed this victory note. Matthews readers have the unexcelled advantage of being able to ponder this question, and they must decide about it. The third day (= after three days, Mar. 8:31) This expression, coming shortly after the repeated sign of Jonah (Mat. 16:4) and reminiscent of the more elaborate expression of that sign (Mat. 12:39), is but its literal interpretation given by the Lord Himself. If Jesus intends to arise literally on the third day, then the figurative language of the earlier prediction which had seemed so precise, must be interpreted in light of His explanation. (See notes on Mat. 12:40.) If Jesus must remain in the tomb literally three days and three nights (=72 hours), then His resurrection would occur on the fourth day, a hypothesis nowhere affirmed in Scripture. He said: on the third day, not on the fourth day.

This prophecy is a perfect illustration of divine foreknowledge. In fact, every single person who was to play a role in this drama did so with full liberty and responsibility, yet their moves were foreseen in surprisingly accurate detail.

2. Peter rebukes Jesus (16:22)

Mat. 16:22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee. Peters words are stated here in about as good an English paraphrase as is possible for hiles soi, krie, literally: (God) be merciful to you, Lord. This scene is so true to life, so human, so much like all of us! We are repelled by death, especially that of our closest friend. So Peter, too, could not understand how our glorious Lord must also crumble in the dust of death. The Twelve could admit that the common lot of mortals might include martyrdom, even on crosses. But the difficulty of the twelve was probably not that the servant should be no better than the Master, but that the Master should be no better than the servant! (Bruce, Training, 176) Peter took him aside (prosla-bmenos, Mar. 8:32), evidently intending to make the rebuke relatively private. But his shock reflected that of the others. (Mar. 8:33, But turning and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, as if they too stood stunned by His incredible prophecy, agreed with Peter and so needed to hear the correction administered to Peter.) They must have reasoned: Our Master no better than a common criminal? Unthinkable! But what of the Kingdom, if Jesus should die? What will happen to us, His closest followers? Of what sort of kingdom is He, then, a king, if He must die to establish it? These burning questions form the backdrop of Jesus answers and teaching that follows. (vv. 2328)

The stunned Apostle probably hoped to head off that kind of talk as soon as possible, because Jesus message came through with a clarity far too painful. (Mar. 8:32) It must have seemed to Peter that such negative talk would defeat the Messianic cause he had just confessed, and render impossible the realization of the Church to be established. But his psychological reaction is astonishingly similar to that of Nicodemus (Joh. 3:1 ff). That Pharisee, after having honestly admitted that Jesus was a teacher come from God, since no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him, turned immediately to arguing with the Lord whether the new birth from above could be a real possibility or not!

The abruptness of Peters reaction indicates that this is the first time that any of the Twelve had really understood anything about Jesus destined suffering. Allusions had preceded this, which the disciples had apparently cast into the limbo of incomprehension or had interpreted in some figurative sense, e.g. Jesus influence would suffer some sort of temporary eclipse only to shine forth in far more glorious strength thereafter. Now, however, His words are impossible to take in any way but literally.

Because they focused only upon the concept of the suffering Messiah, the men missed the promised hope of His resurrection. And despite the stern correction Jesus handed them on this occasion, a correction they could understand intellectually, they could still not bring themselves emotionally to accept its trutheven after the resurrection had occurred and its reality witnessed to them. (Mat. 28:17; Luk. 24:8-11; Luk. 24:41; Mar. 16:11; Mar. 16:13 f; Joh. 20:9) Obviously, they had stopped listening as He told of the compelling necessity of His death. Emotionally, they may have never even heard the rest. Death was such a shock that resurrection lost all its glory for them. Yet, His prediction of a resurrection was not futile, even though it probably did not fully register in their mind, since, like the sign of Jonah given to the Pharisees (Mat. 12:39; Mat. 16:4), when the resurrection actually occurred, it became the means of strengthening their faith as they recognized, however tardy, that Jesus had actually described it many times before it took place. (Cf. Joh. 2:22)

Another psychologically true note is sounded by Peters officiousness: could anyone really suppose that the true Son of God, Gods Anointed, could do or say something that deserved rebuke? Could anyone who is really thinking admit that such a Leader needs leading? But Peters impulsive, well-meant reproof arises in a mind that is perfectly normal in its not being able to see the real, moral contrariety between the rebuke and the confession. His own prejudice blocked out his ability to sense this contradiction. Because these disciples had no conception of the necessity of the Messiahs suffering, the more firmly they trusted Him to be the Messiah, the more confused they became when told He must be executed. Rather than trust His promise of resurrection, they could only hope that His extremely negative view of the situation would prove baseless. And so they sin by supposing themselves to have a clearer conception of Jesus duty than He Himself does! They have no intention to tempt Him to prefer safety to righteousness, duty and truth; they merely suppose that He wrongly understands what they have decided must be true. Herein is written the danger of supposing that our love for the cause of Christ may permit our well-meaning concern to overstep the limits that our discipleship imposes upon us, and to tell our Lord what He can say or do. In this frame of mind, Peter is the forerunner of all Christians who assume that they know anything better than Jesus and may safely presume to tell Him so. All of Peters sincere love for Jesus and his devotion to His cause, all his joy flowing out of his past confession, all his happiness born of Jesus commendation, are insufficient to justify this bold protest against the program of God revealed by His Son! Every believer must be open to correct his own understanding and be able to grow past the limitedness of his beginning conceptions, however rightly stated may have been the terminology in which it was originally expressed.

3. Jesus rebukes Peter (16:23)

Mat. 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. What a crushing blow this must have been to the fisherman-Apostle who probably expected to be commended for his love and concerned loyalty, even as he had earlier been recognized for his faith and grasp of his Masters revelation! And yet, too much was riding with the outcome of this confrontation to permit Jesus to treat Peter in any other way. Jesus may not have expected the disciples instantly to fathom the absolutely essential nature of His death, but He did not intend for them to object either!

Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto me. Peter is a Satanic trap to Him in a dual sense:

Peters selfish concern for the supremacy of his views as to what the Kingdom of God must be and how it must be brought about is the same subjective self-interest that makes Satan the devil that he is. He had no concern to promote Gods interests; only his own.

Because this is true, Peters misdirected affection is nothing but Satans subtle attempt to sway Jesus from His divinely appointed purpose. Bruce (Training, 174) is right on the mark to link with Satans character this advice to sacrifice duty to self-interest:

That advice was substantially this: Save thyself at any rate; sacrifice . . . the cause of God to personal convenience. An advice truly Satanic in principle and tendency! For the whole aim of Satanic policy is to get self-interest recognized as the chief end of man. Satans temptations aim at nothing worse than this. Satan is called the Prince of this world, because self-interest rules the world; he is called the accuser of the brethren, because he does not believe that even the sons of God have any higher motive. He is a skeptic, and his skepticism consists in the determined, scornful unbelief in the reality of any chief end other than that of personal advantage.

Any counsel to prudence, any hope of by-passing the cross which stood at the focal center of Gods foreordained plan, is nothing short of being the subtlest whisper of Satan who is making excellent use of perfectly natural, well-meant concern for Jesus safety and earthly success, None are more formidable instruments of temptation than well-meaning friends who care more for our comfort than for our character. (Bruce)

Jesus shows His true humanity at a critical point: He IS temptable! Peter really has become a stumbling-block in Jesus path. He needed no persuasion to avoid the cross that any true human being would instinctively dread. Rather, He needed to be encouraged to endure it! This is why He responds so drastically to the temptation: He refuses to temporize with sin. In so doing, He sternly exemplifies His own doctrine. (Mat. 5:29-30)

Thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. Disciples of all epochs must learn once and for all that no man may confess Jesus to be Messiah and Son of God and still permit himself the luxury of disagreeing with whatever in His message does not suit his taste, views or hopes. This very disagreement with the Lord of all earth and heaven is nothing less than minding the things of men at the expense of the will, purposes, plans and methods of God.

Whereas it was God who had revealed to Peter the great confession, it is this-worldly self-preservation that prompted his present protest. God planned the death of Christ for mans sins, but the popular concepts dreamed of a political, earthly Messiah ruling in kingly splendor. God intended a reign voluntarily embraced in humble, submissive faith, but men clamored for a triumphalistic, fascistic domination that forced compliance to the architects brand of king and ruthlessly crushed all opposition. God desired to offer men mercy through the voluntary self-sacrifice of His Son; mens scheme had no place in it for mercy; only self-glorying, self-justifying, self-satisfied self-righteousness. And even if the Apostles who had already given up much for Jesus did not now intend to be selfish, they nevertheless suffered from the short-sightedness of their small view. They were grossly hampered because they preferred their human point of observation as final, rather than Gods. Jesus, on the other hand, could see the victory of Gods counsels, as well as the self-defeating, self-destructive end of theirs.

4. The Sermon on the Cost of Our Salvation (16:2428)

Mat. 16:24 Then Jesus said unto his disciples, but before launching this ultimatum, He called to him the multitude with his disciples to hear it. (Cf. Mar. 8:34; Luk. 9:23) The presence of the crowd argues that His desire for privacy was only partially realized during the trip north. The Evangelists silence about the motive for the presence of the crowd does not permit us to determine whether Jesus was actively engaged in any public ministry, although this is doubtful, because of the nearness of the final crisis and the deep need of the disciples for further training. The crowds, however, had probably heard of His fame (cf. Mat. 4:23-25) and here too He could not be hid. (cf. Mar. 7:24) However little or much they knew of Him, they too must hear this hard-hitting, down-to-earth challenge. In short, He was promising blood, sweat and tears for every one of His servants. No cost would be too great, no sacrifice too dear for His sake. Only realistic individuals who have taken a long, hard look at discipleship need apply for membership in Gods Kingdom! The loyalty and devotion that He had required of His Apostles during their first evangelistic tour (Mat. 10:38 f) is also required of everyone without exception. (Mar. 8:34; Luk. 14:27; Luk. 17:33) The extreme demands Jesus makes here are not for the heroic few who would live exceptional lives somehow untrammelled with the harrying problems of normal existence, or for spiritual giants capable of reaching this hallowed ground. They are for housewives, businessmen, coal miners, truck drivers, lawyers, sailors, students and pensioners, living and working in the commonest daily experiences. This is not the rare spiritual discipline for so-called religious orders of super-Christians, but the only means of saving ANYONE!

If any man would come after me (E tis thlei . . .) The service of Christ is to be freely accepted as an autonomous choice of the will and because we want to. (thlei) There is no external constraint, just the impelling power of a new affection. It is easy to submit to the subtle pressure of family, friends, the congregation or the preacher. But one cannot become a Christian unless he wants to more than anything else. Not even God compromises our liberty to refuse. (See notes on Mat. 13:9.) But this does not mean that willingness to deny self and bear a cross are matters of indifference, because the terms of discipleship He lays down next, by their very nature, are absolutely indispensable, not only to a right understanding of salvation, but to our participation in it. We cannot be disciples of Jesus on any other terms!

Let him deny himself. (See Special Study: The Cost of Our Salvation after Mat. 16:28.) Here all that is Satanic in each disciple meets its Waterloo. Self-interest, self-promotion, self-preservation and self-complacency must forever die, (See notes on Mat. 5:5, Vol. I, p. 213.) This death to self is only possible where men have a clear understanding of absolute righteousness and recognize their failure to meet that exacting standard. (See notes on Mat. 5:48.) How can anyone seriously present himself before a gloriously holy and righteous God, garbed in filthy rags, all the while pretending that such finery could satisfy the most scrupulous examination? (Cf. Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9-20; Rom. 6:4-11; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:22-24; Php. 1:21; Php. 2:1-8; Php. 3:7-12; Col. 3:5-17; 2Co. 5:14-19)

Take up his cross. Jesus Galilean listeners well know what cross-bearing meant. In fact, Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, 10, 10; Wars, II, 5, 2) reports the crucifixion of 2000 insurgents by Varus shortly after the birth of Christ. They knew that His words could only mean the voluntary bearing up under any avoidable suffering, even martyrdom, that would come in the line of duty for anyone committed to Jesus. As he signs his own recruiting papers, each disciple must recognize that he is, at the same time, subscribing to his own death warrant. It is his cross he must bear for sake of Jesus. There is no merit or meaning in suffering for any other cause, nor for ones own wrong-doing. Rather, the fiery ordeal that tries each disciples mettle must come only because he is a Christian and for doing right, conscious of Gods will. (1Pe. 2:19-25; 1Pe. 3:13-18; 1Pe. 4:12-19)

Even though each man must take up his cross, such a cross only has meaning as it admits the rightness of Jesus having borne His. Why bear ours, if His were not part of Gods plan? Therefore, the demand that we bear our cross is an implicit demand that we accept His. To the modern Christian, fully accustomed to glorying in the cross of Christ, this sounds backwards. But to those Hebrew disciples, unconvinced that Jesus cross was an inevitable and integral element in Gods planning, this demand is far from superfluous.

Conversely, however, to claim to follow Jesus without admitting His sacrificial death and proclaiming it as Gods only plan to save humanity, is tantamount to refusal to bear ones own cross, the instrument by which we identify ourself with Him and His. But who would dare minimize His cross? ANYONE is certainly trying it who supposes that social revolution or social service without proclamation of the bloody sacrifice at the cross can still communicate the total message of Jesus or the love of God. No one who understands the social expression of a relevant Christianity could ever deny that the building of hospitals or the feeding of the worlds starving populations is a natural fruit of Christs spirit. But to substitute these for the demand that men not only acknowledge the cross of Christ as the only means of their salvation, but that they also immediately and willingly shoulder their own cross, is to deny the Lord who expects us to do both.

Bearing our cross identifies us with Jesus understanding of Gods program and plan. In effect, this means that, in our own personal experience, we identify with Him by generously giving ourselves in sacrificial service to others, however humiliating or painful this turns out to be for us. (Rom. 8:36; Rom. 12:1-2; 1Co. 15:31; Heb. 13:13-16; 1Jn. 3:14-18) Even as He lived out the implications of the cross every day of His life, even before the actual, historical crucifixion, so we too must bear our cross DAILY (Luk. 9:23). What is this challenge but His invitation to every disciple to share in His mission, His method, His experience? Jesus not only assumes upon Himself the responsibility to be the suffering Savior of men, but He also calls into existence a group of self-sacrificing disciples willing to share His work, extending it throughout the world. In this sense, this body of followers will be but the extension of His thoughts, the continuance of His own missionin short, His body. (Eph. 1:22; Eph. 4:12 ff) The real test of our belonging to the Church, then, is not merely intellectual orthodoxy, or the ability to give the correct answers, but readiness to serve and follow Jesus whatever it costs. Bales (Jesus the Ideal Teacher, 54, italics his) describes the psychological soundness of this challenge:

It will cost to be a Christian. And yet, there is the heroic in man which responds to such a challenge. For a cause which he considers worthy, man is willing to sacrifice. . . . To some the Christian life has been presented as a sissified type of thing that demands nothing and brings little. Such is a perversion of Christs teaching. Men need to understand that although the blessings of the Christian life far outweigh its costs, yet one is called to a life of service. The real tough guy is the guy who has the moral fiber to stand up and do right regardless of what others may think. Such conduct really takes strength of character, but any weakling can drift with the tide and do what the crowd does.

In this sense, then, what seems too rigorous and extreme a requirement, is real wisdom, for Jesus knows that it is the only way to produce His own character in us and actually equip us for the mission on which He sends us.

And follow me. (1Pe. 2:21 ff) Psychologically, this death to self is possible only if men make an intensely personal commitment to Jesus. People are far less ready to give themselves to an impersonal cause. Jesus knows that the psychological power to rise to the high sacrifice of self can come only as each person feels the compelling warmth of His own personal challenge. Notice His emphatically personal invitation to come after ME . . . follow ME . . . lose life for MY sake . . . ashamed of ME (Mar. 8:38), the Son of man (= I) shall be ashamed of him also . . . for the Son of man (I) is to come . . . HE will repay everyone for what he has done. (Study the implications of Joh. 12:26. Beyond the servants sharing in Jesus glory after the judgment, how does the servant share with his Lord now? Where is Jesus at work on this earth in our time? This is where we at His side must busy ourselves in thoughtful, useful service among those in our ken who have any need of our [His] service.) This challenge is but the working out of His own principle: A servant is not above his Master. (Mat. 10:24 f) We must understand that Php. 2:5-10 was not written to inform theologians about the incarnation and atonement, but to teach all of us that we too must die to self and not have our own way! (Php. 2:1-4)

This extraordinary invitation must not be misunderstood as a doctrine applicable only to a certain, critical era fortunately different from our own, or applicable only to those willing to live dangerously in prominent roles as unwelcome prophetic leaders who publicly denounce the worlds sins, or, simply, as a doctrine too demanding for ordinary people. No, the cutting edge of Jesus requirements must not be dulled, since their imperative character reflects the will of God for each of us. We must identify ourselves with them by obeying, because these very demands identify us with, and justify, His determination to cooperate with the purpose of God: The Son of man must . . . (Mat. 16:21) Thus, our identification with His cross must identify us with Gods purpose for our lives, and, as Morgan (Matthew, 219) expresses it: whether it be laughter or crying, sorrowing or sighing, the secret of life is to follow Him on the pathway of loyalty to the Divine Will.

Mat. 16:25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. Because the terms of service in Jesus discipleship are so exacting, Jesus mercifully submits three persuasive reasons to make acceptance easier, each of which argues that the disciple who obeys is actually acting in his own best interest.

Because only the loss of self in Christs service leads to true life. (Mat. 16:25)

Because he who loses himself in self-interested choices, loses everything. (Mat. 16:26)

Because Jesus will reward everyone on the basis of his own free choices. (Mat. 16:27)

The hub around which Jesus paradoxical declarations turn is every mans decision about what constitutes his life (tn psuchn auto). Implicit in His words is an understanding of life that includes both earthly, temporal life and eternal life hereafter. But, for those whose view of reality includes only the here and now, Jesus is talking absolute nonsense. This statement immediately tests everyones view of reality: whose world is real, Jesus or his own? The critical importance of this pronouncement lies in its ability to test our own view even of our own life: what is our life (psuch)? Luke (Luk. 9:25) furnishes a precious key to understand to what Jesus refers. Instead of Matthews gain the whole world but forfeits his life (Mat. 16:26 a), Luke says: gain the whole world and lose HIMSELF. Thus, Jesus is talking about mans own being, his soul, his ego, his person, which he possesses in this life and could lose or keep for eternity. (Cf. Joh. 12:25, not parallel) Paraphrased, this becomes: Whoever decides to protect all that contributes to and constitutes his personal happiness, shall lose everything. Whoever surrenders all this for my sake, shall find that he has really preserved it best! In context, Jesus will clearly illustrate this attempt to save oneself: For whosever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed when he comes . . . then he will repay every man for what he has done. (Mar. 8:38; Mat. 16:27 b) Hendriksen (Matthew, 656ff) is right to teach that the great contrast in life choices here is between love and selfishness. In fact, the person who would save his life seeks to promote his own predominantly selfish interests. He relies upon what he has made himself. He must subordinate every choice, every relationship to the preservation of whatever good he sees in himself, because this latter is of absolute value and importance to him. His first concern is for his own well-being, popularity, position and possessions. Accordingly, the person who is anxious to save his own skin, will abandon truth and righteousness and Jesus. Cowardly withdrawing from the pressure and avoiding the hatred inevitably directed toward true disciples of the Lord, he retreats to a temporarily safe position. This instinctive selfishness, however, is self-defeating and will be inevitably frustrated. Despite his gaining a few years of ease and tranquility in this way, such a person will die after all, only to face the Christ he had so miserably denied in the name of prudence. All that he had hoped to save by his caution, prudence and evasions, is forever lost. So, the prudent are damned!

Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. This is the man who loves, whose whole existence is bound up in out-going sharing with others for Christs sake. He understands how Christ loved him and, because of that love, he responds by loving Him and anyone Jesus wants him to love, whatever that costs. Love is what makes life all that it is meant to be, because self-giving love brings real usefulness to the world and personal satisfaction in successful help rendered others. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 13; 2Co. 8:1-7; 2Co. 9:6-15; Gal. 2:20) Real life is to know that one is loved, and then to love in return, and in showing this love to recognize no boundaries among men beyond which love cannot go, that is life. (Hendriksen, ibid.) Ironically, the man who risks everything involved in Jesus discipleship, and spurns the unreal safe houses, those pseudo-refuges in this life, will actually protect his own best interests best. He places everything into the hands of a trustworthy guarantor, God. And even if he should temporarily lose family, possessions, economic security or even his own physical life, he joyfully suffers the sacking of his goods, because he sees Him who is the invisible Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. (Cf. Heb. 10:32-39; Heb. 11:6; Heb. 11:25-27; Heb. 11:35 f)

Note the striking parallel: If any man would . . . and Whosoever would . . . (Mat. 16:25-26) Our discipleship and how we spend it, is left a matter of free choice. No man can shake his angry fist at God, blaming Him for his personal failure to find life. Further, the freedom to spend our life precisely as we wish (thlei), is unhampered by God. The crucial difference does not consist in whether anyone can really save his life or not, because the winners and the losers, after all, spend their whole lives, sacrificing all their powers and possibilities to arrive at what they consider their goals and for whatever they consider to be the right reasons. The crucial difference, rather, lies in the reason for which the life is spent. Only those who spend (lose) their life for Jesus sake succeed in discovering life in all its fullest, best senses. (Cf. Mat. 19:29) To have sacrificed everythingtalents, power, opportunities, influenceall for the wrong reason, self, is really to lose everything that was real life. So, the conscious quest of happiness by taking the route of self-interest is the surest way of missing the happy life.

If there must be any concern for self, it must be our concern to be useful means to accomplish His purposes for us. Beyond this, however, the disciple, now absolutely unconcerned about personal glory or comfort, and practically careless about personal consequences, sees himself as having only relative value and only comparative importance, i.e. relative to the greater perspective from which he now views everything in which God and His will are biggest values in his whole scale and control everything else. This is why only an adequate concept of grace can prevent people from demanding their rights, even to life itself, if they need to surrender them for Jesus sake. Here is where the settled conviction of ones own real damnation actually helps him. It saves him from defending the indefensible. Why would anyone attempt to save his life? Because he supposes himself to be worthy and justifiable JUST AS HE IS. But grace teaches that he cannot be justified AS HE IS, and must be forgiven FOR WHAT HE IS. (Romans 1-8; Tit. 2:11-14)

Lose his life for my sake and the sake of the gospel (Mar. 8:35) means to give up self for all that Jesus is and stands for and is trying to get done through His body, the Church. The Gospel is but the good news about Jesus, and the implications of this message, hence the entire program of Christ, the success of the Kingdom of God. (Cf. Luk. 18:29 f) So, for the worldlings, unconvinced or unsure of Jesus credentials and true identity, Jesus promise of life to those who bet everything on Him sound like a risky long shot in a game where the stakes are astronomical. So, the whole question boils down to the decision whether we really think He knows what Hes talking about, or not. If He does, there is absolutely no risk! If He does not, we are wasting time with Him anyway. How can we be sure? Because God raised Him from the dead and named Him Judge of all and set the date for our trial. (Act. 17:30 f)

Mat. 16:26 For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life? Consider Luk. 12:15-21 as commentary on this unanswered and unanswerable question. Gain the whole world, taken in the absolute sense, is the goal sought by only a few unrealistic dreamers. If they happen to be idealistic disciples of Jesus, then they probably see the Messianic Kingdom as the triumphal crushing the free choice of all those who do not willingly submit to the Messiah. But this kind of world conquest leads only to the destruction of all the moral values Jesus came to establish. On the other hand, more modest goals constitute the whole world for the more realistic. The only distinction, however, lies in ones own definition of what, for him, constitutes the world to be conquered. But these are only relative differences without a real distinction, relative differences which make no real difference to Jesus. In fact, forfeiture of ones life is a price too high for the value received. The conquest of all that anyone wishes to consider his personal world to conquer, at the expense of the forfeiture of his own life, is worthless in the final balance. Gaining the whole world, therefore, is not merely a commercial transaction bargained for by a wealthy industrialist, or the battlefield conclusion of a victorious potentate. It is the arriving at ones goals by being ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation! (Mar. 8:38 = Luk. 9:26) This also expresses itself in being unconcerned about Jesus words which would bless men by making them righteous, noble-spirited, holy people, giving them peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Spirit. Too often the highest practical goal of millions is to be happy animals oblivious to spiritual considerations. So, the proper investment of ones life is of absolute importance.

This rule applies as much to Jesus Himself as to the humblest disciple in His Kingdom. In fact, had Jesus acceded to Satans offer to concede Him all the kingdoms of the world, in exchange for His homage, what could Jesus Himself yet offer to repurchase His own freedom from Satans bondage? No, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. (Savor the whole context of Joh. 12:23-33!)

The cowardly disciple, the purpose of whose existence is to save his own neck at any price, will be bullied into denial of his disciple-ship by the powerful insistence of his own degenerate contemporaries. But because of this betrayal of all that is holy and precious to God, consistent with truth and justice, Jesus will be ashamed of him. (Mat. 10:32 f; 2Ti. 2:12)

Or, if the expression forfeit his life is synonymous with death, then, Jesus says: What profit is there, if a man should arrive at his lifes highest goals and gain all the greatest of earthly possessions, and then dies? His life has been spent. What could he possibly have of value to give in order to have his life back again?

What shall a man give in exchange for his life? Does Jesus mean this verse to contain two questions somewhat parallel, hence, synonymous, or, rather, two consecutive questions expressing a development in thought? If the latter, then in whose hands does Jesus see the man as having forfeited his life and to whom he must now give something in exchange for it to have it again?

To Satan? Having pawned his life to Satan for whatever Satan had offered to provide, in order to repurchase his own soul, what could impoverished man give in exchange for something so precious? From this standpoint, the doctrine of grace receives extra support, because the answer to this rhetorical question (What shall a man give . . .?) must be that, without help from God who mercifully interposes the sacrifice of Christ as redemption of the pawned soul, man is absolutely penniless, hence unable to give anything of his own to buy back his forfeited soul.

To God? Having spent Gods gift of life for himself, when man is called to face his Maker to commit his soul to God, what, of all the baubles collected and for which that life was misspent, what could he substitute for his life? What could have the same value as what God gave him, that he might return in exchange for his life?

This must have been an incredible concept, unimaginable by contemporary standards in Jesus day, since it implies that all the materialistic goals and worldly gains, as these were envisioned for the Messianic Kingdom in standard Jewish thought, are grossly unsatisfactory and inadequate. Is it credible that the triumphalistic, materialistic golden age as they fancied it, should finally be so self-seeking in its aims as to cause everyone who had banked everything on its realization, to forfeit his life?!

Bruce (Training, 180), on the other hand, sees Jesus meaning differently:

The two questions set forth the incomparable value of the soul on both sides of a commercial transaction. The soul, or life, in the true sense of the word, is too dear a price to pay even for the whole world, not to say for that small portion of it which falls to the lot of any one individual . . . The whole world is too small, yea, an utterly inadequate price, to pay for the ransom of the soul once lost . . . Mic. 6:6 f.

The whole point is that, apart from Gods grace, the lost soul has no market price, although the damned would wish it so.

How poignantly was this very reality played out in Peters later denial of his Master in order to save his own skin! What if Peter had truly escaped conviction for being a disciple of the Nazarene, only to live on for 5060 more years, relatively undisturbed under the leaky umbrella of the powers that be on earth? What would he have gained? What would he have lost! And Peter had just now been ashamed of Jesus revelation of His approaching suffering!

Mat. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. See the discussion of this coming of Jesus in the Special Study; The Coming of the Son of Man, (Vol. II, pp. 430ff) That this coming of the Son of man is His personal second coming, is proven by the following factors:

His coming would be surrounded with the glory of the Father. Whether He means that His appearance would be enwrapped in that glory that is usually associated with the Father, or accompanied by a glorious manifestation of the Father Himself in person with Jesus, there is no denying the public character and magnitude of such an appearance. But for Him to be in a position to share in the glory of His Father must mean that He will have been fully vindicated and glorified, His death notwithstanding. Although He affirms His deity by speaking to His Father in the unshared sense of unique Son of God, He too would be punished for such presumption, unless this claim be vindicated too.

His appearance will be attended by his holy angels. (Cf. 2Th. 1:7; Mat. 25:31)

His stated purpose is to render unto every man according to his deeds. He affirms His right to judge all nations. (Cf. Joh. 5:29; 2Co. 11:15; Rev. 2:23; 1Co. 3:13 f; Psa. 62:12; Pro. 24:12)

These considerations may not be weakened by appeal to the Greek original, as if Jesus mistakenly believed that the date of His return were soon. While it is true that mllei gr ho huis to anthrpou rchesthai can be rendered: The Son of man is about to come, nevertheless, the verb mllei may also be rendered in the following manners: a. to be about to, to have in mind to, to plan to, to want to. b. to be established that, to be in the circumstance to, thus, ordinarily: I may or I must, as by the force of the will of others or by the events. This is even weakened sometimes to a mere possibility: I can perhaps, I must perhaps. c. To hesitate, to put off, to delay, to defer to. 4. Sometimes mllei serves as a simple paraphrase for the future tense, substituting for future tense forms that were disappearing from common use. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, 338, 3; 350; 356; Arndt-Gingrich, 502; Rocci, 1203) This latter usage is the more likely and preferable, especially in light of the definiteness and certainty with which Jesus second coming is taught elsewhere.

The reasons for His mentioning His coming in judgment upon the world are multiple:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. (Pro. 1:7; Pro. 9:10; Pro. 16:6; Pro. 19:23; Pro. 22:4, etc.) When men tremble in terror of mens threats, they must be shaken by the realization that they do not stand before human tribunals, but before the Judge of all the earth! (Mat. 10:28; Mat. 10:33) Only a proper fear of displeasing our Lord will be sufficient to hold us faithful against the provocations to protect ourselves at all costs. G. C. Morgan (Matthew, 220) said it well:

The Judge will be the Lord whose cross you will not share today. To whom will you appeal from His verdict? The last throne is His throne, and at the final assize He presides. If you save your life today, how will you buy it back, for the Man for Whom you will not suffer is the Man coming to reign in His glory.

In effect, Jesus warns: You will see my glory and face my judgment. I will judge you on the basis of your loyalty to me! Unless He can cause His disciples to be sensitive to His displeasure more than to their own self-protective instincts, He will have failed to convert them at their most fundamental psychological level.

Beyond fear to displease the Lord Jesus, Hendriksen (Matthew, 658) notes another excellent connection: Do not seek to possess the whole world. That will mean loss. Leave the matter of receiving a reward to the Son of man. He at his coming will reward every man according to his deeds. (See Special Study The Reasonableness of the Redeemers Rewards for Righteousness, Vol. I, 198ff) Jesus words here are two-edged: they promise and threaten at the same time, the difference in application being merely what each person intends to do about his own discipleship. Does our discipleship become less ethical, merely because we desire the crown of righteousness and fear eternal contempt? Some would grade Jesus down for establishing such categorical alternatives that influence our present choices on the basis of the prospects of future destiny, as well as for encouraging right choices by hope of reward, rather than teaching virtue for its own sake. Bruce (Training, 181) answers such cavils correctly:

. . . an alternative is involved in any earnest doctrine of moral distinctions or of human freedom and responsibility. . . . Christians need not be afraid of degenerating into moral vulgarity in Christs company. There is no vulgarity or impurity in the virtue that is sustained by the hope of eternal life.

Those who would object to Jesus offering repayment or reward to His disciples make just one more example of people who enjoy informing God about His privileges and duty!

The fitting climax to Jesus discourse on the necessity of entering into the glorious Messianic life through suffering and death to self, is the truth implied in Jesus promise: Although I must suffer, I will arrive at the glory that is rightly mine, because I will return in my Fathers splendor, with His obvious approval and exalted glory. The confused disciples had seen nothing until now, but humiliation, affliction and execution. Now they must admit the truth of His promise of victory (and rise again the third day Mat. 16:21). He forces them to face the heavenly glory. Luke expresses this threefold glory far more emphatically: he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and (the glory) of the holy angels (Luk. 9:26). To disciples, heart-broken at the news of His humiliation, He says that the same Son of man who must suffer soon and who now calls men to shoulder their crosses, shall come in glory! It is only through the cross that men arrive at the crown, through the grave they arrive in glory, through death they arrive at dominion. (Cf. 2Ti. 4:8; 1Co. 15:42 f; Rev. 2:10; Rev. 2:26 f; Rev. 3:21; consider Mat. 16:27 as the affirmation of Dan. 7:9-18; Dan. 7:22; Dan. 7:27) Jesus, too, will be rewarded only after enduring the cross and despising the shame. (Heb. 12:2 f) The disciple is not above the Master. Must the servant have his reward before, or even without, the shame and contempt?

What is the resplendent glory with which Jesus will be surrounded? Is it only the blazing brilliance of light? Yes, at least this, but such visible splendor is but one aspect of a spiritual God. The glory of Jesus is also His praiseworthiness for what He will then have accomplished on the spiritual plane too:

He will have brilliantly succeeded in removing the final scaffolding from a glorious Church, having fitted into place the final stone. Now He can reveal her in all her corporate beauty, notwithstanding the wide diversity of individual lives, gifts, personalities and ministries, He will have then succeeded in gathering into one glorious harmony all these varied personalities submitted to His direction. (Cf. Eph. 3:10; Eph. 3:21)

He will have accomplished to the full all the things of God upon which He had fixed His heart and mind all the time He was a Man! This is implicit in His encouragement aimed to bolster the sagging faith of disciples whose confidence in His ability to succeed has been shaken.

Only a cosmic, long-range view of His total mission and victory would suffice to provide the motivation for our willingness to bear reproach for Him. But because of His resurrection, we can be certain that He is able to carry out the remainder of His promises. The only question is whether we believe it or not.

Mat. 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Cf. the Special Study The Coming of the Son of Man, Vol. II, pp. 430ff, esp. 437ff.) The coming of the Son of man, intended in this verse, is clearly distinct from that intended in the preceding verse, unless, with some modern scholars, we are ready to attribute a gross error to Jesus. They would hold that He Himself expected to return during the lifetime of His Twelve. While He confessed not to know the time of that day and that hour (Mat. 24:36), He affirmed nothing about not knowing perfectly every other detail thereabout. In Mat. 16:27, rather, He shows that He does know these details. As with other prophecies, so also this one must be interpreted in the light of its undoubted fulfilment. Jesus did not return personally in the lifetime of His Apostles. Therefore, He did not intend to promise that here. Rather, Jesus did establish His Kingdom during the lifetime of these disciples, therefore that is the coming He had in mind. (Study Acts 1, 2 as the beginning of the fulfilment of this prophecy.)

Had Jesus meant to refer to His own second coming in this verse, then it would be assumed by the reader that, after some would have seen the coming of the Son of man in His kingdom, then they would experience death. But the very final defeat of death at the final judgment precludes this possibility. (Cf. 1Co. 15:25-26) Therefore, when the Lord affirmed that some would not die until they should see Him coming in His Kingdom, He really leaves open the possibility that, after that event, they could really die. In light of the Churchs beginning on Pentecost, an event witnessed by every Apostle (except the suicide, Judas, Mat. 27:3-5), we must affirm that this verse refers at least to that event, and maybe to much more in the life of the early Church. Today, however, the Apostles are all dead, and Jesus has not yet personally returned in His glory and royal dignity. What has occurred in Mat. 16:27-28 has been correctly analyzed by Hendriksen (Matthew, 659). Jesus shows the Apostles His entire glorification as one unitary concept embracing all the events from His exaltation and vindication at Pentecost and the period following clear up to His second coming. Mat. 16:27 outlines His final victory; Mat. 16:28 describes its beginning.

A careful harmonization of all that Jesus said reveals His full intention:

MATTHEW:

MARK:

LUKE:

There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.

There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

The differences in reporting Jesus words may be resolved in the following manner: You will live to see the beginning of my Kingdom surrounded with power. The arrival of the Kingdom of God is equal to and contemporaneous with the beginning of my reign as King. The fulfilment of this promise was only understood by faith, since Jesus did not personally appear in Jerusalem at Pentecost, nor even visibly above Jerusalem, exalted at the right hand of God. Not even then did Jesus perform stupendous personal signs, other than those actually recorded as performed by the Holy Spirit, to convince men of His reign. But what was done was evidence enough that He had indeed begun to rule the Kingdom of God with power. (Cf. Act. 2:32-33; Act. 2:36) That the post-crucifixion, post-Pentecost events are evidence of Jesus coming in His Kingdom is clear from the following observations:

The disciples saw Jesus ascend to the Fathers right hand. (Act. 1:6-11; Luk. 24:50-52)

They beheld the Spirits coming to bring charismatic power, help and illumination. (Act. 2:1 ff)

They witnessed the birth of the Church among the Hebrew people despite the helpless rage of His enemies. (Act. 4:24-33; Act. 8:4; Act. 21:20!) They thought of this as the Kingdom. (Act. 1:3; Act. 8:12; Act. 19:8; Act. 20:25; Act. 28:23; Act. 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Co. 4:20; Col. 1:13; 1Th. 2:12; Heb. 1:8; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9)

They participated personally in the vigorous, rapid, world-wide expansion of the Church among the Gentiles. Acts 10; Act. 11:19-26; Acts 13-28.

They labored for and witnessed the maturing of the Churchs love, boldness and oneness.

Some of the Apostles, notably John, witnessed the fall of national Judaism with its temple, priesthood and sacrifices, and the triumph of the Gospel proclaimed in every part of the Roman empire.

These all provide evidence of Christs royal reign in and through the ministry of His people, the Christians. These momentous events, from the worlds point of view, could be described as filling all Jerusalem with your teaching (Act. 5:28) and as turning the world upside down (Act. 17:6) But from the Christian point of view, however, it was evidence of Christs glory and reign. (Col. 1:13)

And so ends Matthews chapter 16, as orderly as a tax-collectors record, but as incisive as an Apostles sermon. In effect, Matthew says to his reader: The signs are conclusive that Jesus is the Christ, Gods Son. Although many did not acknowledge Him, many did, and became part of His new, invincible, immortal assembly. Death would not stop Him, nor any who follow Him. However, He demands total loyalty and complete self-submission of His servants. A high price, but the worlds best bargain, since everything else is even more expensive and not worth the price paid for it. Jesus will return to judge everyone on the basis of what they will have decided and done? Dear reader, what is your choice?

FACT QUESTIONS

What incidents took place immediately preceding this journey Jesus took to Caesarea Philippi, and where did they occur?

Locate Caesarea Philippi on the map, describing its location in relation to Capernaum. Tell something of its history and importance.

Since the King James Version speaks of the coasts of Caesarea, explain what is meant by coasts. Where exactly were Jesus and the Twelve during the conversation recorded in this section?

Which Gospel writer notices that Jesus was praying at this time? What relation would there be between this prayer and what follows?

Why did Jesus ask two questions of His disciples, when possibly only the second one was what He really wanted to know?

At what stage in His ministry was Jesus when He quizzed His followers in this way?

How many times and on what occasions had the Apostles made similar confessions of the unique identity of Jesus? What is the specific importance, then, of this particular confession in the growth of faith and understanding of the Twelve? How does it differ from those other, however similar, confessions?

In what way is Jesus question as to His identity important (a) to the disciples; (b) to the multitudes; (c) to us?

Cite all the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke which, up to this point, show the deity of Jesus or indicate His unique relationship to the Father, and which, because of this, become reasons Peter and others could confess Jesus as Christ and Son of God.

10.

Where did the multitudes get such misconceptions about Jesus as to think of Him as John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the ancient prophets?

11.

What is the full significance of Peters answer? What meaning would his words have to these Apostles conversant with the Old Testament? What is meant by the Christ? What is it to confess Him as Son of God?

12.

What literal truth is meant by each of the following figures of speech?

flesh and blood

gates of Hades

keys of the kingdom of heaven

binding and loosing

upon this rock

take up ones cross

taste of death

13.

What does Bar-Jonah mean? Does this prove that Jesus was speaking Aramaic in this incident? If so, what would this prove about the contention of some that in Aramaic He would have said, You are Cephas and upon this cepha I will build my church? If not, what is this Aramaic expression doing in the middle of a Greek sentence?

14.

Explain how God revealed to Peter the truth he had confessed. Did Peter know this truth before he spoke, or did he speak by immediate inspiration? Is Jesus own ministry the thing referred to by the expression, flesh and blood? Did not Jesus have a flesh-and-blood body in which He lived and worked? Did Jesus have anything to do with revealing His real identity to Peter? But, if so, how can He say that my Father who is in heaven (has revealed this to you)?

15.

Explain Jesus remark about building His Church. What is an ekklesa, and what is its significance in helping us to understand what a church is? In what sense, then, is it to be His Church?

16.

Identify the rock on which Jesus built His Church and prove that your identification is the only one correct, showing the weaknesses of the other explanations offered for this rock.

17.

In what sense(s) is it true that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it? What is it that they shall not prevail against? Why does the King James Version say gates of Hell?

18.

When Jesus gave the Apostles and Peter (Mat. 16:19; Mat. 18:18) the power of binding and loosing, He said, Whatever you bind (or loose) on earth, shall be bound (or loosed) in heaven. Now, did He mean that anything that the Apostles required or permitted during their earthly ministry would later be supported, or ratified, by God? If so, in what sense? Or did He intend to say that in the future they would require or permit nothing that God had not already required or permitted from eternity? How could you know this? In other words, which comes first in the historical sequence: (a) what the Apostles require or permit? or (b) what God requires or permits? What historical facts help us to answer this question?

19.

Why did Peter begin to rebuke Jesus? Why did Jesus rebuke Peter? How was Peter a Satan and a stumbling block to Jesus?

20.

Quote and explain what Jesus said and meant about the high cost of discipleship, i.e. the exacting requirements for following Him.

21.

What effective threat did Jesus place before those who would be tempted to be cowards in the face of grave difficulties so frightening as to be ashamed of Him?

22.

Affirm or deny: according to our text Jesus taught and sincerely believed that His second coming should have taken place during the lifetime of some of His disciples present on the day that this discussion took place. Explain your reasons for the position you take.

APPLICATIONS

DAMNING CHRIST WITH FAINT PRAISE Mat. 16:14-16

Today, as in first-century Palestine, men continue to under evaluate Jesus of Nazareth, and so damn Him with faint praise, because their esteem or praise so badly mirrors the reality. They hold Him to be far less than what He really is:

Some admit Him to be the best of men that ever lived, but not the Sovereign Lord who wisely and perfectly administers His Kingdom.

As long as they can approve of Jesus doctrine, judging it by the criteria of a generous humanism, so long will Jesus enjoy their esteem.

However, should Jesus, at some point, contradict their idea of God or their vision of man and what man needs to better his lot, then at this very point, they do not hesitate to dissent.

For such people, Jesus methods are too slow. The emphasis He places upon the conversion of the individual is, for them, an unrealistic scheme, incapable of changing the course of humanity.

Ironically, Jesus cannot be even the best of men, or even considered good, if His unprovable, unacceptable claims to be divine are to be taken seriously and rejected as untrue. But, if He really is divine, then no amount of human dissent can detract one iota of the wisdom of His sovereign rule!

Others would consider Him to be the perfect man, but not the God-man.

Great, popular theologians attempt to diminish the impact of the New Testament assertions of the divinity of Jesus. But these Biblical affirmations involve the validity of His most marvelous claims. They also demonstrate that all that He requires of all men is absolutely essential, because His words are the words of God.

These scholars attempt to reduce the force of Jesus claims, because, if what He says should prove true, then some principle of theirs is seen to be false, though they have always defended it and reasoned on the basis of it. Woe to anyone who would disturb their well-established, sacrosanct presuppositions, because, according to them, they have been established on the basis of the assured results of modern criticism with its scientific conclusions! And yet these same scholars would hail Jesus as the Ideal Man.

Ironically, Jesus cannot qualify to be the Perfect Man, if His moral and intellectual credentials are not in order, because He claims to be both divine and human, when, according to many unbelieving theories, He is not.

Or else men honor Him as a Divine Savior, but not a Savior qualified to be such on the basis of His atoning sacrifice.

Why should this concept offend men? Because, whereas men do feel the need of something or someone to deliver them from all their ills, yet it must not be done at the expense of their pride.

They want to arrive as far as possible in their own power, by their own intelligence, as autonomous men.

But the concept of a Jesus that offers Himself as a unique sacrifice eliminates all merit in human effort to justify oneself before God, and this is for them a grave offense. Jesus, by His all-sufficient sacrifice, says, Without me, you can do nothing! which means: You cannot do it by yourself! Thus, He condemns their self-sufficiency.

The doctrine of salvation by human submission and self-denial that denounces all self-justification before God, has always been offensive to many.

Ironically, however, it is impossible to have a Savior who saves from earths pain, who does not also save from the sins that are its cause. Nor can such a Savior save from sins, unless He attack that malignant cancer that stands at the root of all other evil: human pride!

To the extent that men consider Jesus to be only a prophet, and not the Christ, the Son of the living God, they can serenely search elsewhere for the realization of their messianic hopes:

If Jesus is no more than a John the Baptist, an Elijah, or Jeremiah, or just another undefinable prophet, then we may safely search elsewhere for our supreme Hero!

And people actually go looking for Him in science, philosophy, law, letters, music, social service, or elsewhere.

However, men of today who do not decide to follow Jesus as committed disciples of the supreme Prophet of God, automatically align themselves with those who formally praise Him, but, in substance, they reject Him!

This rejection, in the light of the sufficiency of the signs that validate all that He says of Himself, eliminates the claim to be an honest doubter. There may remain many doubts, but they can no longer be called honest.

CONCLUSION: Let us not praise Jesus superficially, pretending to say something important about Him, when we have no intention to go all the way with Him in sacrificial service. Let us praise Him, confessing Him for what He really is: the Christ, the Son of the living God, King of kings and Lord of lords!

But let us praise Him with a solid understanding of what we believe about Him! Our faith, if it is to be mature, must not be a sheltered house-plant, unaware of the options, untested by the winds of opposition from hostile opinions. We must be aware of these low views of Christs essential identity and glory, we must test them and be prepared to be loyal to our convictions, despite the fact that we may remain a small minority in the world.

SPECIAL STUDY:
THE COST OF OUR SALVATION

During His ministry of approximately three years Jesus of Nazareth, with fiery words of eternal wisdom, set the skies ablaze over Judea and Galilee, announcing the most important news man was ever to hear! He raised no army, laid and collected no taxes, put on no robes of royalty. Yet, His sudden rise to the public eye was very little short of being as spectacular as that of any historic revolutionary. The common people heard Him gladly. At first, the leaders of Judaism listened with an interest which turned sour, first into disgust, then bitter hatred. Jesus stormed the capital of the Jews and wrought havoc right in the sacred precinct by raising embarrassing questions, exposing Pharisaic hypocrisy, and by claiming for Himself the nomenclature which was exclusively Messianic. Characteristically, He demonstrated His most magnificent claims by producing the most inescapable proofmighty works, wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of those who most wanted to disclaim and destroy such proof. And yet, whether in the midst of the haranguing in the Temple, or during the storm-tossed boating experiences on Lake Tiberias, or by intercepting the funeral procession at Nain, or in the midst of the popularity of the multitudes on many occasions, this Jesus proved Himself to be the Christ, the Son of God to those whose hearts made them willing. Later, Jesus was to die for all men of all times. In that death the punishment for sin was to be meted out upon the Son of God, although He had lived a pure life among sinners of every description!
At this mighty demonstration of Gods living in human flesh we at first can only marvel. We are challenged by His words, awe-stricken by His works. Desiring to hear more of His lessons on the Kingdom of God, we join the crowds pressing around Him as He speaks to the great multitudes in Perea. Like everyone else in that vast audience, we listen breathlessly for some clue as to when He will accept our crown, march into Jerusalem, overthrow our oppressors, and establish Gods Kingdom into which we can press. There have been reliable reports from Galilee, the Decapolis and northern Perea that Jesus fed more than 5,000 people on one occasion and upwards of 4,000 on another. At least some of the eyewitnesses of those events have suggested that the Nazarene could do this indefinitely, feeding our armies, reducing famines to a memory of the past, healing our sick and wounded,even to the point of raising all our dead!
Quiet! He is seating Himself on that boulder to teach:

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. (Luk. 14:26-30)

We stop listening, puzzled by His words as He goes on to speak of kings and salt. We listen as He gets through to us once more, So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
Questions race through our minds: Do you mean to say, Master, that it COSTS something to be your disciple? Who pays this cost? What do you mean by self-denial? (I thought that you were going to provide what we did not have, and that we would get to keep what is already ours!) How must we renounce all that we have? What is this cross-bearing? We heard John say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, What does repentance have to do with it? Here are some answers to our questions:

I. DISCIPLESHIP (and its end product, SALVATION) IS EXPENSIVE!

No expense has meaning except for those who must pay the cost, Therefore, to WHOM is the charge laid for the salvation of man?
A. It cost GOD THE FATHER AND CHRIST THE SON to purchase our salvation! The souls of men were up for sale on the world market and God in His love paid the highest price Heaven could afford to buy men back. Our redemption cost God many heartbreaks and bitter tears as He dealt patiently with a capricious nation, so He could raise up a family through which His Son could come. It cost Christ the humiliation of the death for sinners whom He had come to save. It cost God the best blood of earththat of His prophets and apostles who laid down their lives in confirmation of their testimony to Gods truth. It cost God countless billions of blessings to lead men by the goodness of His Providence. Yes, even before the world was formed, God counted the cost and cried out, I will pay it!
B. It cost the gracious HOLY SPIRIT Who strove with men before the flood, signified Gods truth by means of the ancient prophets, and at the present works through the Word of God, which He Himself guaranteed. It costs Him to live in the often unclean temples of our bodies. But He too, agonizing with straying sheep, cried out, I will pay it!
C. It costs the WOULD-BE DISCIPLES also. Christ reads our hearts and foresees the future. He knows that we, the multitudes, will fall away from Him, and many would even cry out? Crucify! Crucify! Away with Him! And so He sifts the crowds by explaining in the boldest terms possible, that His salvation, His discipleship, His Kingdom, is going to cost the would-be disciple something too!

II. THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP AND SALVATION STATED

What is the cost of salvation to us? Why does the Lord demand it? I thought that salvation was to be a free gift! someone would object. But is not the very nature of the grace of God its undeserved blessing at the cost only of the One who extends it? Paul emphasizes this, answering affirmatively:

But Gods free gift is not at all to be compared with the offense. For if by one mans offence the whole race of men have died, to a much greater degree Gods favor and His gift imparted by His favor through the one man Jesus Christ, has overflowed for the whole race of men. And the gift is not at all to be compared with the results of that one mans sin. For that sentence resulted from the offence of one man, and it meant condemnation; but the free gift resulted from the offenses of many, and it meant right standing. For if by one mans offense death reigned through that one, to a much greater degree will those who continue to receive the overflow of His unmerited favor and His gift of right standing with Himself, reign in real life through One, Jesus Christ.

(Rom. 5:15-17, Williams translation.)

Gods gifts are described as free, truly enough. However, the main feature of Gods free gifta feature that is so often totally by-passed,is that it is the free opportunity to extricate oneself by the power of Christ from the entangling alliances with sin. The opportunity is free, yet priceless! The laying hold of this opportunity is the expensive item to all concernedthis is the crux of the matter.

From what is this great salvation accomplished? SIN which finds its origin in the very person of man himself.

Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. (Jas. 1:13-15)

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.

(Mar. 7:21-23)

This harmonizes perfectly with Jesus requirement: If any man would come after me, let him deny himself . . . (Mat. 16:24; Luk. 9:23) Thus, Jesus is also placing before men a great paradox: a discipleship which leads to a priceless salvation to be received as a free, unearned gift, and, at the same time, He lays down the unmistakable terms at which that salvation may be had. The very consideration that our pure, righteous God would, and did, extend terms of surrender to a rebellious human-kind is the very summit definition of grace!

What is this self-denial of which Jesus speaks: If a man hate . . . not his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.? Let us first decide what self-denial is not, and so draw the circle to include only what Jesus meant.

Christ has not asked us to deny ourselves of this or that luxury, but to deny OURSELVES! Some early preacher described the deadly cancer of self as manifesting itself as:

Self-will, the desire to be outside the law of obedience, i.e. above the responsibility to obey.

Self-interest, the desire to be outside the law of sacrifice, i.e. free from the responsibility to sacrifice self for others.

Self-sufficiency, the desire to be outside the law of fellowship, i.e. no sense of responsibility for others.

The whole scheme of redemption pictures the best love of man for himself as this is appropriately expressed in his willingness to save himself from the power, guilt and consequences of sin in himself. Man rightly cares for his own true, best life and wishes it to be developed and strengthened. (Eph. 5:28-29; Mat. 22:39) Indeed, in the first gospel message, Peter urged the proper kind of self-preservation: Save yourselves from this crooked generation! (Act. 2:40) This prevents us from misconstruing Jesus words.

2. Similarly, Christ is not asking us to deny ourselves whatever is good and needful for strengthening of our spiritual or physical life. Jesus taught that fasting, for its own sake, was incompatible with the genius of the Kingdom of God, which is not eating or drinking [or lack of it, HEF], but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Rom. 14:17; also Mat. 9:14-17) All other forms of asceticism must bend to this same plan. (Col. 2:20-23) All real values are those which develop character and lead to eternal life. God let Solomon write from personal experience that all seeking after worldly ambitions, wealth, self-satisfactions of all kinds, including self-righteousness through severity to the body, is vanity. Life does not consist so much in what we live ON, as in the proper understanding of what we live FOR. Mere renunciation of the abundance of possessions, without renouncing the love of abundance, fails to understand the Lord. Denial of this love of possessions is the only proper preparation to use abundance appropriately as an administration assigned by the Lord.

3. Nor is it true self-denial what is done merely as self-denial. True self-denial, like all other forms of Christ-likeness, is unconscious of self, does not know that its face shines. We deny nothing when we give up certain foods on certain days, abstain from social dissipation during certain seasons, and many other useless and uncalled-for sacrifices. Can it be true self-denial for man to dictate to the Lord which sacrifices he shall make, merely because he supposes that some endeavor at renunciation is in order, whether or not the Lord has ordered it? Should the Master will that we join Him in the wedding joy of the new life, must we be anguished because pain and suffering are distant, and so invent self-inflicted abnegation, or manufacture artificial crosses out of ascetic austerities? (Bruce, Training, 179)

4. Nor is self-controlas the world understands itequal to self-denial, for the former is the control of the lower elements of our being by the higher, whereas self-denial means that both higher and lower elements of our being are to be treated as elements of the former life to which we have died. It is here that Pauls paradox has significance:

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20)

Having seen what it is not, we must now ask: what IS self-denial?

1. Self-denial is self stepping down from lifes throne, laying crown and scepter at the Masters feet and thenceforth submitting the whole of life to His control. It is living out our life, not to please ourselves, but to please our Lord, not to advance our own personal interests, but to do His work. It is the glad making of any sacrifice that loyalty to Him requires. Self gives way altogether as the motive of life.

2. As Peter said when he denied Christ, I know not the man, so say thou of thyself, and act accordingly. (Bengal) We are instructed by the grace of God which brings salvation that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. . . . (Tit. 2:11 f) Worldly lusts (ts kosmiks epithumas = the earthly desires) need not be worse than the usual aspirations common to this earth, aspirations which become so all-important. It may be nothing worse than the animal instinct of self-preservation that thinks only of self-interest, but not of duty. There is no stronger normal human desire than to live, yet even this too may be renounced in the line of duty, as Jesus so definitively proved. Jesus has not required abnegation of the self that loves God with the heart, soul, mind and strength, and serves its neighbor because of love as yourself. Rather, what the Master demands is the total renunciation of that rebellion that brought sin into the world originally and still maintains it in all of its forms. Herein is the paradox true: For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it, (Mat. 16:25; Luk. 9:24)

3. Self-denial is also the yielding of our right to choose anything but the will of Christ. Having accepted Jesus as the Lord of our conscience and will, emotions and intellect, we obey one law. His slightest wish is our highest command! When we became His slaves, we surrendered our right to a choice, although not our power to choose. (Cf. 2Co. 5:15)

No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Luk. 16:13; Mat. 6:24)

Whatever self-denial must mean to the disciple, Christ has already shown us in one lasting, concrete example. (Rom. 15:3) Listen to His claims:

Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name.

(Joh. 12:27 f)

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, . . . Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,

(Heb. 10:5-7)

Jesus answered them, My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.

(Joh. 7:16)

And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.

(Joh. 8:29)

I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do.

(Joh. 17:4)

Peter shows how His self-denial is the model for ours:

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness . . .

(1Pe. 2:21 ff)

Self-denial is all that is implicit in obedience. For . . .

Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

(Rom. 6:16)

There is also implied the overcoming faith in the One to whom the obedience is yielded and for whose sake self is renounced. Jesus calls us to take up His yoke upon us and learn of Him. (Mat. 11:29) When we have decided to wear His yoke, the question becomes, not what we shall choose, but, what is it that He has chosen for us? His yoke is His will for us, His rule, His discipline.

5. Self-denial is the crucifixion of self, the old life with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:24; Rom. 6:6) It is not merely the putting self off for a later date, but the immediate and total sacrifice of anything that stands between the disciple and totally-surrendered, loving service to his Lord.

6. Self-denial is the power behind repentance just as godly sorrow for sin and the desire to start a new life is the motivation. Self-denial, like repentance, must be in the present tense. To make up ones mind that he will, in some undefined future time, deny himself, is not at all self-denial. What is this but a determination to continue in self-satisfaction still other days and years? Such a resolution is an indication of a deep-seated impenitence, since it agrees to the rectitude of Christs demands, but refuses obedience. It has been said that the way to Hell is paved with good intentions. This cannot be true, because good resolutions do not lead away from God, and a resolution to repent, or deny self, at a more convenient season,but not now,is not a good intention! If God should consent to any postponement of self-denial, He would become accessory to a sinful life.
Self-denial, like repentance, involves an abhorrence of all sin, especially the souls own personal sins. It involves a recognition of his personal guilt before God, and that he needs to repent! The soul acknowledges the justice of the divine law and its own condemnation by it. It puts itself in the wrong and God in the right. It utters the prayer of the publican, God be merciful to mea SINNER!
Self-denial, likewise, implies the renunciation of all sin. There can be no mental reservation, no darling sins not given up. It would be but an insult to God to make a catalogue of sins and say, These I loath and renounce; and compose another list and say, These I cannot surrender; these, my dishonesty, my covetousness, my impurity, my wicked ambition, I love and will not forsake. To deny self with the purpose in mind to continue in sin, any sin, is impossible. To repent with the idea that it is only a formality in order to be forgiven, and so that a life of continued sin and continued repentance may finish in heaven, is but wicked self-deception. Such an intention is an abuse of the grace of repentance.
Self-denial involves the souls seeing itself in the light of Gods Word, seeing the nature of sinthe number, the heinousness, and the aggravation of HIS OWN sins. It involves seeing how his sin mars and pollutes his own soul, how it destroys and injures his fellow-man; how it defies Gods authority, tramples on His love and compels the out-pouring of His wrath. This self-knowledge is exceedingly difficult to attain. It is unwelcome and painful. This knowledge tortures the soul, and we would rather be ignorant of it. Hence the memory comes reluctantly to its work and the past is imperfectly remembered. The law of God is obscured and misinterpreted, and the moral judgment is weakened and biased. Weak excuses are formed and the guilty soul seeks to hide itself behind a refuge of lies. This is why denial of self must take place before intelligent approach to God is even possible.
It may even be unnecessary to differentiate between repentance and self-denial. Further, Jesus spoke of cross-bearing, a figure which seems to be but another facet of the diamond of total acceptance of Himself. What is cross-bearing? This is best answered by asking another question: what did it mean to Jesus? The occasions in Galilee when Jesus placed this challenge before His disciples were occasions on which Jesus had clearly predicted His own death. This expression must mean that the disciple must be as his Lord.

Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

(Php. 2:5-8)

Study the expressions Paul used: emptied himself, humbled himself, obedient unto death, death of the cross.

1. To Jesus, cross-bearing symbolized one thing: providing the needed sacrifice to save the individual sinner by undergoing whatever was necessary to do that. It meant His facing the mocking unbelief, the cruel jeering and the lashing of the scourge, the spitting, the injustice, and the separation from His Heavenly Father. It meant willingness to bear the pain that others faults bring. It meant not pleasing Himself, but serving others. (Rom. 15:1-3)

2. To the individual sinner who aspires to discipleship cross-bearing means the positive identification of himself with the sufferings of Christ on his behalf. It was the Apostles one desire to grow to know Him and the power of His resurrection, and share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. (Php. 3:10 f) Cross-bearing, to Paul, implied the dying daily to his own self-will: I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. (1Co. 9:27)

3. Did Jesus ever speak of our heroically or sentimentally bearing His cross? No, because He bore OURS in order to furnish us with sufficient motive and opportunity to bear our own! We are not, therefore, to manufacture artificial crosses for ourselves, but accept the cross which Christ has called us to bear and die upon it.

4. Cross-bearing means the willing, cheerful suffering of the loss of all things for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. (Php. 3:8) If that means the loss of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters who stand as stumbling blocks to our feet, we must crucify that this-worldly affection, in favor of our heavenly loyalty to Christ. Obviously, cross-bearing in practice must mean different things to different people. Bruce (Training, 177) teaches:

For one the cross may be the calumnies of lying lips, which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous; for another, failure to attain the much-worshipped idol success in life, so often reached by unholy means not available for a man who has a conscience; for a third, mere isolation and solitariness of spirit amid uncongenial, unsympathetic neighbors, not minded to live soberly, righteously and godly, and not loving those who do so live.
How are self-denial and cross-bearing related to each other? They are, respectively the negative and positive aspects of our total commitment to Christ, They are carefully linked by Paul:

And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires . . . But far be it from me to glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

(Gal. 5:24; Gal. 6:14)

III. THE REASONS FOR PAYING THIS COST

Having considered who pays this cost and the definitions of the cost, let us ask ourselves: why pay the cost of our salvation? God freely gives sinful man the gracious opportunity to become a disciple of Jesus and be saved by meeting the terms of discipleship. These terms, negatively and positively stated, are self-denial and cross-bearing, and all that these involve. Historically, there have been very few who, having counted the cost, were willing to pay it. Jesus described such a state of affairs like this:

Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

(Mat. 7:13 f)

During His earthly ministry Jesus contacted one of the worlds best prospects for discipleship. The young man was rich, ambitious, righteous by most standards, apparently humble and highly talented. The Master placed the cost of discipleship before him, but he turned it down! The question has probably already been asked: why, if so many who could mean so much to the Kingdom turn down Jesus offer, does Jesus not make the cost lower, the cross lighter, the burden easier? Because, were the Lord to do so, He would be readmitting to His household, into His Kingdom, the very element that exalted Satan, cursed mankind and turned the world into a cemetery in the first place: SELF! TO make the demands less stringent, God would have to open the gates to allow mankind with all its sinful trappings of self-centeredness to pour into His promised land, reserved only for those who are willing to deny self and exalt Christ. Self-complacency, being the very heart and core of all sin, would, in this reversed case, require God to refuse to condemn any sin. But in all this, what would have become of the pure, righteous Creator of all, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? He would have become unjust Himself and not to be trusted to be right or the One to right the wrongs of earth. Vengeance would then belong to anybody who can take it! Law and order would no longer exist, save in those remnants of society still influenced by the ancient concepts of the justice and mercy of God.

But God is not a man that He should charge! And, since He has not, we are faced with the decision to count the cost and pay it and receive His proffered mercy, or face the consequences. Why pay the cost?
1. If we are unwilling to start the journey by the strait and narrow way, because of the call of our luxury or possessions, or because the desires of family, friends, social or business life must be satisfied before the Lords desires, or for some other reason, we judge ourselves unworthy of His offered mercy. The ultimate end of such a course must be punishment. However high we may hold our heads, they shall at last be bowed before Jesus!
2. Why pay? Because, if one were to start the long, arduous journey of discipleship, but decide to give it up, he is just as lost as if he had never started. By the very nature of the case, this cost must be constantly and consistently paid. So subtle are the temptations to indulge self that every disciple must watch and pray that they enter not into temptation. Consider these warnings:

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not sit down and count the cost first, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.

(Luk. 14:28-32)

And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.

(Luk. 8:13-15)

. . . No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.

(Luk. 9:62)

These are tragic words! There is no disaster so great as that of a life started out on its course heavenward, only to see it sink beneath the waves of doubt and selfishness miles and years from the blest harbor!

3. Consider the psychological future of selfishness vs. selflessness:

Those who are selfish and who do only that which pleases their fancy, and who will not exert themselves for some high principle, will find that their range of dislikes will increase and their range of likes will decrease. As time goes on, life becomes more and more filled with disagreeable things until the selfish life becomes the doomed life. He who does things for Christs sake is responding to something higher than his personal inclinations. This leads to a steady increase of ones range of interests, likes, and success and the fuller life is the reward of the giving up of a selfish life. No discovery of modern psychology is, in my opinion, so important as its scientific proof of the necessity of self-sacrifice or discipline to self-realization and happiness.

(James Bales, Jesus the Ideal Teacher, 40)

4. The biggest inducement to pay this expense is the realization that it leads to life eternal. But some who genuinely count the cost, studying the standards of the Kingdom, cry out, Its too difficult! For fear of falling, I will not attempt to rise! I will not try! But the tower MUST be built; the battle MUST be fought; the Kingdom of God MUST be sought at any price and above all. Jesus endured the cross, despising the shame, and we can too! Hear Him again as He challenges all men:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serve me, the Father will honor him.

(Joh. 12:24 ff)

. . . Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

(Mar. 10:29 f )

We are never better off than when we are completely ready to let God have the really great opportunity He wants. When we lay ourselves prostrate on our own cross, denying ourselves of all right to live, conscious of our total inability to save ourselves, then and only then are we in the best frame of mind to receive all that He has to offer. What a paradox: He takes away from us all things that He might truly give us all things!

IV. SELF-DENIAL AND CROSS-BEARING IN PRACTICE

Having seen something of the theory, we must ask ourselves how this works out in practice. Otherwise, what was intended for our daily growth in faith and likeness to Christ, will become a dead, useless concept, unconnected with our real way of thinking and acting.

In the general field of self-denial and cross-bearing there are actually two areas of application. On the one hand, there is death to selfs desires that lead into sin in any and all of its forms. (Col. 3:5; Gal. 5:24) On the other, there is that renunciation of ones legitimate rights for love of another person. Since the reader is more likely to be familiar with the numerous examples of the former with which the New Testament is replete, let us examine a very few of the countless expressions of self-denial in the latter area.

A. JESUS IS OUR MODEL

He denied Himself by surrendering legitimate rights of His own free will for the sake of others. (Study Rom. 15:3 in the context of Romans 14 and Rom. 15:1-7; Php. 2:5-8 in the context of Php. 2:1-4; Eph. 5:25 in the context of Eph. 5:21-33; cf. Heb. 3:1; Heb. 12:2-3; note 1Pe. 2:21 ff in the context of 1Pe. 2:18-20; 1Pe. 3:18 in the context of 1Pe. 3:13-22; 1Pe. 4:1-6; 1Pe. 4:13 in the context of 1Pe. 4:12-19) GOD, too, labored unsparingly for us! (Rom. 8:32)

B. APPROPRIATE CONCERN FOR OTHERS NEEDS IS OUR STANDARD.

In order to take many NT exhortations seriously, we must deny ourself some other use of our time and energies in other perfectly proper, completely justifiable Christian activities. Thousands of thoroughly enjoyable human pleasures, such as reading, listening to music, flower arrangement, keeping ones home in perfect order, painting and all hobbies, while innocent themselves, canand, on certain occasions, must beset aside, in order to have time to express our concern for others. These activities are perfectly legitimate within themselves, and the Christian need not fear Gods frown upon them as they engage in them, since He Himself has left him free to choose his activities. However, the question of priorities asks the Christian: Which comes first now: your neighbors needs or your own comforts and hobbies?

As every serious, busy pastor knows, counseling with people takes time. Solutions must be examined. Peoples problems do not respect clocks or follow schedules. This means that a Christian who would really be of help to his fellows must be available. But availability means being on call at any time, and, as any doctor or ambulance driver knows, self-denial is the order of the day. Doctors cannot say, Im sorry that I cannot respond to your emergency, because Im listening to Beethoven! Rather, they deny their right to enjoy Beethoven and rush down to the emergency room. When Eutychus fell out of the third-story window, Paul did not insist on continuing his inspired speech, but rushed down with the others to do what he could for the lad. (Act. 20:7-12)

C. HOW TO GO ABOUT IT

1. Consider the following encouragements to deny ourselves in order to be available to meet others needs: Rom. 12:3-21; Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7; 1Co. 6:12 to 1Co. 10:33; 1Co. 11:33; 1Co. 12:7; 1Co. 12:25; 1Co. 13:1-7; 1 Corinthians 14 :all; 1Co. 16:16; 1Pe. 4:10.

2. All encouragements to be generous in giving to others needs are incitements to spend for others what we have a right to spend on ourselves. See 2 Corinthians 8, 9; Gal. 6:6; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:28; Eph. 5:15 f; Col. 4:5 f; 1Ti. 5:4; 1Ti. 5:8; 1Ti. 5:16; 1Ti. 6:18 f.

3. All exhortations to love and serve one another require self-denial to carry them out. See Gal. 5:13 f; Gal. 6:1-5; Eph. 5:21 to Eph. 6:9, Eph. 6:18; Php. 2:1-4; Php. 4:3; Col. 3:18 to Col. 4:1; 1Th. 2:8; 1Th. 5:14 f; 2Th. 3:6-13; 1Ti. 6:1 f; Tit. 3:8; Tit. 3:14; 1Pe. 2:18 ff; 1Pe. 3:1-8; 1Jn. 3:16-18.

4. Consider these examples that show us how it is done. Paul would have been willing even to sacrifice his own salvation, if this would accomplish the salvation of his fellow Hebrews. (Rom. 9:3) Remember the Apostles self-denial for their churches (1Co. 4:8-13; 1Co. 6:12 to 1Co. 10:33; 2Co. 4:2; 2Co. 4:7-15; 2Co. 5:13; 2Co. 6:1-13; 2Co. 11:7-11; 2Co. 11:23-29; 2Co. 12:14 ff; 2Co. 13:9; Php. 1:23-26; 1Th. 2:9-12; 1Th. 3:10; 2Th. 3:7-9; 2Ti. 2:10. Remember the Apostles letter-writing ministry: that took time to edify their readers!

5. Others devoted themselves to serve other Christians with needed refreshment: 1Co. 16:15 f; 2Co. 8:1-5; 2Ti. 1:16-18; Heb. 6:10; Heb. 13:1-3; 3Jn. 1:5-8; 3Jn. 1:10 b.

6. The rules governing Christian liberty require that we deny ourselves. (See Special Study: How To Avoid Becoming a Pharisee after Mat. 15:1-20, which discusses some of these rules.) Perhaps some narrow-souled Christian demands to know where in the Bible it says he must do some particular act of kindness that he does not want to, or do without some pleasure for the sake of someone else. The New Testament was not written to cater to such legalism, but to stimulate us to want to rise above the demands of mere, legal rules, to live a life guided by the Spirit of Christ, inwardly motivated to seek out practical, helpful kindnesses by which we can bless our neighbor. However, the New Testament guarantees our liberty to do this and guides our decisions concerning it. But the very principles that set us free from casuistic legal restrictions require that through love we become servants of one another. (Cf. Gal. 5:13; Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7; 1Co. 6:12 to 1Co. 10:33; Jas. 1:25-27; Jas. 2:8; Jas. 2:12; 1Pe. 2:16; 1Pe. 3:8; 1Pe. 4:8-10; 1Pe. 5:5)

7. Christian exhortation and teaching takes time, energy and dedication! If time is money, then denying ourselves the use of our time as our own, in order to bring back a sinner from the error of his way, is the same sort of sacrifice Jesus made. It takes time to care enough to go teach someone what he must know in order to please God. (Cf. Heb. 3:13; Heb. 10:24 f; Gal. 6:1 f; Jas. 5:19 f; 1Th. 5:11; 1Th. 5:14; 1Th. 2:11; Jud. 1:22 f. It takes self-denial to be gentle and forbearing with ones opponents who are what they are because they need to repent and because they are certain they know the truth better than the Christian servant. (2Ti. 2:24-26) It takes self-denial to care about truth and falsity in life and doctrine. (Cf. Rom. 16:17-20; Eph. 5:11; Eph. 4:25; 2Th. 2:11-15; 2Ti. 1:14; 1Ti. 4:16; 1Ti. 6:12; 1Ti. 6:20; Rev. 2:2-3) It takes self-denial to refuse to make use of what appeals to human pride, in order to proclaim the truth, and hold to the truth despite the powerful temptations to trust human wisdom to be more certain. (Cf. 1Co. 1:18-31; 1Co. 2:1-5; 1Co. 3:18-23)

8. Tremendous self-discipline is required to be able to submit to persecution of any sort, whether through public abuse or loss of possessions or family. But this willingness to suffer the loss of all things comes through the self-denial that admits that everything we are and have came from God, and, because of this recognition, turns it all over to God. This way, whatever happens to our possessions, our relationships, or to us, we are confident that everything is in good hands: HIS! Self-denial, thus, is the secret behind the ability to rejoice and give thanks in all circumstances. (Cf. Php. 4:4-7; Php. 4:10-13; 1Th. 5:18) No matter what evil is done to us, self-denial keeps us from paying back evil for evil. (1Th. 5:15; 1Co. 6:7) Even our vengeance belongs to the Lord (Cf. Rom. 12:17-21).

9. Submission to our own Christian leaders requires self-denial. (Cf. 1Pe. 5:5; Heb. 13:17; 1Th. 5:12 f; 2Th. 2:15; 2Th. 3:6; 2Th. 3:14; 1Co. 11:2) Submission to the decision of others requires no little self-denial. (Cf. 1Co. 6:1-6)

10. The kind of praying that needs to be done for our world, our Church and ourselves requires discipline and the time that only self-denial can furnish. (Cf. 1Ti. 2:1-2; 1Ti. 2:8; 1Th. 5:17 f; Eph. 6:18, etc.)

11. Growth in godliness requires self-denial which furnishes time, energy, interest and activity that will make character growth possible. (Cf. Eph. 4:15 f; Php. 3:12-15; Heb. 5:11 to Heb. 6:12; Heb. 12:3-17; 1Ti. 4:7 b, 1Ti. 4:8; 2Ti. 2:3-7; 2Ti. 2:15; 1Pe. 1:13-17; 2Pe. 1:3-11)

There are many, many more texts and illustrations in the Word that could be listed here. But a good rule of thumb might be this: if you see something to do that you should not, either for yourself or others, do not do it. That is self-denial. If you see something good to do for someone else, something that, to do it, takes time that you would have used otherwise for something you would rather have done for yourself, do it. That is self-denial. Self-denial and cross-bearing, seen from this practical standpoint, are indubitably the price we must pay to be saved from ourselves and our sins, and in order to be of any practical use to Jesus. The only law of Christianity, as anyone knows, is to love God with all we have and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Self-denial is but this love in action. (See Notes on Mat. 5:44; Mat. 5:48; Mat. 7:12, Vol. I, pp. 311ff, 318ff, 415ff)

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(13) Csarea Philippi.The order of the journeyings of our Lord and His disciples would seem to have been as follows:From the coasts of Tyre and Sidon they came, passing through Sidon, to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mar. 7:31); thence by ship to Magdala and Dalmanutha, on the western shore (Mat. 15:39; Mar. 8:10); thence, again crossing the lake (Mar. 8:13), to the eastern Bethsaida (Mar. 8:22); thence to Csarea Philippi. There is in all these movements an obvious withdrawal from the populous cities which had been the scene of His earlier labours, and which had practically rejected Him and cast in their lot with His enemies. This last journey took them to a district which He had apparently never before visited, and to which He now came, it would seem, not as a Preacher of the kingdom, but simply for retirement and perhaps for safety. Csarea Philippi (so called to distinguish it from the town of the same name on the sea-coast) does not appear (unless we identify it with Laish or Dan, and for this there is no sufficient evidence) in the history of the Old Testament. Its position at the foot of Hermon led Robinson (Researches, iii. 404, 519) to identify it with the Baal-gad of Jos. 11:17; Jos. 12:7; Jos. 13:5, or the Baal-hermon of Jdg. 3:3; but this also hardly extends beyond the region of conjecture. The site of the city was near the chief source of the Jordan, which flowed from a cave which, under the influence of the Greek cultus that came in with the rule of the Syrian kings, was dedicated to Pan, and the old name of the city, Paneas, bore witness to this consecration. Herod the Great built a temple there in honour of Augustus (Jos. Ant. xv. 10, 3), and his son Philip the tetrarch (to whose province it belonged) enlarged and embellished the city, and re-named it in honour of the emperor and to perpetuate his own memory. From Agrippa II. it received the name of Neroneas, as a like compliment to the emperor to whom he owed his title; but the old local name survived these passing changes, and still exists in the modern Bis. With the one exception of the journey through Sidon (Mar. 7:31), it was the northern limit of our Lords wanderings; and belonging as it does to the same period of His ministry, His visit to it may be regarded, though not as an extension of His work beyond its self-imposed limits, as indicating something like a sympathy with the out-lying heathen who made up the bulk of its populationa sense of rest, it may be, in turning to them from the ceaseless strife and bitterness which He encountered at Capernaum and Jerusalem. How the days passed which were spent on the journey, what gracious words or acts of mercy marked His track, what communings with His Father were held in the solitude of the mountain heightsare questions which we may dwell upon in reverential silence, but must be content to leave unanswered. The incident which follows is the one event of which we have any record.

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?The Greek emphasises men by prefixing the article, so as to contrast the opinions of men, as such, with Gods revelation. The question comes before us, as possibly it did to the disciples, with a sharp abruptness. We may believe, however, that it occupied a fitting place in the spiritual education through which our Lord was leading His disciples. It was a time of, at least, seeming failure and partial desertion. From that time, St. John relates, speaking of what followed after the discourse at Capernaum, many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him (Joh. 6:66). He had turned to the Twelve and asked, in tones of touching sadness, Will ye also go away? and had received from Peter, as the spokesman of the others, what was for the time a reassuring answer, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and this had been coupled with the confession of faith which we now find repeated. But in the meantime there had been signs of wavering. He had had to rebuke them as being of little faith (Mat. 16:8). They had urged something like a policy of reticence in His conflict with the Pharisees (Mat. 15:12). One of the Twelve was cherishing in his soul the devil-temper of a betrayer (Joh. 6:70). It was time, if we may so speak, that they should be put to a crucial test, and the alternative of faith or want of faith pressed home upon their consciences.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

73. THE ENDOWMENT OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE WITH THE KEYS, Mat 16:13-19 .

Our Saviour’s ministry has now drawn to its zenith. He has exhibited his character and laid his lessons before his disciples. He has trained them so that while the rest of the world is in wonder and doubt about him, expressing its various conjectures, they will be ready to confess him clearly and solidly to be the Christ. He has so impressed upon their minds his history and doctrine, that when he shall leave them, under the aid of the pentecostal spirit they will be able to found his kingdom and Church on earth. He now proceeds after solemn prayer to assemble them together and in a formal manner to require the common profession of faith; to lay them as a foundation for his Church, of which himself was the ground; to promise them the victory over the powers of hell; and to give them the apostolic keys by which, endowed with power from on high, they should be able to open and shut the doors of the Church, in such a way as should be ratified in heaven. After that, he dares fully open before them the prospect of his death and sufferings.

This, the opening of the SIXTH PERIOD, must therefore be considered as a most important turning point in our Lord’s history. Thenceforward his is a Ministry of Sorrow. See Historical Synopsis.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

13. When Jesus came Jesus was now on the southeastern side of Lake Gennesaret. He moves, on the east side, northward, and at Bethsaida Julias cures a stammerer. (Mar 8:22-26.) Thence he moves up along the banks of the narrowing and rapid Jordan, toward its sources at the northeastern corner of the Holy Land. He passes Lake Merom, a scene of ancient battle, and arrives in the vicinity of Cesarea Philippi, the most northerly point, probably, at which he ever touched.

Cesarea Philippi stood upon the side of Mount Panium, from whose cliff the Jordan has its northeastern spring. The rock of this cliff was surmounted by a temple built in honour of Augustus Cesar. The ancient name of this city was Paneas, so called as being on or near ground sacred to the pagan deity Pan. It was not, as some say, identical with the ancient Laish, which, in fact, had its site four miles distant, and is now called El Kady. It was rebuilt by Herod Philip, and named Cesarea by him, in honour of the patron from whom he received his government, Tiberius Cesar. It was called Cesarea Philippi, or Philip’s Cesarea, to distinguish it from Cesarea Palestina, which stood upon the Mediterranean shore. It was afterward named Neronias in honour of the cruel emperor Nero; but in due time both these names were disused, and its old name, softened into Banias, remains to the present day.

Coasts Territories. See note on Mat 2:16.

The region about Cesarea Philippi was then rich and populous, and is now celebrated by travellers for its surpassing beauty. Stanley thus describes his approach to the mountain on whose side the town was built: “Over a carpet of turf, through trees of every variety of foliage, through park-like verdure, which casts a strangely beautiful interest over this last recess of Palestine, the pathway winds, and the snowy top of the mountain itself is gradually shut out from view by its increasing nearness. There is the rush of waters through deep thickets; and the ruins of an ancient town, not Canaanite but Roman, rise on the hill side; in its situation, in its exuberance of water, its olive groves, and its view over the distant plain,” almost an Italian Tivoli in the recesses of Syria. Banias is now a Mohammedan town of some twenty huts, but the circuit of the ancient walls is easily distinguished.

It does not appear that our Lord really entered the city of Cesarea Philippi. That city was a favourite residence of Herod Philip; and that prince may at that time have been within it. Mark says that Jesus went into the towns of Cesarea Philippi; that is, its adjacent dependent villages.

Whom? Our Lord now proceeds to lead forth the confession which is to form the basis of their apostolic character as the foundation of the new Church after his departure. There were in the apostolic history three stages. The first was that following their call, the second was after their trial mission, and the third after this inauguration. In the first stage they start with a simple faith in his Messiahship, without any very definite idea in what his Messiahship is to consist. In the second stage, they have, under the attacks of the enemies of Jesus, many a wavering doubt; and it is not until the present time that our Lord, who knows what is in man, perceives that they have a hardihood of faith that can stand the shock of his death, and maintain, firmly as so many rocks, when aided by the Pentecostal Spirit, the foundation of the Christian faith. As that time has now come, he proceeds to draw forth a full profession of that faith, and appoints them to be the apostolic rocks of the new dispensation.

Whom do men say What is the result of my ministry? What saith the world, that has heard my words and seen my works, in regard to my nature?

Son of man Our Lord’s usual designation of himself, and usual with none but him. The question could, therefore, be not much different from asking, Whom do men say that I, Jesus, am?

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” ’

Once again Jesus is found in Gentile territory, at Caesarea Philippi, north of the Sea of Galilee, in the territory of Herod Philip. And there He calls on His disciples to tell Him Whom men are saying that He is.

Caesarea had been built into a large city by Philip in honour of Augustus Caesar, and called Caesarea Philippi, both in order to distinguish it from the Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast where Cornelius the Roman centurion was converted (Acts 10-11), and as a reminder that Philip had built it. It was situated at the foot of Mount Hermon. On that mountain was a sanctuary to Pan and a Temple for the worship of the emperor in an area well supplied with pagan temples. It was against that background that a small group of people came to the foot of Mount Hermon for a unique purpose.

Note Jesus’ reference to Himself here as the Son of Man, a regular feature in Matthew (compare Mat 8:20; Mat 9:6; Mat 10:23; Mat 12:8). The other Gospels translate it here as ‘I’ so as not to confuse Gentile readers who had little Jewish background.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Peter Openly Confesses That Jesus Is The Messiah (16:13-20).

In Mat 11:25-27 Jesus had spoken of the fact it was His Father who revealed things to ‘babes’, including the truth about the Son Whom He alone fully knows, and that He Himself as the Son, reveals the Father to whom He wills. Now we are provided with the first prominent example of one who has had revealed to him, by the Father, the truth about the Son.

Challenging His disciples as to how they see Him Peter replies that He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The difference between this statement and that in Mat 14:33 is that this one was more thoughtful and measured. In reply Jesus accepts Peter’s words and unfolds more information about His planned new congregation of Israel, one in which Peter will play a prominent part, especially in its commencement. The very boldness that causes Peter to blurt out the truth, is the same boldness that will lead the way after Pentecost.

But this passage is only the beginning of the revelation of Who Jesus is, for that revelation continues on until Mat 17:13. Yes, He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Mat 16:16), but He is also the Son of Man Who must suffer (Mat 16:21), and Who will one day return in glory to call all men to account (Mat 16:27), having prior to that revealed His Kingship by establishing His Kingly Rule on earth (Mat 16:28), and He is above all the glorious, beloved Son of the Father (Mat 17:5), Whose glory is above that of the sun (Mat 17:2), to Whom both Moses and Elijah give testimony (Mat 17:1-8).

a Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” (Mat 16:13).

b And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets” (Mat 16:14).

c He says to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (Mat 16:15).

d And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God” (Mat 16:16).

e And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mat 16:17).

d “And I also say to you, that you are Peter.

c “And on this rock I will build my church (congregation/assembly), and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18).

b “I will give to you the keys of the kingly rule of heaven, and whatever you will bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Mat 16:19).

a Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ (Mat 16:20).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus asks Who the Son of Man is, and in the parallel tells them not to make it known. This then is the issue that the passage centres on. In ‘b’ are mentioned the great men of the past who have bound and loosed, and opened the truth to men, and in the parallel Peter is to be the same. The former have pointed forward to Jesus as the Coming One, the latter seek to establish on earth His Kingly Rule. In ‘c’ He asks Whom they think He is, and in the parallel describes that fact as being the foundation stone of His new congregation of Israel. In ‘d’ Peter declares that Jesus is the Christ, and in the parallel Jesus declares that he is ‘petros’, the rock-like man. Centrally in ‘e’ is the fact that this has been revealed to Peter by His Father in Heaven.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Christ the Son of the Living God.

“

v. 13. 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?

v. 14. And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets.

A second time Christ made an excursion northwards, to the very boundary of Palestine, into the territory of Herod Philip, who had practically rebuilt this city and made it his residence. It had formerly been called Paneas, and is probably the ancient Leshem or Laish, Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:7. The reasons for this journey were probably those of the preceding trip to the North, to get away, for a while, from the distractions of the active ministry, with its tedious and wearing vexations, and to gain time and opportunity for uninterrupted intercourse with the disciples. They needed a great deal of help in their faith, since the days of real temptations were drawing near. They must grow in Him and through Him in faith and firmness, lest the last great test find them unable to hold their own. While they were on their way into this region, Jesus, not so much for His own information as for the sake of testing the faith of His disciples, asks them the question: Whom do people take Me for? What do they find in Me? He applies the official title “Son of Man” to Himself, as distinguishing Him according to His person and His work. It appears that the bitter slanderings of the Pharisees had at least had so much effect that the belief in His Messiahship had gradually been suppressed among the common people. But they still held Him in high esteem. They either believed that one of the prophets, such as John the Baptist, Elijah, or Jeremiah, had been raised from the dead, or they held, according to Pharisaical example, that the soul and spirit of one of these prophets had come to new life in Jesus. Christ was indeed a prophet, Deu 18:15, and He was very properly called Elijah, Mal 4:5; however, in a far higher sense than these ignorant people thought. But the Lord’s inquiry had a deeper purpose, namely, to get an express declaration of faith from His disciples, and to confirm and strengthen them in it.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 16:13. When Jesus came into the coasts, &c. When Jesus came into the territories of, or was going towards, Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say I am? the son of man? Heylin. Cesarea Philippi, while it was possessed by the Canaanites, was called Leshem, Jos 19:47 and Laish, Jdg 18:27. But when the children of Dan took it, they named it after their progenitor. In later times it was called Paneas, from the mountain beneath which it stood. The situation of Paneas pleased Philip the tetrarch so exceedingly, that he resolved to make it the seat of his court; for which purpose he enlarged and adorned it with many sumptuous buildings, and called it Cesarea in honour of the Roman emperor: the tetrarch’s name, however, was commonly added to distinguish it from the other Cesarea, so often mentioned in the Acts, which was a fine port in the Mediterranean sea, and had been rebuilt by Herod the Great, and named in honour of Augustus Caesar. See the note on Act 8:40. Josephus gave Philip so good a character, that some have thought our Lord retired into his territories for security from the insults of his enemies elsewhere. See Beausobre and Lenfant, Introduction, p. 27.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 16:13 ff. Comp. Mar 8:27 ff.; Luk 9:18 ff. (which latter evangelist rejoins, at this point, the synoptic narrative, having left it immediately after recording the first miraculous feeding of the multitude, a circumstance which is sometimes alleged as a reason for doubting the authenticity of the second miracle of this kind).

Caesarea Philippi , a town in Gaulonitis, at the foot of Mount Lebanon, which was formerly known by the name of Paneas, Plin. N. H . v. 15. Philip the tetrarch enlarged and embellished it (Joseph. Antt . xviii. 2, Bell . ii. 9. 1), and called it Caesarea in honour of Caesar (Tiberius). It received the name of Philippi in order to distinguish it from Caesarea Palestinae . Robinson, Pal . III. pp. 612, 626 ff., and neuere Forsch . p. 531 ff.; Ritter, Erdk . XV. 1, p. 194 ff.

] See, in general, note on Mat 8:20 . The words are in characteristic apposition with . That is to say, Matthew does not represent Jesus as asking in a general way (as in Mark and Luke) who it was that the people supposed Him to be, but as putting the question in this more special and definite form: whom do the people suppose me, as the Son of man, to be? He had very frequently used this title in speaking of Himself; and what He wanted to know was, the nature of the construction which the people put upon the designation in Daniel, which He had ascribed to Himself, whether or not they admitted it to be applicable to Him in its Messianic sense. Comp. Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr . 1865, p. 228. From the answer it appears that, as a rule, He was not being taken for the Messiah as yet (that consequently the more general appellation: ., was not as yet being applied to Him in the special sense in which Daniel uses it), He was only regarded as a forerunner; but the disciples themselves had understood Him to be the Son of man in Daniel’s sense of the words, and, as being such, they looked upon Him as the Messiah , the Son of God . Accordingly it is not necessary to regard . . . as interpolated by Matthew (Holtzmann, Weizscker), thereby destroying the suggestive correlation in which it stands to the expression, Son of God , in Peter’s reply. It is not surprising that Strauss should have been scandalized at the question, seeing that he understood it in the anticipatory sense of: “whom do the people suppose me to be, who am the Messiah? ” Beza inserts a mark of interrogation after , and then takes the following words by themselves thus: an Messiam? But this would involve an anticipation on the part of the questioner which would be quite out of place. De Wette (see note on Mat 8:20 ) imports a foreign sense into the passage when he thus explains: “whom do the people say that I am, I, the obscure, humble man who have before me the lofty destiny of being the Messiah, and who am under the necessity of first of all putting forth such efforts in order to secure the recognition of my claims?” Keim’s view is correct, though he rejects the (see critical notes).

Observe, moreover, how it was, after He had performed such mighty deeds in His character of Messiah, and had prepared His disciples by His previous training of them, and when feeling now that the crisis was every day drawing nearer, that Jesus leads those disciples to avow in the most decided way possible such a conviction of the truth of the Christian confession as the experience of their own hearts might by this time be expected to justify. Comp. note on Mat 16:17 . As for themselves, they needed a religious confession thus deeply rooted in their convictions to enable them to confront the trying future on which they were about to enter. And to Jesus also it was a source of comfort to find Himself the object of such sincere devotion; comp. Joh 6:67 ff. But to say that it was not till now that He Himself became convinced of His Messiahship (Strauss, before 1864, Schenkel), is to contradict the whole previous narrative in every one of the evangelists. Comp. Weizscker, Keim, Weissenborn, p. 41 ff.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

PART THIRD

Christ presents the future history of the Kingdom of Heaven, in opposition to the Ancient World and the Theocracy

Contents (from Mat 16:18 to Mat 20:16):The period has now arrived for founding the Church of Christ, or , distinct and visible Community, in opposition to that ancient form of he Theocracy which was henceforth doomed to judgment. The open and full confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, formed, so to speak, the moment when the was born. From that hour Christ manifested and owned His Church as such, through the confession which the Church made of Him. This Church is here presented in its leading characteristics: 1. In its prophetic character as confessing Christ, from Mat 16:13 to Mat 17:27; Matthew 2. in its priestly capacity, from Mat 18:1 to Mat 19:26; & in Its kingly manifestation, from Mat 19:27 to Mat 20:16.

_____________
FIRST SECTION

THE CHURCH IN ITS PROPHETIC CHARACTER, AS CONFESSING CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, IN OPPOSITION TO THE LEGAL OPINIONS CONCERNING HIM, ENTERTAINED BY THE SYNAGOGUE

16:1317:27

The Church of Christ in its prophetic character is here set before us, first, as confessing Christ, Mat 16:13-20; then as bearing the cross of Christ, in contrast to that worldly fear of the cross by which He was assailed, Mat 16:21-28; then, as in real fellowship with the spirits of the blessed, in opposition to the solitary tabernacles of spurious separation from the world, Mat 17:1-8.Next, the Church is described as wholly unknown and hidden, Mat 16:9-13; yet as wonder-working, Mat 16:14-21; though still in human weakness, Mat 16:22-23; as free, but voluntarily subject and paying tribute to the old temple, Mat 16:24-27.

The historical succession of events was as follows:In company with His disciples, the Lord passed along the left bank of the Jordan, toward the mountains. At Bethsaida Julias He performed the cure of a blind person (recorded in Mar 8:22), at the same time enjoining strict silence upon him. Thence they continued their journey to the immediate neighborhood of Csarea Philippi, touching (as it would seem from Mar 8:27) only the adjoining villages, but avoiding the town itself. It was in these coasts, or district, that the Lord evoked the confession of Peter, which was followed by the announcement of the foundation of His Church, . Immediately afterward, Jesus distinctly announced His impending sufferings, since these were connected with the foundation of His Church, as the latter was with the confession of His name. On this occasion Peter began to rebuke Him; and he who had lately been commended as confessing, was now reproved as tempting. The event just recorded led to the admonition, addressed to His disciples generally, on the subject of taking up the cross and following Him. A week later, the Lord called His three most intimate disciples to witness His transfiguration on the Mount. As they came down, Jesus explained to them the advent and mission of Elijah. At the foot of the mountain, the healing of the lunatic boy, possessed with a devil took place. From thence Jesus secretly passed through Galilee, probably for the purpose of acquainting His friends with those impending sufferings, for which He had already prepared His disciples. Refusing the solicitation of His brethren to join the caravan going up to the feast, He went secretly to Jerusalem, to the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated in autumn. Thus the history advances to the month of October of the year 782 (according to Wieseler, to the 12th October), Joh 7:1-10. In Jerusalem the events recorded in Joh 7:11, etc., took place, when Jesus pointed to the fulfilment of the Old Testament symbols in His life. The healing of the man blind from his birth (John 9), hastened the full and final determination of the Jewish authorities to put Him to death. But in all probability Jesus did not continue in Judea during the interval between the Feast of Tabernacles in October, and the festival of the Dedication of the Temple in December (according to Wieseler, the 27th December). During that period He appears to have paid a farewell visit to Galilee, and to have passed from Samaria to Perea, where He tarried till the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 1003). After His return to Galilee, Jesus again appeared in public, though probably, as in Jerusalem, only surrounded by a large number of His friends. For the last time Jesus now came to Capernaum, where He was asked for the payment of the temple tribute, Mat 17:24-27. Thus far our section.

A. The Church as confessing Christ, the Son of God. Mat 16:13-20

(The Gospel for the Festival of St. Peter and PaulParallels: Mar 8:27-30; Luk 9:18-21.)

13When Jesus came into the coasts [parts, ] of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom [Who] do men say that I,10 the Son of man, am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias [Elijah]; and others, Jeremiah 15[Jeremiah], or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom [who] say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona [Bar Jonah, son of Jonah]11: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which [who] is in heaven [the heavens]. 18And I say also [And I also, , say] unto thee. That thou art Peter [], and upon [on] this rock []12 I will build my Church [];13 and the gates of hell [hades]14 shall not prevail against it.15 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven [the heavens]: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven [the heavens]; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [the heavens].

20Then charged16 he his [the]17 disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ [he is the Christ].18

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat 16:13. Into the parts of Csarea Philippi.The cure of the blind person at the eastern Beth saida (Mar 13:22) had taken place before that. Csarea Philippi, formerly called Paneas (Plin. H.N. V. 15), from the mountain Panius, dedicated to Pan, in the immediate neighborhood. The town is supposed to have been the ancient Leshem, Jos 19:47; Laish, Jdg 18:7; and Danfrom Dan to Beersheba. It lay near the sources of Jordan, at the foot of Mount Lebanon, a days journey from Sidon, in Gaulonitis, and was partly inhabited by heathens. The town was enlarged and beautified by Philip the Tetrarch, who called it Csarea (Kingston) in honor of Csar Tiberius. The name Philippi was intended to distinguish it from Csarea Palestine (Robinson, Palest. ii. 439; also, vol. iii. sect 9.). Tradition reports that the woman with the issue of blood resided here. Her name is said to have been Berenice. Agrippa II. further embellished this city, and called it Neronias in honor of Nero. The modern village of Banias, and the ruins around it, mark the site of the ancient city.

Who [not whom] do men say that I am?How do men explain the appearance of the Son of Man? Meyer: What do they understand by the designation, Son of Man? De Wette: I who am a humble, lowly man. But this completely misses the peculiar import of the expression, Son of Man.

Mat 16:14. Some say.The reply shows that, in general, He was not yet looked upon as the Messiah. Meyer. But according to the representation of the evangelist, we must rather infer that Christs enemies had by their calumnies succeeded in lowering the popular estimate concerning Him.

John the Baptist,See Mat 14:2. This, for a time, had been the opinion of the courtiers of Herod.Elijah,as the precursor of the Messiah. Such was the view professed by those whom fear of their superiors induced to deny His claims to the Messianic office, while, from a desire of not entirely surrendering the expectations which had been excited by His appearance, they still regarded Him as a prophet.Jeremiah.Of course, in the same sense as Elijah,not in the sense of literally revisiting the earth, nor in that of implying the doctrine of the transmigration of souls [metempsychosis].19 The opinion of these persons concerning Jesus was evidently lower than that of those who regarded Him as Elijah (Mar 15:35; Joh 1:21). The one party referred especially to what might be designated as the reformation inaugurated by Jesus, while the other had regard to His denunciations of the corruptions of the times.Or one of the prophets.According to the lowest view, He was represented by discouraged friends as one of the old prophets. Three points are clearly brought out in this conversation: 1. That, to a certain extent, Jesus was still generally acknowledged by the people. 2. That the faith of the majority had been lowered and misled by the influence of their superiors, so that diverging opinions were now entertained regarding Him. 3. That this inconstancy and wavering led to a decreasing measure of homage.

Mat 16:15. But who say ye that I am?This was the decisive moment in which the separation of the New Testament from the Old Testament theocracy was to be made. The hour had come for the utterance of a distinct Christian confession.

Mat 16:16. Simon Peter.Peter answered not merely in his own name, but in that of all the disciples.20Thou art the Christ,i.e., the Messiah Himself. And this not in the sense in which carnal Jewish traditionalism held the doctrine of the Messiah, but in the true and spiritual import of the titlethe Son of the living GodThe latter expression must not be taken merely in a negative sense, as denoting the True God in opposition to false deities; it must also be viewed in a positive sense, as referring to Him whose manifestations in Israel were completed in and crowned by the appearance of His Son as the Messiah. This, however, implies Sonship not only in a moral or official, but also in the ontological sense. Thus the reply of Peter had all the characteristics of a genuine confessionbeing decided, solemn, and deep.

[The confession of Peter is the first and fundamental Christian confession of faith, and the germ of the Apostles Creed. It is a confession, not of mere human opinions, or views, or convictions, however firm, but of a divinely wrought faith, and not of faith only (I believe that Thou art), but of adoration and worship (Thou art). It is christological, i.e., a confession of Jesus Christ as the centre and heart of the whole Christian system, and the only and all-sufficient fountain of spiritual life. It is a confession of Jesus Christ as a true man (Thou, Jesus), as the promised Messiah (the Christ), and as the eternal Son of God (the Sonnot a sonof the living God.), hence as the God-Man and Saviour of the world. It is thus a confession of the mystery of the Incarnation in the widest sense, the great central mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh.Compare also the excellent remarks of Olshausen (in Kendricks Am. ed., vol. i p. 545 sq.) and Alford, who, following Olshausen, says in loc.: The confession is not made in the terms of the other answer: it is not we say, or I say, but Thou art. It is the expression of an inward conviction wrought by Gods Spirit. The excellence of this confession is, that it brings out both the human and the divine nature of the Lord: is the Messiah, the Son of David, the anointed King; is the Eternal Son, begotten of the Eternal Father, as the last word most emphatically implies, not Son of God in any inferior figurative sense, not one of the sons of God, of angelic nature, but the Son of the living God, having in Him the Sonship and the divine nature, in a sense in which they could be in none else. This was the view of the person of Christ quite distinct from the Jewish Messianic idea, which appears to have been (Justin Mart. Dial. p. 267) that he should be born from men, but selected by God for the office on account of his eminent virtues. This distinction accounts for the solemn blessing pronounced in the next verse. must not for a moment be taken here, as it sometimes is used (e.g., Act 14:15), as merely distinguishing the true God from dead idols: it is here emphatic, and imparts force and precision to . That Peter, when he uttered the words, understood by them in detail all that we now understand, is not of course here asserted, but that they were his testimony to the true Humanity and true Divinity of the Lord, in that sense of deep truth and reliance, out of which springs the Christian life of the Church. Meyer, indeed, takes simply as the solemn epithet of the true God in opposition to the dead idols of the heathen; but there was no reason here for contrasting the true God with heathen idols, and Peter must have meant to convey the idea, however imperfectly understood by him at the time, that the Godhead itself was truly revealed in, and reflected from, the human person of Christ in a sense and to a degree compared with which all former manifestations of God appeared to him like dead shadows. He echoed the declaration from heaven at Christs baptism: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, and recognized in Him the essential and eternal life of the great Jehovah.P. S.]

Mat 16:17. Jesus answered.Also a confession decided, solemn, and deep; being the divine confession of the Lord in favor of the Church, which had now confessed His name, and of her first witness.

Blessed art thou (comp. Rom 10:9), Simon, son of Jonah.21Meyer denies in vain the antithesis between this address and the new title given to Peter. Different views have been taken in reference to this antithesis. 1. Paulus explains it: Simon, or obedient hearer,son of Jonas, or son of oppression. 2. Olshausen: , dove, with reference to the Holy Spirit under the figure of a dove. Thou, Simon, art a child of the Spirit. 3. Lange (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 469): Thou, Simon, son of a dove (which makes its nest in the rock, a figure of the Church), shalt be called a rock (the rocklike dwelling-place of the dove, i.e., of the Church).22 With this antithesis the other in the same verse is connected. According to the flesh, thou art a natural son of Jonah; but according to this revelation of the Spirit, a child of the Father who is in heaven (referring to his regeneration, and consequent faith and confession). [Similarly Alford: The name Simon Bar Jonas is doubtless used as indicating his fleshly state and extraction, and forming the greater contrast to his spiritual state, name, and blessing, which follow. The name , Simon, son of Jonas or Jonah, is uttered when he is reminded by the thrice-repeated inquiry, Lovest thou me? of his frailty, in his previous denial of his Lord, Joh 21:15-17.P. S.]

Flesh and blood.Various views have been taken of this expression. 1. Calvin, Beza, Neander, de Wette, refer it to our physical nature in opposition to the . To this Meyer objects, that our physical nature is termed in Scripture only , not (in 1Co 15:50, flesh and blood should be literally understood). 2. According to Light foot and Meyer, it must be taken (with special reference to the fact, that the Rabbins use as a kind of paraphrase for Son of man, including the accessory idea of the weakness involved in our corporeal nature), as simply denoting weak man, equivalent to nemo mortalium (as in Gal 1:16). 3. We explain it: the natural, carnal descent, as contrasted with spiritual generation. Joh 1:13 : , . . . This appears still further from the connection between the expressions, flesh and blood and son of Jonah, and from the antithesis, My Father who is in heaven. Hence Gal 1:16 must mean: When I received a commission to preach to the Gentiles, I conferred not with my Jewish nationality; and Eph 6:12 : In reality, we wrestle not with beings of human kind, but with the powers of darkness, whose representatives and instruments they are; and 1Co 15:50 : The kind which is of this world (of the first man, who is of the earth) shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but we must enter it by a complete transformation into a second and new life which is from heaven. Accordingly, the antithesis in the text is between knowledge resulting from natural human development, or on the basis of natural birth, and knowledge proceeding from the revelation of the Father in heaven, or on the basis of regeneration.

Hath not revealed it,but My Father.A difficulty has been felt, how to reconcile this declaration with the fact, that the disciples had at a much earlier period recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Joh 1:42; Joh 1:46; Joh 1:50). 1. Olshausen holds that this confession of Peter indicates a much more advanced state of knowledge: , . 2. Neander thinks that all earlier revelations had more or less proceeded from flesh and blood. 3. Meyer suggests that the text refers to that first acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, in consequence of which the disciples came and surrendered themselves, to Him.23 4. In our view, the new element in this confession lies, first of all, in its ethical form. It was no longer a mere knowledge (or recognition) of Christ. While the general knowledge of the Jews concerning the Messiah had retrograded, and degenerated into discordant and self contradictory opinions, the knowledge of the disciples had advanced, and was now summed up and concentrated into an act of spiritual faith in Peters confession, which, in view of the hostility of the Jewish rulers, may be characterized as a real martyrdom (). Another new element lay in the view now expressed concerning the Messiah. On all the main points, the Jewish and traditional notions of the Messiah had evidently been thrown off, and a pure and spiritual faith attained from converse with the life of Jesus. In both these respects, it was a revelation of the Father in heaven, i.e., a heavenly and spiritual production. The new life was germinating in the hearts of the disciples.De Wette regards this passage as incompatible with the earlier acknowledgments of the Messiah; while Fritzsche, Schneckenburger, and Strauss talk of a twofold period in Christs ministry: the first, when He was a disciple of John; the second, when He attained to consciousness of His Messianic dignity. But these critics have wholly misunderstood this narrative.

Mat 16:18. But I also say unto thee.The expression shows in a striking manner the reciprocity existing between Christ and His disciples. Their confession solicits His confession.24

Thou art Peter, –, in Aramaic the stone, or the rock (see Meyer). The Greek masculine noun arose from the translation of the name into Greek; the name itself had been given at an earlier period, Joh 1:42. It was now bestowed a second time to indicate the relationship subsisting between Peter and the Ecclesia, rather than to prove that Peter really was what his name implied (Meyer). From the first this name was intended to be symbolical; although its real meaning was only attained at a later period in the history of Peter. But at the same time the words of Jesus imply the acknowledgment that his character as Peter had just appeared in this confession. [It should be observed that in Joh 1:42 (in the Gr. text, 16:43) we read: Thou shalt be called () Cephas, but here: Thou art () Peter.P. S.]

And on this rock.For the various interpretations of this passage, see Wolfs Cur. We submit the following summary of them: 1. The term rock is referred to Christ Himself. Thus Jerome,25 Augustine,26 Chemnitz, Fabricius, and others.*2. It is referred to Peters confession. Thus most of the Fathers, several Popes, Leo I.,27 Huss in the Tractat. de ecclesia, the Articuli Smalcald. in the Append., Luther,28 Febronius, and others,293. It is applied to Peter himself, (a) In the popish sense, by Baronius and Bellarmin, [Passaglia,] as implying that Peter was invested with a permanent primacy.30 (b) With reference to the special call and work of Peter as an Apostle. By thee, Peter, as the most prominent of My witnesses, shall the Church be founded and established: Acts 2, 10. So, many Roman Catholics, as Launoi, Dupin,and later Protestant expositors, as Werenfels, Pfaff, Bengel, and Crusius. Heubner thinks that the antanaclasis, or the connecting of Peter with , is in favor of this view. But he [as also nearly all other commentators who represent this view] combines with it the application of the term to the confession. 314. It is applied to Peter, inclusive of all the other Apostles, and, indeed, of all believers. Thus Origen on Mat 16:18 : Every believer who is enlightened by the Father is also a rock.5. In our opinion, the Lord here generalizes, so to speak, the individual Peter into the general , referring to what may be called the petrine characteristic of the Churchviz., faithfulness of confession,32as first distinctly exhibited by Peter. Hence the words of Jesus only refer to Peter in so far as by this confession he identified himself with Christ, and was the first to upbuild the Church by his testimony. But in so far as the text alludes to an abiding foundation of the Church, the expression refers not to the Apostle as an individual, but to . in the more general sense, or to faithfulness of confession. That Peter was here meant in his higher relation, and not in himself, appears from the change of terms, first , then ; also from the contrast in Mat 16:22; while the fact that his distinction conferred no official primacy is evident from this, that the same rights and privileges were bestowed upon all the Apostles: Mat 18:18; Joh 20:23; Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14. That he himself claimed no preminence appears from his First Epistle, in which he designates Christ as the corner-stone, and Christians as living stones, 1Pe 2:5-6 (as themselves Peters, or related to Peter). Lastly, that he knew of no successors in the sense of the Papacy, is proved by his exhortation to the presbyters not to be lords over Gods heritage (the , 1Pe 5:3).

My Church.Here the of Christ appears for the first time in distinct contrast to the Jewish congregation, . Hence the passage refers not simply to a community of believers, but to a definite organization of this community (compare what follows on the keys). Accordingly, the passage alludes to the Church as the organized and visible form of the . The Church is not the kingdom of heaven itself, but a positive institution of Christ by which, on the one hand, the kingdom of heaven becomes directly manifest in the world by its worship, while, on the other hand, it spreads through the world by means of its missionary efforts. The Church bears the same relation to the kingdom of heaven as the Messianic state under the Old Testament to the theocracy, the two being certainly not identical.

The gates of hades (underworld).De Wette: Here, equivalent to the kingdom of Satan. But this is not the scriptural conception of hades or sheol. Throughout the Bible hades means the kingdom of death; which is, indeed, connected with the kingdom of Satan, but has a more comprehensive meaning. Hades is described as having gates; it is figuratively represented as a castle with gates (Son 8:6; Job 38:17; lsa. 38:10; Psa 107:18). These gates serve a hostile purpose, since they opened, like a yawning abyss of death, to swallow up Christ, and then Peter, or the Apostles and the Church, in their martyrdom. For a long time it seemed as if the Church of Christ would become the prey of this destroying hades. But its gates shall not ultimately prevailthey shall be taken; and Christ will overcome and abolish the kingdom of death in His Church (see lsa. 25:8; Hos 13:14; 1Co 15:15; Eph 1:19-20). Of course, the passage also implies conflict with the kingdom of evil, and victory over it; but its leading thought is the triumph of life over death, of the kingdom of the resurrection over the usurped reign of the kingdom of hades.Erasmus, Calvin, and others, refer it to the victory over Satan; Grotius, to that over death;33 Ewald, to that over all the monsters of hell, let loose through these open gates; Glckler, to that over the machinations of the kingdom of darkness (the gate being the place of council in the East); Meyer, to the superiority of the Church over hades, without any allusion to an attack on the part of hades. The idea, that the Old Testament would fall before the gates of hades, is here evidently implied (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 887.)

Mat 16:19.The keys of the kingdom of heaven.Luk 11:52; Rev 1:18; Rev 3:7; Rev 9:1; Rev 20:1. It is the prerogative of the Apostles, either to admit into the kingdom of heaven, or to exclude from it. Meyer: The figure of the keys corresponds with the figurative expression in Mat 16:18; since in Mat 16:18 the , which, at Christs second appearing, is destined to become the (as if this were not already its real, though not its open character, which at Christs second coming shall only become outwardly manifest!)is represented as a building. But, in reference to Peter, the figure changes from that of a rock, or foundation, to that of an ; or, in other words, from the position and character of Peter to his office and work. But evidently the antithesis here presented is different from this view. Peter is designated the foundation-stone as being the first confessing member of the Church, though with an allusion to his calling; while in his official relation to the Church he is represented as guardian of the Holy City. Hence the expression, rock, refers to the nucleus of the Church as embodied in Peter; while the keys allude to the apostolic office and vocation in the Church.

[Alford: Another personal promise to Peter, remarkably fulfilled in his being the first to admit both Jews and Gentiles into the Church; thus using the power of the keys to open the door of salvation? Wordsworth applies the promise in a primary and personal sense to Peter, but in a secondary and general sense also to the Church, and especially the ministers who hold and profess the faith of Peter and are called to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to exercise discipline. Augustine: Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit ecclesi.P. S.]

And whatsoever thou shalt bind.A somewhat difficult antithesis, especially with reference to the preceding context. Bretschneider (Lexicon): The expression binding means to bind with the Church; and loosing, to loose from the Church. But this is to confound ideas which are very different. Olshausen understands it of the ancient custom of tying the doors. But the text speaks of a key. Stier regards it as in accordance with rabbinical phraseology, taken from the Old Testament; binding and loosing being equivalent to forbidding and permitting, and more especially to remitting and retaining sins. But these two ideas are quite different. Lightfoot, Schttgen, and, after them, von Amnion, hold that the expression implied three things: 1. Authority to declare a thing unlawful or lawful. Thus Meyer regards and as equivalent to the rabbinical and , to forbid, and to permit. 2. To pronounce an action, accordingly, as criminal or innocent. 3. Thereupon to pronounce a ban or to revoke it. But as the Lord here speaks of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, He can only have referred directly to the last-mentioned meaning of the expression, though it involved the first and second, as the sentence of the Apostles would always be according to truth. A comparison of the parallel passage in Mat 18:18 confirms this view. There Church discipline is enjoined on the disciples collectively, to whom precisely the same assurance is given which in the text is granted to Peter alone; while in Joh 20:23 the order is reversed: the expression, remitting sins, being equivalent for loosing, and retaining sins, for binding. The whole passage forms a contrast to the ecclesiastical discipline of the Pharisees, Matthew 23. From the evangelical character of the New Testament ministry, it seems to us impossible to interpret the expression as meaning to forbid and to permit, according to the analogy of rabbinical usage. To bind up sins, as in a bundle, implies coming judgment (Job 14:17; Hos 13:12); while, on the other hand, sins forgiven are described as loosed (LXX. Isa 40:2). Both figures are based on a deeper view of the case. When a person is refused admission into the Church, or excluded from it, all the guilt of his life is, so to speak, concentrated into one judgment; while its collective effect is removed, or loosed, when he is received into the Church, or absolved. The object of this binding and loosing is stated only in general terms. No doubt it combined all the three elements of the power of the keys, as the non remission or remission of sins (Chrysostom and many others,viz.: 1. The principle of admission or non-admission into the Church, or the announcement of grace and of judgment (the kingdom of heaven is closed to unbelievers, opened to believers). 2. Personal decision as to the admission of catechumens (Acts 8.). 3. The exercise of discipline, or the administration of excommunication from the Church (in the narrower sense, i.e., without curse or interdict attaching thereto). In the antithesis between earth and heaven, the former expression refers to the order and organization of the visible Church; the latter, to the kingdom of heaven itself. These two elements thenthe actual and the ideal Churchwere to coincide in the pure administration of the Apostles. But this promise is limited by certain conditions. It was granted to Peter in his capacity as a witness, and as confessing the revelation of the Father (Acts 5.), but not to Peter as wavering or declining from the truth (Mat 16:23; Galatians 2.).

Mat 16:20. That they should tell no man.Since the people would not give up their carnal notions of a worldly millennium. The Christian acknowledgment of the Messiah was not to be mixed up with Jewish expectations. Christs Messianic life had to be actually completed before His disciples were to testify of Him as the Christ Nay, the Lord Himself was to be the first publicly to announce it to the people, in the hour of His martyrdom (Mat 26:64).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. At first sight it may seem an accident that the first announcement of the Church as distinct from, and in contrast to, the Statewhile the ancient theocratic community combined both Church and Stateshould have been made in the district of Csarea, which owned the sway of so mild a monarch as Philip. At any rate, the event was one of universal historical importance, and may be regarded as the preparation for the feast of Pentecost
2. In what passed between our Lord and His disciples we are led to observe,(1) The contrast between human opinions of religion and a confession of faith prompted and evoked by the grace of God:in the former case, fear, dejection, uncertainty, and discordance; in the latter, courage, frankness, certainty, and unity. (2) The indissoluble connection between true confession and a life of revelation and in the Spirit, or regeneration; (3) between a common confession and the formation of the visible Church; (4) between the confession of the Church to Christ and Christs confession to the Church; (5) between the character of the first believing confessor and his official calling.
3. In the text, Peter is presented to us in a twofold relationship: (1) As Peter; (2) as receiving the keys. The former designation applied to him as the first believing confessor, the first member of the , to which others were afterward to be joined. Hence it referred to his practical life as a Christian bearing witness to Jesus, rather than to his official position in the Church. This spiritual character formed the basis of his office in the narrower sense, the main purport of which was to arrange individual believers into a community, and, by organizing a visible Church, to separate between the world and the kingdom of heaven. As being the first witness to Jesus, Peter, so to speak, laid the foundation of the Church: (1) By his confession on this occasion; (2) by his testimony, Acts 2; (3) by his admission of the Gentiles into the Church, Acts 10; (4) by being the means of communicating to the Church the distinguishing feature of his character fidelity of confession.

4. On the fact that the Church indelibly bears not only the characteristic of Peter, but of all the Apostles; or that all the apostolic offices are unchangeably perpetuated in it, comp. Com. on Matthew 10. (against Irvingism), and Schaffs History of the Apostolic Church, 129, p. 516 sqq.

5. In its apostolic nucleus, its apostolic beginning, and its apostolic depth and completeness, the Church is so thoroughly identified with the kingdom of heaven itself, that its social determinations should in all these respects coincide with the declaration of Gods Spirit. But this applies only in so far as Peter was really Peterand hence one with Christ, or as Christ is in the Church. That there is a difference between the Church and the kingdom of heaven, which may even amount to a partial opposition, is implied in the antithesis: on earthin heaven.

6. The present occasion must be regarded as the initial foundation, not as the regular and solemn institution, of the Church. The promises given to Peter still relate to the future. For the strong faith which prompted his confession was rather a prophetic flash of inspiration (the blossom), than a permanent state of mind (the fruit). This appears from the following section.

7. In this passage Peter is represented as the foundation-stone, and Christ as the builder; while in 1Co 3:11, Christ is designated the foundation, and the Apostles the builders. The latter figure evidently alludes to the relation between the changing and temporary laborers in the Church, and her eternal and essential character, more especially her eternal foundation; while the figurative language of Jesus applies to the relation between the starting-point and commencement of the Church in time, her outward and temporal manifestation, and her eternal Builder. (From the authors Leben Jesu. ii. 2, p. 886). Richter (Erklrte Hausbibel, 1:157): The Church opens the way into the kingdom of heaven. Christ built on Peter and the Apostles, not His kingdom, but His Church, which is one, though not the only, form in which Christianity manifests itself. Hence Olshausen is mistaken in regarding the as simply tantamount to the .

[Wordsworth observes on the words: they shall not prevail: That these words contain no promise of infallibility to St. Peter, is evident from the fact that the Holy Spirit, speaking by St. Paul in Canonical Scripture, says that he erred (Gal 2:11-13).34 And that they do not contain any promise of infallibility to the bishop of Rome is clear, among other proofs, from the circumstance that Pope Liberius (as Athanasius relates, Historia Arian., 41, p. 291) lapsed into Arianism, and Honorius was anathematized of old by Roman pontiffs as an heretic.P. S.]

8. For special treatises on the supposed primacy of Peter, see Heubner, p. 236; Danz, Universal wrterbuch, article Primat; Bretschneider, Systematische Entwicklung, p. 786, etc

9. On the power of the keys, see Heubner, p. 240; The Authors Positive Dogmatik, p. 1182,the literature belonging to it, p. 1196; Berl. Kirchl. Vierteljahrsschrift, 2:1845, Nr. 1; Rothe, Ethik, 4:1066. [Compare also Wordsworth, Alford, Brown, and the American commentators, Barnes, Alexander, Owen, Jacobus, Whedon, Nast, on Mat 16:19.P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The Church of Christ founded under the sentence of expulsion pronounced on Christ and His Apostles both by the Jewish Church and the State: 1. Its preparatory announcement, Mat 16:2. its complete and real foundation (Golgotha); 3. its solemn institution and manifestation, Acts 2; comp. Matthew 3, 4 and Heb 13:13.The decisive question, Who do men say that the Son of Man is?Difference between opinions about Christ and the confession of Christ.The first New Testament confession of Christ, viewed both as the fruit and as the seed of the kingdom of heaven: 1. The fruit of the painful labor and sowing of Christ; 2. the germ and seed of every future confession of Christ.The confession of Peter an evidence of his spiritual life: 1. In its freedom and cheerful self-surrender; 2. in its decidedness; 3. in its infinite fulness; 4. in its general suitableness for all disciples.Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God: 1. In His nature; 2. in His mission; 3. in His work.The joy of the Lord at the first fruits of His mission.The confession of the Lord to His Congregation: 1. How it will continue to become more abundant even to the day of judgment. (Whosoever shall confess Me, etc.) 2. What it imports. (The blessedness of Simon in his character as Peter.)The Son of the living God acknowledging those who are begotten of the Father as His own relatives and brethren.The life of faith of Christians ever a revelation of the Father in heaven.Genuine confession a fruit of regeneration.The rock on which Christ has founded His Church, or Peter in a spiritual sense, is faithfulness of confession (Bekenntniss treue).Fidelity of confession the first characteristic mark of the Church.Relation between Christ, the Rock of the kingdom of heaven, the corner-stone of the everlasting Church, and the rock-foundation on which His visible Church on earth is reared: 1. In the one case, the Apostles are the builders, and Christ the rock and corner-stone; 2. in the other case, the Apostles are the foundation, and Christ the builder.Only when resting on that rock which is Christ will His people become partakers of the same nature.How the Church of Christ will endure forever, in spite of the gates of Hades.The old, legal, and typical Church, and the new Church of the living Saviour, in their relation to the kingdom of death 1. The former is overcome by the kingdom of death; 2. the latter overcomes the kingdom of death.Complete victory of Christs kingdom of life over the kingdom of death.First Peter, then the keys; c., first the Christian, then the office.The power of the keys as a spiritual office: 1. Its infinite importance: announcement of the statutes of the kingdom of heaven; decision respecting the admission and continuance [of members]; or, in its threefold bearing(a) on the hearers of the word generally, (b) on catechumens, and (c) on communicants. 2. The conditions of its exercise: a living confession, of which Christ is the essence; readiness to bind as well as to loose, and vice vers, the ratification of the kingdom of heaven.The keys of the prisons of the Inquisition, and of the coffers of Indulgences,35 as compared with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, the difference between the golden and the iron keys.The confession of faith kept as a secret from the enemies of Christ.The preparatory festival of the New Covenant.

Starke:It is useful, and even necessary, for preachers to be aware of the erroneous fancies which are in vogue among their hearers on the subject of religion.Cramer: Every man should be able to give an account of his faith, Joh 17:8.The discordant thoughts respecting the person of Christ.Majus: The just must live by his own faith.Osiander: Be not vacillating, but assured in your own minds.Jerome: Quemadmodum os loquitor pro toto corpore, sic Petrus lingua erat Apostolorum et pro omnibus ipse respondit.The other two confessions of Peter, Mat 14:33; Joh 6:68.If we acknowledge Christ aright in our heart, we shall also freely confess Him with our mouth, Rom 10:10.The divine and human natures combined in the person of Christ.Blessedness of faith.To know Christ is to be saved, Joh 17:3.Quesnel: True blessedness: 1. It consists not in the advantages of birth, nor in natural gifts, nor in riches, nor in reputation and dignity; but, 2. in the possession of the gifts of grace through Christ.Hedinger: All true faith is the gift of God.Osiander: If the truth of God is mixed up with human fancies, it does more harm than good.Let no one hastily talk of the good which he has received, but let him first make experiment of its reality, Ecc 5:1.

Gerlach:The Christian Church possesses this power of the keys, not in its outward capacity or organization, but in so far as the Spirit rules in it. Hence, whenever it is exercised as a merely outward law, without the Spirit, the Lord in His providence disowns these false pretensions of the visible Church.

Heubner:In order to be decided, and to become our own faith, we must publicly profess it.How little value attaches to the opinions of the age on great men!36The independence of Christians of prevalent opinions.Peters confession not his faith only, but that of all disciples, Joh 6:68.Peters confession the collective confession of the Apostles.See what value Christ sets on this faith.It is impossible for any man, even though he were an apostle, to impart faith to another. This is Gods prerogative.

Footnotes:

[10] Mat 16:13.The pers. pron. in Cod. C. after , fin the text. rec. before the verb], Is wanting in Cod. B. [and in Cod. Sinaiticus] and in several versions, and is omitted by Tischendorf [and Tregelles and Alford]; Lachmann retains it, but in brackets. The insertion is more easily explained than the omission.[If we omit , we must translate, with Campbell and Conant: Who do men say that the Son of Man is ? Or with Alford, who retains the grammatical anomaly, if not blunder, of the Author. Vera.: Whom () do men say that the Son of Man is? is equivalent to I in the corresponding sentence below, Mat 16:15. Some who retain in the text (Beza, Clerious, etc.) translate: Who do men say that I am? the Son of Man? i.e., Do they believe me to be the Messiah? But this does not suit the form of the answer, and would require either an affirmative Yea, or a negative No. In the received text must be regarded as in apposition to , and is so rendered in the E. V.P. S.

[11] Mat 16:17.[Bur (=) is the Aramaic or Chaldaic word used by Daniel in the prophetic passage, 7:13 ( I saw… and one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, etc.), for the Hebrew ben (), son. In the Authorized E. V. it is retained as the patronymic of Peter, as Matthew retained it in Greek: ; Jerome In Latin: Bar-Jona; Bengel, de Wette, and Ewald in their German Versions: Bar-jona; while Tyndale. Cranmers, and the Geneva Bibles, also Luther and Lange translate it into the corresponding vernacular. Compare similar compound names: (Bar-Abbas, Bar-Jesus, Bar-Nabas, Bar-Sabas, Bar-Timus, Bar-Tholomus. The translation depends on whether the name is here simply the patronymic, or whether it has an allegorical meaning, as Olshausen and Lange contend. In the latter case it must be translated: son of Jonah, or Jonas. See Langes Exeg. Note, and my protesting footnote, on Mat 16:17. P. S.

[12] Mat 16:18.[ , one of the profoundest and most far-reaching prophetical, but, at the same time, one of the most controverted sayings of the Saviour, the exegetical rock on which the Papacy rests its gigantic claims (but not by direct proof, but by inference and with the help of undemonstrable intervening assumptions, as the transferability of Peters primacy, his presence in Rome, and his actual transfer of the primacy upon the bishop of Rome), under the united protest of the whole Greek Catholic and Protestant Evangelical Churches, who con tend that Christ says not a word about successors. Leaving the fuller exposition to the Exegetical Notes, we have to do here simply with the verbal rendering. In our Engl. Vers., as also in the German, the emphasis is lost, since rock and Fels are never used as proper names. We might literally translate: Thou art Peter and upon this petress; or: Thos art Stone, Rockman, Man of rock (Felsenmann), and upon this rock; but neither of them would sound idiomatic and natural. It is perhaps remarkable that the languages of the two most Protestant nations cannot render the sentence in any way favorable to the popish identification of the rock of the church with the person of Peter; while the Latin Vulgate simply retained the Greek Petrus and petra, and the French translation: Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre, even obliterates the distinction of the gender. The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word (hence the Greek applied to Simon. Joh 1:42; comp. 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 15:6; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N. T. renders the passage in question thus: Anath-her kipha, v all hode kipha. The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: Thou art Rock, and upon this rock, etc. Yet it should not be overlooked that Matthew in rendering the word into Greek, no doubt under the influence of the Holy Spirit, deliberately changed the gender, using the masculine in the one case and the feminine in the other. He had, of course, to use in addressing a man (as Maldonatus in loc. correctly remarks: Petrus, quia vir erat, non petra fmineo, sed Petrus masculino nomine vocandus erat); but he might with perfect propriety have continued: , instead of (which change Maldonatus less satisfactorily accounts for simply on the philological reason that the masculine et Atticum et rarum est). The masculine in Greek (in Homer and elsewhere) means generally only a piece of rock, or a stone (like the corresponding prose word ), and very rarely a rock. (Meyer, howover, quotes for the latter signification a passage from Plato: , one from Sophocles, and one from Pindar); but the feminine always signifies rock, whether it be used literally or metaphorically (as a symbol of firmness, but also of hardheartedness). I would not press this distinction, in view of the Syriac , and in opposition to such eminent commentators as Bengel and Meyer, who, like the Rom. Cath. commentators, admit no difference of the terms in this case. (Bengel: hc duo, et stant pro uno nomine, sicut unum utrinque nomen Kepha legitur in Syriaco.) But it is certainly possible, and to my mind almost certain, that Matthew expressed by the slight change of word in Greek, what the Saviour intended in using, necessarily, the same word in Syriac, viz., that the petra on which the Church is built by Christ, the Divine architect and Lord of this spiritual temple, is not the person of Peter as such, but something more deep and comprehensive; in other words, that it is Peter and his confession of the central mystery of Christianity, or Peter as the conjessor of Christ, Peter in Christ, and Peter, moreover, as representing all the other apostles in like relation to Christ (comp. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). Nor should we explain Mat 16:18 independently of Mat 16:23. It is very significant that, while the believing and confessing Peter here is called rock, the disobedient and dissuading Peter immediately afterward ( Mat 16:23), with surprising severity, is called for the time being Satan, the enemy of Christ. If the papacy has any claim to the rocklike nature of Peter, it has certainly also fallen at times under the condemnation of the satanic anti-christian, and denying Peter. Let us hope that it may imitate Peter also in his sincere repentance after the denial. Bengel: Videat Petra romana, ne cadat sub censuram versus 23.Comp. the Exeg. Notes below, and my History of the Apostolic Church, 89, p. 351 sqq. P. S.]

[13] Mat 16:18.[All the English versions before Queen Elizabeth, except that of Wiclif (which reads chirche), translate by the corresponding English word congregation; but the Bishops Bible substituted for it church, and this, by express direction of King James, was retained not only here, but in all other passages of the N. T. in the revised and authorized version of 1611. Among German translators and commentators, the Roman Catholics (van Ess, Arnoldi, Allioli) render by the term Kirche (church); while the Protestant translators and commentators (Luther. John Friedr. von Meyer, Stier, de Wette, Ewald, H. A. W. Meyer, and Lange) render: Gemeinde (congregation). The Greek , from , to call out, to summon, occurs 114 times in the N. T. (twice in the Gospel of Matthew, but in no other Gospel, 24 times in the Acts, 68 times in the Epistles, 20 times in Revelation), and corresponds to the Hebrew . It is not to be confounded with the more spiritual and comprehensive term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven. so often used by our Saviour. It means generally any popular convocation, congregation, assembly, and in a Christian sense the congregation of believers called out of the world and consecrated to the service of Christ. It is used in the N. T. (1) in a general sense, of the whole body of Christian believers, or the church universal, Mat 16:18; 1Co 12:28; Gal 1:13; Eph 1:22 (and in all the passages where the church is called the body of Christ); 1Ti 3:15; Heb 12:23, etc.; (2) more frequently in a particular sense, of a local congregation, as in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Ephesus, in Corinth, in Rome, in Galatia, in Asia Minor, etc.; hence, also, it is often used in the plural, e.g., , 1Co 16:19; , Rom 16:4; the seven churches, Rev 1:4; Rev 1:11; Rev 1:20, etc. The Saviour Himself makes use of the word only twice, viz.: in our passage, where it evidently means the church universal, which alone is indestructible, and in Mat 18:17, where it can be understood only of a local church or congregation (tell it to the church). John never uses the term except in his third epistle. The word church is properly no translation of at all, but has etymologically a different meaning, being derived from the Greek , i.e., belonging to the Lord, through the medium of the Gothic, whence also the cognate terms in the Tentonic and Slavonic languages, the German Kirche, the Scotch kirk, the Swedish kyrka, the Danish kyrke, the Russian serkow, the Polish cerkiew, the Bohemian zyrkew. (Leo, Ferienschriften, Halle, 1847, derives the word from the Celtic cyrch or cylch, i.e., centre, meeting place; but this would not explain the introduction of the word into the Slavonic nations, who received Christianity from the Greek church.) The word church is now used both in the general and in the particular sense, like , and in addition to this also in a third sense, viz., of a building, or house of worship (Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 9:10, calls the meeting houses of the Christians ). As regards the English translation of , a number of modern commentators advocate a return to the term congregation throughout the whole N. T. But it is neither possible nor desirable to expel the term church from the English Bible, which has long since become the full equivalent of the Greek . We might use church, where the word signifies the whole body of believers, and congregation, where a particular or local assembly of Christians is intended. But even this is unnecessary. The Geneva Bible also employed the term church in a few passages, though not in ours, where It seems to me to be more appropriate than congregation.P. S.]

[14] Mat 16:18.[ , in Hebrew , share sheol, an alliteration, Isa 38:10. On hades, as distinct from hell, compare the Exeg. Notes below, and also the Crit. Notes on 11. 23, p. 210.P. S.]

[15] Mat 16:18.[ , from , prvalere adversus aliquem, comp. Jer 15:20, Sept. Tyndale, the Bishops. King James, and the Douay Bibles agree in translating: shall not prevai against it; the Lat. Vulgate: non prvalebunt adversus sam; Luther, de Wette, Ewald, Lange: berwaltigen. Meyer: die Obermachi haben (behalten). I prefer the prevail of the Authorized Vers. to overcome (Geneva Bible), at expressing better the idea of long-continued resistance on the part of hades. The term must be explained in conformity to the architectural figure which runs through this whole passage:gates, build, keys. Hades is represented as a hostile fortress which stands over against the apparently defenceless, yet immovable temple of the Christian Church, to which our Lord here promises indestructible life. (Ecclesia non potest deficere.) The gates of hades, or the realm of death, by virtue of the universal dominion of sin, admit and confine all men, and (like the gates in Dantes Inferno with tie famous terrific inscription) were barred against all return until the Saviour overcame death and him that hath the power of death (Heb 2:14), and came forth unharmed and triumphant from the empire of death as conqueror and Prince of life. Hades could not retain Him (Act 2:27; Act 2:31). The same power of life He imparts to His people, who often, especially during the ages of persecution and martyrdom, seemed to he doomed to destruction, but always rose to new life and vigor, and shall reign with Christ forever. Comp. Rev 1:18 : I am alive forevermore, and have the keys of death and hides; and 1Co 15:26 : The last enemy that shall be destroyed, is death. This interpretation of the figure appears to me much more appropriate than the usual one, which takes hades here in the sense of hill, and assumes an active assault of the infernal armies, ru hing, as it were, through these gates and storming the fortress of Christs Church. To this interpretation I object: (1) That gates are not an active and aggressive, but a passive and confining power; (2) that hades, although closely related to gehenna or hell and including it, is yet a wider conception, and means here, as elsewhere, the realm of death (das Reich der Todten), which swallows up all mortals and confines forever those who have no part in the victory of Christ over death, hell, and damnation.P. S.]

[16] Mat 16:20.Lect. rec.: [prcepit, imperavit]. Codd. B., D.: [comminatus est], probably from Mar 8:30; Luk 9:21.

[17] Mat 16:20.[The oldest MSS., including Cod. Sinait, read simply: without . Meyer and Lange overlook this difference of reading. See Tregelles and Alford.P. S.]

[18] Mat 16:20. is wanting in important MSS. [The correct reading of all critical editions, sustained by the oldest MSS., including Cod. Sinait., the ancient versions, and patristic quotations, is simply: , that he is the Christ (the promised Messiah). The insertion of Jesus in later MSS. was a blunder of some mechanical copyist, who paid no attention to the connection, and added the personal to the official appellation, according to the usual designation of our Lord. Everybody knew and admitted the personal name of our Saviour, and it would have been useless to deny or to affirm that He was Jesus.P. S.]

[19][Some, however, no doubt believed in a bodily resurrection of Elijah or Jeremiah. The latter was accounted by the Jews as the first in the prophetic canon. See Lightfoot on Mat 27:9.P. S.]

[20][This is the correct view, already maintained by the fathers, e.g., Chrysostom, who, in Hom. 54, calls Peter in this connection the mouth of the apostles, , by Jerome: Petrus ex persona omnium apostolorum profitetur, and by Thomas Aquinas; Ipse respondes et pro se et pro aliis. Some Rom. Cath. commentators, as Passaglia and Arnoldi, for obvious reasons, maintain that Peter spoke only in his own name. But the Saviour addressed His question to all the disciples, and they certainly must have assented to Peters confession of faith, which they had from the time of their calling, and without which they could not have been apostles. Comp. Joh 1:42; Joh 1:46; Joh 1:50, also the remarks of Dr. Schegg, a Rom. Cath. Coal., in loc. (vol. ii p. 349).P. S.]

[21][According to Langes version. Comp. my critical note above.P. S.]

[22][I confess that this allegorical exposition of the term appears to me as far-fetched and as improbable as that of Olshausen. Bar-Jona has nothing to do with a dove, but is a contraction for Bar-Joanna (Chaldaic), i.e., Son of John, as is evident from Joh 21:15-17, where Christ addresses Peter: . But there may be in this use of the patronymic an allusion to the title Son of man is Mat 16:13, which would give additional emphasis to the counter confession, in this sense: That I, the Son of Man, am at the same time the Messiah and the eternal Son of God, is a true as that thou, Simon, art the son of Jona; and as thou hast thus confessed Me as the Messiah, I will now confess thee as Peter. etc. If the Saviour spoke in Aramaic or Chaldaic, as He undoubtedly did on ordinary occasions and with His disciples. He used the term Bar in Mat 16:17, with reference to Dan 7:13, the prophetic passage from which the Messianic appellation Son of Man was derived, so that Bar-enahsh (Son of Man) and Bar-Jona would correspond,P. S.]

[23][Not exactly. In the fourth edition of his Com. on Matt., p. 320. Meyer assumes that Peter, although long since convinced, with the rest of the disciples, of the Messiahship of Jesus, was on this occasion favored with a special divine revelation on the subject, and spoke from a state of inspiration. Daher, he says, nicht aufsine schon beim ersten Anschliessen an Jesum erhaltene Offenbarung, welche den Jngern geworden. zu beziehen, sondern auf Petrus und eine ihn auszeichnende besondere zu beschrnken. But Peter confessed in the name of all the other apostles, see p. 294.P. S.]

[24][Maldonatus: Et ego. Elegans antithesis, Grce etiam efficat[illegible]ior: , sed et ego dico tibi; quasi dicat: tu qui homo es, Filium Dei vivi me esse dixisti, (ego vero, qui Filius Dei vivi sum, dico te esse Petrum, id est vicarium meum [?], quem Filium Dei esse confessus es. Nam. Ecclesiam meam, qu super te dificata est, super te etiam, tanquam super secundarium quoddam fundamentum dificabo.”P. S.]

[25][This needs modification. Jerome, in his Comment. on Mat 16:18 (Opera, ed. Vallars., tom. 7. p. 124). explains the passage thus: Sicut ipse lumen Apostolis donavit, ut lumen mundi appellarentur, cteroque ex Domino so: titi sunt vocabula: ita et Simoni, qui credebat in petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen. Ac secundum metaphoram petr, recte dicitur ei: dificabo fcclesiam meam super te. The last words (super te) show that he referred the petra not only to Christ, but in a derivative sense also to Peter as the confessor. So in another passage (Ep. ad Damas. papam, Ep. 15, ed. Vall., i. 37 sq.) he says of Peter: super illam petram dificatam ecclesiam [illegible]io. Jerome also regards the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, but advocated elsewhere the equal rights of bishops, so that he can be quoted only in favor of a Roman primacy of honor, not of a supremacy of jurisdiction. Comp. on Jeromes views concerning the papacy the second vol. of my General Church History, now preparing for the press, 61, p. 304 sq.P. S.]

[26]i.e. Augustine in his later years; for at first he referred the petra to the person of Peter. He says in his Retractations, i. cap. 21, at the close of his life: I have somewhere said of St Peter that the church is built upon him as rock. .. . But I have since frequently said that the word of the Lord: Thou art Petrus. and on this petra I will build my church, must be understood of Him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God; and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: Thou art a rock (petra) but, Thou art Peter (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name of Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable. In the same strain he says, in another place: Peter, in virtue of the primacy of his apostolate, stands, by a figuratlve generalization, for the church. … When it was said to him, I will give un to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c., he represented the whole church, which in this world is assailed by various temptations, as if by floods and storms, yet does not fall, because it is founded upon a rock from which Peter received his name. For the rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a petro petra, sed Petrus a petra). even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, On this rock I will build my church. is that Peter had said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he. I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is aid, which is Jesus Christ. Thus the church, which [illegible]s ouilt upon Christ, has received from Him, in the person of Peter, the keys of heaven: that is, the power of binding and loosing sins. (Aug. Tract. in Evang. Joannis, 124. 5.) Ambrose, too, at one time refers the petra to Christ, as when he says in Luk 9:20 : Petra est Christus, etc, but at other times to the person of Peter, as in the famous morning hymn quoted by Augustin. (Hoc ipsa petra ecclesi Canente, culpam diluit), and again to his confession, or father to Peter and his confession. Comp. my Church History, vol ii. p. 304. A similar apparent lnconsiste cy we find in other fathers. The reference of the rock to Christ was also advocated by Theodoret, ad 1Co 3:11, the venerable Bede in Marc, 3 Petra erat Christus (1Co 10:4). Nam Simoni qui credebat in Petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen: and even by pope Gregory VII. in the inscription to the crown he sent to the German rival emperor Rudolph: Petra (i.e., Christ) dedit Petro (Peter), Petrus (the pope) diadema Rudolpho.P. S.]

[27][This reference to the fathers is too indefinite, and hardly correct as far as Leo and the popes are concerned. The majority of the fathers. Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine Leo I., Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, etc., vary in their interpretation, referring the petra sometimes to the person of Peter, sometimes to his faith or confession, and sometimes (as Jerome and Augustine) to Christ Himself. (Comp. Maldonatus, Comment in quatuor Evangelistas, ed. Martin tom. 1. p. 219 sq.. and my History of the Christian Church, vol. ii. 61 and 63, pp. 302 sqq. and 314 sqq., where the principle passages are quoted.) But this inconsistency is more apparent than real, since Peter and his faith in Christ cannot be separated in this passage. Peter (representing the other apostles) as believing and confessing Christ (but in no other capacity) is the petra ecclesi. This is the true interpretation, noticed by Lange sub number 3. b). Comp. my Critical Note, 3, p. 293. But the confession or faith alone cannot be meant. for two reasons: first, because this construction assumes an abrupt transition from the person to a thing and destroys the significance of the demonstrative and emphatic which evidently refers to the nearest antecedent Petros; and secondly, because the church is not built upon abstract doctrines and confessions, but upon living persons believing and confessing the truth (Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:4-6; Gal 2:9; Rev 21:14). Dr. Jos. A. Alexander, however, is too severe on this Interpretation in calling it as forced and unnatural as the Roman Catholic. It undoubtedly implies an element of truth, since Peter in this passage is addressed as the bold and fearless confessor of Christ.P. S.]

[28][In Luthers Randglosse, but so as to combine this explanation with the fourth mentioned above (of Origen): Alle Christen sind Petri um der Bekenntniss willen, die hier Petrus thut, welche ist der Fels, darauf Petrus und alle Petri gebauet sind.P. S.]

[29][Among modern commentators Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 272, who understands, however, by not so much the confession, as the faith itself which precedes itP. S.]

[30][The Romish interpretation is liable to the following objections: (1) It obliterates the distinction between petros and petra; (1) it is inconsistent with the true nature of the architectural figure: the foundation of a building is one and abiding, and not constantly renewed and changed; (3) it confounds priority of time with permanent superiority of rank; (4) it confounds the apostolate, which, strictly speaking, is not transferable but confined to the original personal disciples of Christ and inspired organs of the Holy Spirit, with the post-apostolic episcopate; (5) it involves an injustice to the other apostles, who, as a body, are expressly called the foundation, or foundation stones of the church; (6) it contradicts the whole spirit of Peters epistles, which is strongly antihierarchical, and disclaims any superiority over his fellow-presbyters, (7) finally, it rests on gratuitous assumptions which can never be proven either exegetically or historically, viz.. the transferability of Peters primacy, and its actual transfer upon the bishop, not of Jerusalem nor of Antioch (where Peter certainly was). but of Rome exclusively. Comp. also the long note to 94 in my History of the Apostolic Church, p. 374 sqq.P. S.]

[31][So also Olshausen: Peter, in his new spiritual character, appears as the supporter of Christs great work; Jesus Himself is the creator of the whole, Peter, the first stone of the building; De Wette: , on thee as this firm confessor; Meyer: on no other but this () rock, i.e., Peter, so called for his firm and strong faith in Christ; Alford: Peter was the first of these foundation-stones (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14) on which the living temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation; D. Brown: not on the man Bar-jona; but on him as the heaven taught Confessor of such a faith; and more or less clearly, Grotius (petrus a me nominatus es, quia eris quasi petra), Le Clerc, Whitby, Doddridge. Clarke, Bloomfield. Barnes, Eadie, Owen, Crosby (who. however, wrongly omits the reference to the confession, Whedon, Nast. I can see no material difference between this interpretation and Langes own sub No. 5, which is only a modification or expansion of it. I have already remarked In a former note that this is the true exposition which the majority of the fathers intended, though with some Inclination to the subsequent Romish application of the promise to a supposed successor.P. S.]

[32][Die petrinische Bekenntnisstreue.P. S.]

[33][Grotius has a long and learned note on the passage, and says: Nusquam reperis vocem neque apud Hellenistas neque apud novi fderis scriptores in alia significatione quam aut mortis, aut sepulchri, aut status post mortem, qu om nia sunt inter se affinix, etcP. S.]

[34][But this was only an error of conduct, not of doctrine; and hence proves nothing against the inspiration of the apostles nor the pretended infallibility of their successors.P. S.]

[35][In German: Die Inquisitionskerkerschlssel und Ablasskaster schlssel. The Edinb. transl. mixes these two distinct ideas into one by rendering: The keys of the prison and indulgences of the Inquisition. The coffers of the indulgences, according to the scholastic doctrine, are filled with the treasures of the so called supererogatory works and merits of canonized saints from which the popes can dispense extraordinary indulgences or remissions or sins. It was this trade in papal indulgences carried on by a monkish quack or humbug, Tetzel, which gave rise (as the external occasion, but not as the cause which lay far deeper) to the Lutheran Reformation.P. S.]

[36][Not: How much great men are influenced by the opinions of the age, as the Edb. trsl., misled by the German wie viel (which must be understood ironically), reverses the meaning of the original, thus making Heubner contradict himself in the next sentence. Heubner alludes to the confused and contradictory opinions of the Jews concerning Christ, Mat 16:15, and then contrasts with them the firm conviction of faith in Peter, Mat 16:16. Great men, during their lifetime, meet with the very opposite judgments at the bar of ever-changing popular opinion, and they are not truly great unless they can rise above it and quietly pursue the path of duty, leaving the Small matter of their own fame in the hands of a just God and of an appreciating posterity which will judge them by the fruits of their labor.P. S.]

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

“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? (14) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (18) 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. (19) 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. (20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”

The question Jesus here put to his disciples, is that grand and momentous question which everyone should ask his own heart, for in the proper apprehension of it consists everlasting life. Joh 17:2-3 . Some read the words thus. Whom do men say that I am? Do they call me the Son of Man? Do they indeed know me in my human nature, the seed of the woman promised? Reader! it is blessed, yea very blessed, so to know him. Heb 2:16-18 . The various opinions concerning Christ at that time, may serve to shew that there always hath been, and always will be, as now, great variety of notions, concerning Christ. But, Reader! there can be but one right judgment, and that must be formed from divine teaching. And hence, when Peter for himself and his few faithful companions, declared that Jesus was the Christ of God , the Lord made this remarkable answer; that flesh and blood could not reveal the glorious truth; and none but the Father which is in heaven. I beg the Reader to pause over this account of Christ for his own sake, and see whether his knowledge of Christ comes from the same Almighty teaching. If, my brother, like Peter, you know and believe that Christ is the Christ of God, most evident it is, from what Jesus hath here said, that you have never learnt it from flesh and blood, but God himself hath been your teacher, and, like Peter, you are blessed in that knowledge also. See those sweet Scriptures; Mat 11:27 ; Joh 6:45-46 ; Gal 1:15-16 ; Eph 1:17-18 ; 1Co 12:3 ; Eph 3:14 , etc. What follows in the promise made to Peter, is not simply to Peter as Peter, but as representing the Lord’s body, his Church. Christ himself is the rock Jehovah hath laid in Zion. So the Prophet was commissioned to tell the Church. Isa 28:16 . And so Peter himself, in reference to Christ, explained it. 1Pe 2:6-8 . Hence when Jesus said, upon this rock trill I build my Church, he meant himself, on whom Peter and all true believers are alike built, and from their union with Christ, neither hell nor corruption shall be able to prevail. By the keys of the kingdom of heaven, given to Peter, I venture to believe (but I do not presume to decide) is meant the power and prevalency of prayer, whensoever Jesus, by his outpouring of his Spirit, gives a spirit of prayer, And certain it is, that when the Lord the Holy Ghost gives a spirit of grace and. supplication to a child of God, the prayer, indicted by the Spirit, is in conformity to the will of God, and exactly in unison with the intercession of Christ. Hence the binding, or loosing, both in earth and heaven, must be secured, because all the Persons of the God. head are engaged in the agency. Whatsoever ye ask in my name, (said Jesus,) believing, he will give it you. Joh 16:23 .

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

Chapter 68

Prayer

Almighty God, thou art light, and in thee is no darkness at all. May we walk in the light as thy children, as children of the day, called to thy glory and called to thy service, and capable of rendering thee continual praise. May we know the high meaning of our being, may none of its lower aspects tempt us downward, may every impulse of the soul be toward thyself, and our daily yearning be for the opening of the temple gate. We are at rest in the sanctuary, we are quiet in God’s house; this is God’s acre for the living, not for the dead may we be here planted as living trees and as blooming flowers, made glad by every vernal glance and breeze of Heaven, and in the time to come do thou satisfy thyself with our fruits, and transplant us into the upper garden. Here may we see the inner beauty; in this place may we hear the inner music; whilst we tarry in our Father’s house, may our Father’s blessing fill to overflow our desirous hearts.

We have come with our weekly song; it is of mercy and not of judgment, for wherein there has been judgment it has been swallowed up of love therefore shall our song be of love and mercy, pity and care, heavenly patience and almighty protection, and high above all other notes shall be heard our acclaim because of thy tender mercy. We have walked in and out safely because thine hand has been laid upon us. No lion has been in our way, nor any ravenous beast gone up thereon, because thou hast redeemed us from all fear. We have seen the cross, and that has made us glad; we have beheld the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, and in his sight all other sights have perished. After this we can look at nothing that is little: we are transfigured by its power, we are emancipated by its grace.

We have come with our weekly confession, but thou dost meet us with eternal forgiveness, because we come to the cross and speak the all-prevailing Name. Do thou come to us according to the necessity of each heart, and rule over us with the sweet sovereignty of love; draw us by the tender compulsion of grace, give our souls a heavenly setting, and by mighty yet tender stress may they be drawn upwards in every aspiration and every thought.

Thou hast surrounded us with temptation, thou has poured down thy moods upon the roof of our life, and thou hast caused many things harmful to us to test the strength and security of our foundation. Thou hast not spared the whirlwind, a great raging storm has sought out every weak place in our life-house yet hast thou preserved us, thou hast given unto us deliverance, and in our mouth this day is a noble psalm of noble praise. It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed, it is because his compassions fail not that we are now in his house, and that our hearts are now in Heaven. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

We ask thee to comfort us when our distress is keenest, put into our hands the keys of gates for which there is no other opening. We ask thee to accompany us up the hill, that in thy society we may forget its weariness. We put our whole life into thine hand; we look back upon it and we have filled it with shame, but thou hast filled it with grace: we look forward to its years yet unborn, and we meet every one of them in the strength and love of Christ. We are well when Christ is with us, the soul is glad in the Saviour’s keeping there is no night in the soul in which he shines in all the tenderness of his veiled glory, nor is there any fear in the heart that is pervaded and penetrated by his holy love. This is our desire that so it may be we thus speak to thee in words which do not express all our meaning, but thou hearest the sighing of the heart and thou knowest the desire for which there is no speech. Receive our utterances of praise for mercies given, for protection vouchsafed, for travelling mercies, for home comforts, for family delights, for commercial success, for trials well borne, and for afflictions sanctified.

Put around us all thy strength, and may we feel its gentle pressure, and rejoice that our security is not human but divine. Amen.

Mat 16:13-23

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Csarea Philippi (the ancient Leshem), he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15. He saith unto them, But (the decisive moment!) whom say ye that I am?

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon (obedient hearer) Bar-jona (son of oppression): for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (Hades, or kingdom of death) shall not prevail against it.

19. 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.

20. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes (a general conspiracy), and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22. Then Peter took him (seized him from behind) and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence (a trap) unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Christ’s Personality Defined

Christian history takes a new departure from this point. We now come more closely than ever upon the spirit and purpose of Christ’s life and work. We have passed through the porch, and now we are about to enter the inner sanctuary.

Jesus Christ here puts a direct question to his disciples. The time had come for putting it, and it was his place to propose the vital inquiry. He seems to say to his disciples, “You have seen much work, now tell me what is thought of the worker. The doctrine and the miracle ought to have had some effect upon the minds of the people; what is that effect? I have left the public very much to form their own opinion to what conclusion concerning me have they come? I have treated you and the community in general as I treated John the Baptist when he sent two of his disciples to ask me if I was the Christ, or whether they were to look for another. You remember my reply: I said to them, ‘Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see;’ and then I pointed out to them the miracles which I had done, and the supreme, sublime miracle that the poor have the Gospel preached unto them; and I left the imprisoned herald to form his own opinion regarding my authority and my qualifications. It is in this way that I have treated you; I have delivered to you no lectures concerning my deity, divinity, personality; I have gone in and out amongst you, speaking the word and doing the mighty deed, and now the time has come when I may fitly ask you what is the result of it all Who am I?”

The answer of the disciples, when the question related to the public, was prompt, and not wholly satisfactory. The public had come to respectful conclusions regarding Jesus Christ. “Some say thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” There is no mention of Beelzebub in that report of the public impression. It was a respectful reply, because the public had formed a respectful opinion. It was also historical: John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias this man is connected with the historical and heroical past, he is a grand man: this is no common claim. Behind this fine porcelain there burns a marvellous fire; if we have to name him we will accord him an appellation that has about it the saintliness of devotion or the nobility of heroism. The opinion was conflicting yet unanimous. The people were not certain whether it was the Baptist or Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets, but it was certainly some great man.

Jesus Christ having heard how he was regarded by the general public, brought the question nearer home. He had a subtle method of advancing upon the heart. Really his concern was not so much about the public impression as about the effect which had been produced upon the minds and hearts of those who had been nearest to him all the time. Said he, “But whom do ye say that I am?” The original is emphatic: “But ye whom say ye that I am?” The Church should always have a more distinct opinion than the world. If there are two voices about Christ, the inner voice should be louder, clearer, nobler than the outer voice. There should be no difficulty whatever in distinguishing between the man who has been a long time intimate with Christ, and any man who is simply looking upon his history from an outside standpoint. Unction should be in the voice of the one, manifold music should be involved in the one utterance and should pronounce itself in many a happy and suggestive tone. Judgment begins at the house of God, not the judgment of denunciation alone, but the judgment of true-hearted criticism. If we are uncertain about Christ, what wonder that we make an uncertain impression upon the public mind? The fire at the centre of the earth is hotter than any other fire. So in the church of Christ there should be an all-solving, all-fusing ardour of conviction.

That conviction was sublimely represented in the answer given by Simon Peter. Instantly, with the suddenness of lightning, and yet with the graciousness of light, he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He was never so great a man before, nor has he ever been a greater man since he returned that infinite reply. Simon Peter was transfigured by his own answer; he was no longer a meanly-clad fisherman the fire burned through his clothes: he was the tabernacle of the indwelling God. Never man spake like this man at that moment of his utterance. We know what it is to have a thought in us which transfigures the face and makes the countenance shine with unearthly lustre. The great speaker is always surprised by his own utterances, and suddenly there falls upon him an all-transfiguring fire from Heaven the very flesh is a new flesh, and every pore of it an outlet for the inner light. Could we have seen Peter then, we should have seen him at his best he has never been the same since. Some moments in life can never be repeated. There are some firsts which have no seconds, there are voices which seem to have no echoes once for all their ineffable music rolls itself over the welcoming spaces, and it can never be repeated.

Yet in that very hour Simon Peter was not only transfigured, he was humbled. Beyond a certain line we cannot be allowed to go. Jesus Christ said to him, “Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jona,” why? Because of wit, genius, cleverness, superiority of mental energy? Nothing of the kind. But blessed art thou because this is not an answer of thine own suggestion, nor art thou repeating what any book has taught thee, nor art thou saying in thine own words what flesh and blood hath thought or conceived. This is nothing but the voice of the divine in the human: this is a revelation of God, this is an announcement from the skies thou hast this treasure in earthen vessels, the excellency of the power is of God and not of thee. So lest the little trumpet should be proud of its own blast, Christ took it and held it up and said, “It was God’s breath that startled thee into the energy of that grand music.” Thus gently are we chided, rebuked in the midst of blessing, kept right in the very hour of our inspiration, and brought down from the mountain to be told that we should never have ascended so high but for the directing eye and the protecting hand of God.

Not only was Simon Peter transfigured by the indwelling presence, and humbled by the divinely granted and not humanly conceived revelation, but he was exalted as no man before him was ever lifted up. Humanly speaking, he surprised Christ into a new revelation. Jesus instantly handed Peter the keys. There is no difficulty in understanding the handing the keys to such a man in such a moment. Inspiration always carries the keys. No need of angry controversy or grammatical wordiness or critical inquiry into the exact meaning of the term, “the keys.” This kind can only be understood by such minds as have almost realized the fulness and the elevation of inspiration itself. When you are inspired you have the keys. In your sublimest moods, when earth fades into a fleck hardly to be seen, and heaven crowds itself in noble fellowship upon your soul, the whole man is lifted up in an ecstasy divine. In that hour the church holds the keys. You do not hold the keys because of hereditary descent, or ecclesiastical relationship, or mechanical contrivance, or superior patronage you hold the keys only so long as you realize the inspiration. And no man can take those keys from you; everywhere the inspired man keeps the keys in merchandise, in statesmanship, in philosophy, in adventure, in religious thinking, in Christian civilization, you cannot keep down the inspired man. It is as if Christ had said: “Thou art filled with the Holy Ghost; this is oneness with God, this is pre-resurrection and pre-glorification this is the very wisdom of heaven, and therefore I say unto thee, the keys are thine.”

How Christ ennobled the occasion, and how Peter evoked the new revelation of Christ himself! Christ never spake in this tone before. We sometimes surprise ourselves into new conditions, so that we become in a degree new selves and are a surprise to our own consciousness. Jesus Christ never made any occasion little. He always saw the best of every man, and never did he withhold from any human soul the meed of commendation which seemed to be due. He was all grace. Said he, “Ye are the light of the world, ye are the salt of the earth, ye are a city set on a hill. Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.” If we have fallen below the occasion, the fault is in us and not in the Master. He now waits to see the proofs of our inspiration, and then he will not withhold the keys. We are not now inspir. ed. We are clever, we are learned, we are respectable, we are orthodox, we are correct, we are negatively blameless; but Inspiration, Enthusiasm, Ecstasy these angels we have succeeded in strangling

From this point a new and closer fellowship is set up between Jesus Christ and His disciples. They were now bound together by a new secret; one glimpse of the true light had been vouchsafed to the followers the spiritual Christ had been revealed, and their nature was sanctified by a new inspiration; a great expectation was created in them, and that great expectation was confounded by temporary shame. Mark the compression of the twenty-first verse: “From that time 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.” The whole tragedy is crushed into that one inch of space. There is nothing more to be said. The cross is there, the bloody sweat, the mortal agony, the last gasp, the resurrection glory. He must go not that he would go, but something more he must go. The pressure of eternity was upon him, destiny beckoned him, supreme purposes gather themselves up into one grand appeal and claimed him.

He must suffer. We have regarded suffering as an accident, we have debased it into an affliction; the heroic aspects of suffering and sacrificial outcomes of endurance and discipline we have forgotten or allowed to fall into disesteem. Jesus Christ saw that to get to any crown worth wearing, he must go through suffering, he must be killed. He talked to himself in plain language: every man who is going to undertake any solemn business in life ought to set it down before himself in the tongue in which he was born, in the plainest terms which that tongue can supply. Do not shut your eyes and then run into anything that may happen to turn up; be master of the situation by forecasting it. Why should we be living a life of continual surprise as to trial and danger and affliction and pressure of various kinds? Why not put it all down in cold ink, in plain words, and look at it as a fact, then live it, syllable by syllable, till the last tone has died upon the air which has listened to the whole frightful tragedy?

Herein have we been blessed by the Almighty with sufficient knowledge of the future. We can tell that every one of us whose life is set in the right direction must go to Jerusalem, must suffer, and must be killed. Better for us to say all that to ourselves than be shutting our ears and closing our eyes and leaving the world to announce it in harsh and destructive tones. Commune with the tragedies that are about to befall you, charm from them their solemn secret; by long, faithful, honest communion with the suffering which must befall life, you may be enabled to say in the long run, when the great encounter transpires, “O death, where is thy sting?”

But Jesus not only spoke of his going to Jerusalem, of his suffering and his killing, but of his resurrection. We break off the story too soon, we have a long tale of complaint and reproach and pining and sadness, and too frequently is the sob too thick and strong in our throat to allow us to utter the word which would dissolve the cloud and make us men again. We talk too much of our discipline and suffering and slaughter, and say too little about the promised and inevitable resurrection. He who speaks the word “death” in the same sentence with the word “resurrection” will forget the overthrow in the exaltation.

Now we return to inquire how things stand with Peter, and we read this statement, “Then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But Christ turned and said, Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou art an offence unto me,” and Peter lost the keys his binding and loosing power was taken from him in that instant! He who was the blessed one a short hour since was ordered behind like a dog. The church lives on its own good behaviour; you cannot live upon yesterday’s inspiration today. Every morning brings its own dew; every morning must bring its own inspiration. To tell me that as a church you were inspired seven years ago, and therefore you are inspired today, is to speak irrationally if not wickedly. There is no inspiration seven years old or seven days old. God will depose the mightiest prince amongst us when that prince loses his inspiration. You cannot live upon the bread you ate twelve months ago your prayer is, “Give us this day our daily bread.” As with the body, so with the soul. The grace that ennobled your youth must be renewed day by day, or it will never mellow your old age.

So Peter fell. Christ names us just as swiftly as we do our deed. “Blessed art thou,” and Peter seemed to stand in the sun. “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.” He had fallen back again to the human point; he who had touched the divine glory fell into the dust trodden by the feet of men, and he was no longer either blessed with a benediction or entrusted with an authority.

Christ himself never fell below the divine. In no instance can you lay your finger upon a single line which contains the announcement that for one moment the great life faltered. Every other life hesitated, had its spasms of virtue, its sunshiny hours, its unfaithful actions, but I cannot find a line in all the Book in which Jesus Christ falls below the purpose with which he began his life. In such a consistency there ought to be some force of logic.

How subtle was this temptation. It came from a friend, from the first friend, the senior disciple surely there could be no poison in such a suggestion; it sprang from the heart, it was the utterance of tender compassion and protective sympathy. It came from a friend just honoured, from a man to whom the Lord had just granted the sublimest revelation. It was a generous thought the intention was to spare suffering; it was the voice of nature. Peter could not endure that his Lord should be so treated. Yet such a temptation fell impotently upon Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ’s fundamental principle was this: that whatever was not sacrificial was Satanic. A philosophy in a sentence, an inspiration in a breath! Written in his heart, inscribed in his mind, higher than Pilate’s superscription engraven on his cross, was the profound philosophy

Whatever is not sacrificial is Satanic.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

SEASON OF RETIREMENT PART II WHO IS JESUS OF NAZARETH AND WHAT IS HIS MISSION?

Harmony, pages 89-92 and Mat 16:13-28 ; Mar 8:27-9:1 ; Luk 9:18-27 .

The scene of this discussion is Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part of Palestine. The historians are Matthew (Mat 16:13-28 ); Mark (Mar 8:27-28 ; Mar 9:1 ); and Luke (Luk 9:18-27 ). These records, being presented in parallel columns, sections 64 (Mat 16:13-20 ; Mar 8:27-30 ; Luk 9:18-21 ) and 65 (Mat 16:21-28 ; Mar 8:31-38 ; Mar 9:1 ; Luk 9:22-27 ), on pages 89-92 of the Harmony of the Gospels, it is quite easy to observe the peculiarities of each. Note three general observations: First, they exhibit the most remarkable independent testimony, each supplying entirely some detail omitted by the others, or adding somewhat to details given by them, not only without the slightest discrepancy, but so that all that each says may be incorporated into one perfectly congruous statement. Second, Mark, commonly called Peter’s gospel, modestly omits Christ’s high commendation of Peter, but is particularly careful to record Peter’s sin, the public rebuke of it, and the exhortation based on it; while Luke, commonly called Paul’s gospel, omits the sin of Peter, its rebuke and the connection between it and the exhortation. Third, Matthew writing for Jews, records particularly and elaborately the things most needed by them, to wit: the kind of faith necessary to salvation; the true foundation of the church; its indestructibleness; its high functions and authority; the necessity of the vicarious passion of Jesus; the certainty and glory and judgment of the second coming.

Now, combining a congruous statement of all the records, it is easy to fashion an outline for the whole. The following is submitted as that outline:

1. The great ministry in Galilee is ended forever.

2. To sum up and crystallize its results, and to rest somewhat before entering upon a final ministry elsewhere there is a season of retirement.

3. Having reached the place of retirement, a suburban village of Caesarea Philippi, our Lord separates himself from his immediate disciples and the attendant multitudes to seek God in prayer (Luk 9:18 ).

4. The object of that prayer, as inferred from the context, is that however variant the opinions of others concerning himself, his own disciples may have a God-revealed faith in his office and divinity, so that they may be able to receive clearer teaching concerning his vicarious passion by which his office becomes efficient in the salvation of men (Mat 16:17-21 ).

5. What men think of him and why.

6. What the disciples believed as expressed in Peter’s confession.

7. Our Lord’s wonderful response to this confession and the doctrines involved.

8. Clearer teaching concerning his passion.

9. Peter’s rebuke of Christ and Christ’s rebuke of Peter.

10. Terms of discipleship and why so hard (Mar 8:34-37 ).

11. A great danger and its antidote, the danger of being ashamed or afraid before the world, to confess Christ (Mar 8:38 ).

12. An assuring promise: That some of them should not taste of death until they saw Jesus coming in glory to judge the world (Mat 16:28 ).

It cannot reasonably be expected that I should discuss all this outline in one chapter. I can cover none of it elaborately except one capital point. But it is desirable to make an outline of all the salient points suggested by these remarkable incidents at Caesarea Philippi. Let it be impressed on the mind that the Galilean ministry is ended forever. For that great section, parable, and miracle are over forever. In his teaching capacity he has finally left Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. True, we will find him subsequently, passing through Galilee, but in hurry and silence. True, after his resurrection, he there, once more, meets with is own people and commissions them. But his own personal ministry to that lost people to those doomed cities is completely ended.

This ministry being finished, it becomes to Christ a very solemn question: What are its results? The people who heard him, who witnessed his miraculous deeds, were bound, by the very nature of the case, to propound each to himself and to others this question: Who is he? We need not be surprised that the answers to this question were widely variant. It requires no deep philosophy to understand why men, hearing the same things and looking upon the same facts, shall yet reach widely different conclusions from what they hear and see. The standpoint alone will account for the divergence. We may easily understand why Herod would suppose from what he had heard of Jesus that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead. He reasoned from the standpoint of an excited and guilty conscience, taking counsel of his fears. His superstitious apprehension of coming evil for his wrongdoing would lead him to put a construction upon Christ and his work that would not suggest itself to any other man. It is just as easy to understand how others familiar with the closing passages of the Old Testament, which predict the coming of Elijah before the great and notable day of the Lord, should surmise that this Jesus, working such wondrous deeds, was that Elijah. A widely prevalent tradition accounts also for the fact that yet others supposed he might be Jeremiah. The tradition was that Jeremiah, at the destruction of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, had hidden away in some secret place in the mountains, known only to himself, many of the sacred utensils of the Temple, and that at some time in the future he would return and show Israel the place of deposit of these precious relics. We see the same divergent opinions concerning Christ at the present time. Some say he is a good man; others that he is an impostor; others that his teaching concerning morality is perfect, but there is no reason to admit the claims of his divinity. Conscious in his own mind of the divergent conclusion concerning himself and his work, and having so faithfully instructed his immediate disciples, and intending now to call forth a definite expression from them, we can see an occasion for his prayer. While we may not dogmatize, it would seem that he would pray after this manner: “O Father, the world does not understand me and my mission. But here is a particular group that I have called out from the others to be with me and to hear thy word. They have witnessed more than the others. They have been near to me; O Father, grant that these, my disciples, at least, may have a God-revealed faith in me as the Messiah.” That his prayer was somewhat in this direction may perhaps be inferred from the exultation manifested by him on Peter’s avowal. Anyhow, immediately after his prayer comes first the question calling out the popular verdict, and then the emphatic question, “Who say ye that I am?” Very naturally Peter speaks for the others. We have had reason already to observe the readiness with which he takes the lead. Mark the principal elements in his answer: “Thou art the Christ,” recognizing his office; “the Son,” recognizing his divinity; “of the living God,” sharply drawing a distinction between the real God and the dead and dumb deities of the heathen world.

In considering Christ’s response let us take up each word. “Simon” means a hearer. “Peter” means a rock, “Barjona” means the son of Jona, or, according to the best Greek text, the son of John. This answer of Christ to Peter gives us a clue to the true faith: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven.” Many other passages of Scripture might be cited to show that evangelical faith is not an intellectual perception of the truth of a proposition, but that it is a product of the divine Spirit, as is expressed in the beginning of John’s Gospel: “To as many as received him, even to them that believed on his name, he gave the power to become the sons of God, who were born, not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Let the reader, therefore, especially note the nature of the true faith. It might be asked just here if this was the first time that there had been among his disciples a recognition of his messiahship. We have twice already found in the ground over which we have passed, some recognition on the part of his disciples of Christ as the Messiah. Now there has been clearer teaching, and the statement, under the present conditions, that he is the Messiah, shows a great advance in the nature of their faith.

We come now to consider perhaps the most remarkable passage in the New Testament: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whosoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whosoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Here almost every word calls for explanation and occasions controversy. Who or what is the “rock” upon which the church is founded? In what sense is the term “church” used? What is the import of Hades and what signifies, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? What signify the “keys of the kingdom,” and the binding and loosing power?

The first thought that I would impress upon the mind is that Christ alone founded his church. I mean that the church was established in the days of his sojourn in the flesh; that the work of its construction commenced with the reception of the material prepared by John the Baptist. That organization commenced with the appointment of the twelve apostles, and that by the close of his earthly ministry there existed at least one church as a model, the church at Jerusalem.

We find in the history immediately succeeding the Gospel account that this church at Jerusalem began to transact business by the election of a successor to Judas; that they were all assembled together in one place for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and that to them were added daily the saved. Hence, we are prepared to ask: On what did Christ found his church? What is the rock?

After mature deliberation and careful examination of all the opposing views, and after a thorough study of the Word of God, it is clear to my mind that the rock primarily and mainly is Christ himself.

If it seems to violate the figure that he, the builder, should build upon himself, the violation is no more marked here than in the famous passage in John where he gives the bread to the disciples and that “bread of life” is himself. I would have the reader note the scriptural foundation upon which I rest my conclusion that the rock is Christ. The first argument is from prophecy:

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste” (Isa 28:16 ).

This prophetic scripture clearly declared God’s purpose to lay in Zion a foundation, a stone foundation, one that was to be tried, that was assured, a foundation on which faith should rest, without haste or shame.

We next cite Psa 118:22 : “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing. It is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it.” In fulfilment of these prophecies we cite first the testimony of Peter, unto whom the language of our passage was spoken: “To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient the stone which the builders disallowed the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed” (1Pe 2:4-8 ).

The spiritual house of which Peter here speaks is unquestionably the church. The foundation upon which that church as a building must rest, is unquestionably our Lord Jesus Christ himself. He claims this as a fulfilment of the prophecies which have been cited. Our Lord’s own words in another connection (Mat 21:42 ), claim the same fulfilment: “The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.” With any other construction it would be impossible to understand Paul’s statement (1Co 3:11-17 ): “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

Here again the church is compared to a building. The foundation of that building is distinctly said to be Christ. It is also worthy of note that any other foundation for the church than Christ himself would be wholly out of harmony with the Old Testament concept, as given by Moses, Samuel, David, and Isaiah, and Paul’s New Testament comment in the following passages, which the reader will please note and examine carefully for himself: Deu 32:4 ; Deu 32:15 ; Deu 32:31 ; 1Sa 2:2 ; 2Sa 22:2 ; 2Sa 22:32 ; Psa 18:2 ; Psa 18:31 ; Psa 61:2 ; Psa 89:26 ; Psa 92:15 ; Psa 95:1 ; and Isa 17:10 ; 1Co 10:4 . Do not understand me to affirm that all these passages refer to God as a foundation. The thought is that the Bible concept regards God as the rock of his people under every variety of image, and so uniformly that to make a mortal and fallible man that rock on the doubtful strength of one disputed passage, which may easily and naturally be construed in harmony with the others, does violence to the rule of the faith as well as to the usage of the term.

In a secondary sense, indeed, other things may be called the foundation and are so called, but all these senses support the view that Christ is the rock, primarily and mainly. By examining and comparing Isa 8:14 ; Luk 2:34 ; Rom 9:33 ; 1Pe 2:8 ; Luk 20:18 , we may easily see how the faith which takes hold of Christ may be compared to a foundation. This accounts for the fact that many of the early fathers of the church understood the rock in this passage to be Peter’s faith in Christ, and also explains how others of the fathers understood the foundation of the church to be Peter’s confession of that faith. The great majority of Protestant scholars regard the confession of faith as the rock, and it is a notable fact that Baptists particularly make this confession or its equivalent a term of admission into the church. Indeed, in a certain sense, both the faith and the confession may be regarded as the foundation of the church. From Eph 2:20-22 and Rev 21:14 , we see that the apostles are called the foundation. But it is only because they teach Christ. They are but instruments in leading souls to Christ, and are not the true foundation. By so much as Peter was more prominent than the others, in this sense the church may be gaid to be founded on Peter. The scriptural proof of Peter’s prominence is very clear. Though not the first apostle chosen, his name heads all the recorded lists of the twelve (Mat 10:2 Mar 3:16 ; Luk 6:14 ; Act 1:13 ). He also leads the movement in filling the place of Judas (Act 1:15 ). He opens the door to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:14 ). And he is selected to open the door to the Gentiles (Act 10 ; Act 15:7 ). By noting carefully Heb 6:1-2 , we see that the primary or fundamental doctrines concerning Christ may well be called a foundation, and at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, obedience to Christ is compared to building a house on a rock (Mat 7:24 ), but all these secondary senses derive their significance from their connection with Christ, the primary and real foundation.

Inasmuch as there are in the world at least 200,000,000 nominal professors of the Romanist faith, constituting over half of Christendom, and as all of these regard Peter as the rock upon which the church was founded, and as they deduce most tremendous and portentous consequences from this interpretation, I think it well to carefully examine this Romanist faith I would not, however, have the reader derive his views of Romanist doctrine from any other sources than those regarded as authoritative by themselves. A natural inquiry of the mind would be, “On what scripture do Papists rely for proof of Peter’s primacy”? Only three passages of Scripture are cited by them: Mat 16:18-19 ; Joh 21:15-17 ; Luk 22:31-32 These are called the “rock-argument,” the “keysargument” the “shepherd-argument,” and the “confirmerargument.” I” connection with our text, which is the main one cited “Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church ” they construe Joh 1:42 , where Christ promises that Simon shall be called Cephas, a stone. When they speak of the powers indicated by the keys as conferred upon Peter, they understand that government and Jurisdiction are among those powers, in proof of which they usually cite Isa 22:22 ; Rev 3:7 ; Job 12:14 ; Isa 9:6 ; from which they claim that if putting the key upon the shoulder of Jesus implied government, surely it meant as much when applied to Peter; and they interpret the historical usage of giving up the keys of a walled city or fortress to a conqueror, as signifying that the control of that city or fortress is thereby publicly ceded, and that to the one to whom these keys are presented is the province of receiving or excluding.

In the same way they derive the thought of jurisdiction from the shepherd argument, by construing it with 2Sa 5:2 ; Psa 78:71-72 ; Eze 34:1-23 ; Jer 3:15 ; Jer 3:23 ; Nah 3:18 ; Isa 40:11 ; Mic 7:14 ; Joh 10:1-18 ; 1Pe 2:25 ; 1Pe 5:4 ; Act 20:28 . Whoever is able to meet these four arguments, the rock, the keys, the shepherd, the confirmer, is able to answer the whole of the papal system.

On these three scriptures they predicate the stupendous doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, signifying that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses authority and jurisdiction in things spiritual over the entire church, so as to become the visible head and the vicar or viceregent of Christ on earth; that, as the universal shepherd, he is the center of unity, with whom all the flock must be in communion or be guilty of schism; that he is the fountain of authority, all subordinate rulers in the church being subject to him, and deriving their limited jurisdiction from him; that all the executive power of the universal church is vested in him. He confirms in the faith; he oversees all; he corrects all; he corrects abuses; he maintains discipline; he possesses all inquisitorial power necessary to evil, and all authority to subdue or excommunicate the refractory. He is infallible in all utterances concerning faith and morals, being God’s mouthpiece, and his decrees thereon are absolute and final, being God’s viceregent.

It is necessary for me to cite the authentic Romanish authyroids from which this monstrous doctrine is gathered. I cite: (1) the profession of the Tridentine faith, which says, “I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.” The Council of Trent met in the Tyrol near the middle of the sixteenth century, lasting off and on for about eighteen years. The language which I have quoted is not a part of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, but it is from the profession of the Tridentine faith, issued by the Pope, and to which all Catholics must subscribe. The date of it is 1564. The second authoritative source is the dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council held in 1870, which declare the following propositions:

1. That our Lord Jesus Christ himself instituted the apostolic primacy at Caesarea Philippi, by setting Peter as prince and chief over the rest of the apostles, and making him, as God’s vicar, or viceregent, the visible head of the universal church, which becomes indestructible because founded on Peter, thereby constituting him the center of all ecclesiastical unity and fountain of all directly, in his single person, with supreme jurisdiction over preachers and church. The council expressly denies that this supreme jurisdiction was conferred upon the twelve apostles originally and reached Peter through them, or as one of them, and expressly denies that it was conferred on the church originally and on Peter through the church, but by a variety of expressions set forth the claim that his jurisdiction was direct, immediate, single, original, personal, centripetal, supreme, and, by being transmissible to his successor, perpetual, thus putting him alone in the place of God to all the rest of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, to the end of time, and anathematizes all who deny the claim. This declaration of the institution of the papacy, as I have just said, and as this council expressly declares, is based upon the rock, keys, and shepherd arguments, drawn from Mat 16:18-19 , and Joh 21:15-17 .

2. The second declaration purports to show how this power of Peter was transmitted to his successor as the Bishop of Rome. They declare that Peter founded the church at Rome; became its first bishop, constituted this bishopric the Holy See, and that to this day Peter lives, presides, and judges in his successors in that bishopric, so that whoever obtains the office of Bishop of Rome does by the institution of Christ receive the entailed supremacy conferred on Peter over the whole church. This declaration closes with this clause: “If then any should deny that this be the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the supremacy over the universal church, or that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.”

3. Their next declaration relates to the nature and extent of this power. Let us quote: “Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman church possesses a priority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power or jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate, to which all, of whatever right or dignity, both pastors and people, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”

The council makes him the supreme judge of the faith, and further declares that recourse may be had to his tribunal in all questions, the discussion of which belongs to the church, and that none may reopen his judgment, nor can any review his judgment. There is no greater authority than his. His office is not merely of inspection and direction, but of full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church. His power is not mediate and extraordinary, but immediate and ordinary over each and all the churches, over each and all the pastors. Whoever denies it, let him be anathema.

4. Their fourth declaration is concerning infallibility. Citing one proof text only, “I have prayer for thee that thy faith fail not” (Luk 22:3 ). The council declares that this See of Holy Peter remains ever free from any blemish of error, and as through Christ’s prayer Peter’s faith failed not, so his. inerrancy of teaching is transmitted to his successors. Therefore, quoting their precise language: “It is a dogma, divinely revealed: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith of morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one which may God avert presume to contradict this, our definition: let him be anathema.”

It seems an incalculable thing, an inexplicable thing, that in the latter part of the nineteenth century such a quadruple declaration could be made by the distinguished and educated leaders of any form of religion. We may well inquire just here what proof is necessary to support these stupendous claims. This much proof is absolutely necessary: (1) Scriptural proof that the supreme and absolute power here claimed was conferred on Peter himself. (2) Scriptural proof that it was transmissible and actually transmitted. (3) Scriptural proof that the method of transmission was through a local pastorate. (4) Scriptural proof that the See of Rome was constituted that pastorate.

In his lectures on the church Cardinal Wiseman seems to consider himself able to furnish abundant proof, if not just this proof. The limits of this discussion admit only a suggestion of some things in reply: (1) All the apostles were declared to be a foundation of the church (Eph 2:19-22 ; Rev 21:14 ). (2) All the apostles had the same binding and loosing power (Joh 20:23 ; 3Jn 1:10 ). So also had Paul (1Co 5:3-5 ; 2Co 2:6-10 ; 2Co 13:2 ; 2Co 13:10 ). (3) So had every local church (Mat 18:18 ; 2Co 2:10 ). (4) For preserving unity and averting schism all the apostles and others were appointed and no human headship hinted at (1Co 12:25-30 ; Eph 4:11-16 ). (5) A short time after our Lord used the words, “Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church,” cited as indubitable proof by Papists of the institution of the office of Pope, none of the disciples knew who was to be the greatest, and our Lord, in reply to their question, was careful not to say that he had just given that office to Peter (Mat 18:1-4 ). Indeed he seems to deny that he had given it to any one (Mar 9:38-39 ). If the Papist claim, that the office of Pope was established in Peter at Caesarea Philippi, as recorded in Mat 16 , is correct, this incident a short time after recorded in Mat 18 , is inexplicable. (6) On a still later occasion we find the question of priority still unsettled. How else account for the fact that James and John, sons of Zebedee, through their mother, asked for the highest places in the kingdom? Why did not Jesus, in answering this request, reply that he had already given the highest place to Peter? Why did he expressly declare that none of them should exercise authority over the others, and that there should be no greatness and no primacy but in humility and service? (See Mat 20:20-28 ; Mar 10:35-45 .)

On a yet later occasion, up to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, we find the question still unsettled (Luk 22:24-40 ). And again it is declared that there shall be no primacy of authority and jurisdiction, but all are put on an equality, each occupying a throne. On still another occasion we have these words: “One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ.”

Now as the word “Pope” means father, this language is equivalent to saying, “And call no man your Pope on earth, for one is your Pope, which is in heaven.”

When we examine the history of the apostles, as recorded in Acts, and the references to apostolic authority cited in the letters, we find every reason to suppose that such supreme and absolute authority had not been conferred upon Peter. Take, as an example, the case of Samaria, as recorded in Act 8:14 . When the apostles heard that the Samaritans had received the word, it is not Peter who sends the others, but it is the others who send Peter. And even in the case of Cornelius, where Peter was specially empowered by divine authority for opening the door to the Gentiles, we find that he was held to an account for his action by the others (Act 11:1-18 ).

Again in the great consultation on a question of salvation, as recorded in Act 15 , there it not only no indication that Peter exercised Papal functions, but it is evident that the sentence was framed by James and not Peter, and that it was sent out in the name of all the apostles and the church. In Gal 2:11-12 , we find a proof of Peter’s deference to James, the half brother of our Lord, utterly inconsistent with the papal office. And the scriptural proof is overwhelming that there was no subordination of Paul to Peter. That Peter was not the fountain of authority to Paul. He did not derive his gospel from Peter. He withstood Peter to his face when Peter was in error. But examine particularly the following scriptures; 1Co 9:1-5 ; 2Co 10:8-15 ; 2Co 9:5-15 ; Gal 1:11-12 ; Gal 1:17 ; Gal 2:6-14 .

Another observation in this connection will be regarded as just. There is abundant New Testament proof of Paul’s presence and work in Rome, but not a hint in that Holy Book about Peter’s ever being there. It is equally true that Paul’s argument in 1Co 1:12 ; 1Co 3:4-23 , is adverse to the papal claim. But what is more remarkable still, Peter himself not only never claimed such authority, but exhorts against its exercise (1Pe 5:1-4 ).

We may add this pertinent fact: Inasmuch as Peter died be-fore John (that is, as John was the last surviving apostle), if Peter’s succession in the papal authority was transmitted through his pastorate at Rome to his successor, that uninspired successor would become the fountain of authority for the apostle John, yet alive, and John, who derived his authority directly from the Lord, would be under the absolute jurisdiction of one who had never known the Lord in the flesh, nor received authority from him.

The true history of that Vatican Council would make interesting reading. It was a secret conclave. Its program was dictated by the Pope. It was neither free nor ecumenical. The awful subordination of intelligent human conscience to such a dictum, and the horror it excited in the minds of even true and long-tested papists, may be gathered largely from a speech of the late Archbishop Kenrick, prepared to be delivered before this council, in which he sets forth some views very little different from those I have advocated as to the rock being Christ, and to the utter insufficiency of any scriptural proof for the papist claim, based on any of the other passages. It may be well to cite a few statements from this famous speech of Archbishop Kenrick. After combating the papal argument based on the several scriptures which have been cited, Archbishop Kenrick says:

The natural and primary foundation, so to speak, of the church, is Christ, whether we consider his person, or faith in his divine nature. The architectural foundation, that laid by Christ, is the twelve apostles, among whom Peter is eminent by virtue of the primacy. In this way we reconcile those passages of the fathers, which understand Him on this occasion (as in the instance related in Joh 6 , after the discourse of Christ in the synagogue of Capernaum), to have answer-ed in the name of all the apostles, to a question addressed to them all in common; and in behalf of all to have received the reward of confession.. In this explanation of the word rock, the primacy of Peter is guarded as the primary ministerial foundation; and the fitness of the words of Paul and John is guarded, when they call the apostles by the common title of the foundation; and the truth of the expression used with such emphasis by Paul is guarded: “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, even Christ Jesus” (1Co 3:2 ); and the adversaries of the faith are disarmed of the weapon which they have so effectively wielded against us, when they say that the Catholics believe the church to be built, not on Christ, but on a mortal man.

Again referring to the fallacy of the usual modern Romanist interpretation of Luk 22:31-32 , he cites his own “Observations,” from which we extract the following paragraph:

Neither is there any more value as a proof of papal inerrancy in those words of Christ to Peter (Luk 22:31-32 ), in which the advocates of this opinion think to find their main argument. Considering the connection in which Christ uttered them, and the words which he proceeded to address to all the apostles, it does not appear that any gift pertaining to the government of the church as then granted or promised to Peter, much less that the gift of inerrancy in Christ’s prayer for him that his faith might not fail that is, that he might not wholly or forever lose that trust by which thus far he had clung to Christ. The words of Christ, then, are to be understood, not of faith as a body of doctrine, in which sense it is never used by our Lord.

In another part of the speech he says: “I believe that the proofs of the Catholic faith are to be sought rather in tradition than in the interpretation of the scriptures.” And again,

We have in the Holy Scriptures perfectly clear testimony of a commission given to all the apostles, and of ths divine assistance promised to all. These passages are clear, and admit no variation of meaning. We have not even one single passage of scripture, the meaning of which is undisputed, in which anything of the kind is promised to Peter separately from the rest. And yet the authors of the Schema want us to assert that to the Roman pontiff, as Peter’s successor, is given that power which cannot be proved by any clear evidence of Holy Scripture to have been given to Peter himself, except just so far as he received it in common with the other apostles; and which, being claimed for him separately from the rest, it would follow that the divine assistance promised to them was to be communicated only through him, although it is clear from the passages cited that it was promised to him only in the same manner and in the same terms as to all the others. I admit, indeed, that a great privilege was granted to Peter above the rest; but I am led to this conviction by the testimony, not of the Scriptures, but of all Christian antiquity.

Yet again he says, with reference to the proposed declaration of infallibility:

I boldly declare that that opinion, as it lies in the Schema, is not a doctrine of faith, and that it cannot become such by any definition whatsoever, even by the definition of a council. We are the keepers of the faith committed to us, not its masters.

God only is infallible. Of the church, the most that we can assert is, that it does not err in teaching the doctrines of faith which Christ has committed to its charge; because the gates of hell are not to prevail against it. Therefore, infallibly, absolute and complete, cannot be predicated of it; and perhaps it would be better to refrain from using that word, and use the word “inerrancy” instead.

What need would there be to a Pope who accepted this notion, of the counsel of his brethren, the opinions of theologians, the investigations of the documents of the church? Believing himself to be immediately led by the divine Spirit, and that this Spirit is communicated through him to the church, there would be nothing to hold him back from pressing on in a course on which he had once entered.

At the close of his speech, arguing against undue haste, and meeting the objection of the Archbishop of Dublin that an examination into the facts would last too long, in that it would reach to the day of Judgment, he says,

If this be so, it were better to refrain from making any definition at all, than to frame one prematurely. But it is said the honor and authority of the Holy See demand a definition, nor can it be deferred without injury to both. I answer in the words of Jerome, substituting another word for the well-known word auctoritas: Major est calus orbis quam urbis. [“It is better to save the world than the city.”] I have done.

Let the reader understand that the authoritative pronunciamento of papal infallibility issued by the Vatican Council in July. 1870. is retroactive. It means that every ex-cathedra utterance of every Pope of the past ages is infallible and irreformable. As this decree of infallibility is retroactive, I will illustrate its awful significance by citing only four things out of many thousands:

1. In 1320, Pope Boniface VIII issued ex-cathedra a bull, entitled Unum Sanctum, which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope what is called the “double sword”; i.e., the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian world, and the power to depose princes and absolve subjects from their oaths of allegiance. If we would know whether this power has ever been exercised we should ask history to tell us what Pope Paul III did for Henry VIII; Pius V for Queen Elizabeth; how Henry IV of Germany on demand of the Pope went to Canossa, and there barefooted and clad in a hair shirt, waited in penitence, for days, in an outer court, until Pope Gregory VII condescended to receive and absolve him; how Pope Innocent III treated Raymond VI of Toulouse; and others too numerous to mention. Connect all this with the papal declaration that the Popes have never exceeded their powers.

2. In September, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued the bull called Unigenitus, which condemns 101 sentences in a book of the Jansenist, Pasquier Quesnel. Among the sentences condemned are some that assert the total depravity of fallen human nature, others the renewing power of the free grace of God in Christ, but particularly some that assert the right and duty of all Christians to read the Bible for themselves. In the bull of condemnation the following terms are indiscriminately employed to describe the condemned sentences: “False, captious, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, rash, injurious, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy and savoring of heresy itself, near akin to heresy, several times condemned, and manifestly renewing various heresies, particularly those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansenius.”

I will cite now the condemned sentences that assert the right and duty of the people to read the Bible, and that there may be no mistake I give them in both Latin and English, retaining the original number of each condemned proposition:

(79). Utile et necessarum est ornni tempore, omni loco, et omni personarum generi, studere et cognoscere spiritum, pietatem et mystheria sacrae Scripturae. (80). Lectio sacrae Scripturae est pro omnibus. (81). Obscuritasi sancti verbi Dei non est Jaicis ratio dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione. (82). Dies Dommicus a Christianis debet sanctificari lectionibus pietatiset super omnia sanctarum Scripturarum. (83). Damnosum est, velle Christianum ad hac lectione retrahere. (84). Abripere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum seu eis illud clausum tener auferendo eis modum istud intelligendi, est illish Christi os obturare. (85). Interdicere Christianis lectioneum sacrae Scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filis lucis et facere, ut uatiantur speciem quamdam excommunicationis.

As I know of no English version of Quesnel’s book, I submit a reasonably accurate translation of the foregoing Latin propositions:

(79). It is useful and necessary at all times, in every place, for all sorts of people, to study and investigate the spirit, piety, and mysteries of the Holy Scriptures. (80). The reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. (81). The obscurity of the Holy Word of God is not a reason why laymen should excuse themselves from reading it. (82). The Lord’s day ought to be hallowed by Christians by readings of piety, and, above all, of the Holy Scripture. (83). It is injurious to wish that a Christian draw back from that reading. (84). To snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed to them by taking away from them this manner of understanding it, is to close to them the mouth of Christ. (85). To forbid to Christians the reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially the Four Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a certain kind of excommunication.

Let the reader fix the solemn and awful fact in his mind matized by a so-called infallible Pope, claiming to be God’s viceregent, and delivering himself ex-cathedra in a sentence of condemnation which) according to the Vatican Council, is irreformable.

3. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX, issued ex-cathedra, the bull entitled Ineffabilis Deus , declaring it to be a divinely revealed fact and dogma, which must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful on pain of excommunication, “that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.” The reader will understand that this Romanist dogma of “the immaculate conception” has no reference to our Lord’s immaculate conception referred to in Luk 1:35 , but to Mary’s own conception and birth, concerning which the Scriptures are entirely silent. And to further show what is meant by this unscriptural and antiscriptural dogma, I now cite a paragraph of an encyclical letter, dated February 2, 1849, and sent out to the world by Pope Pius IX:

You know full well, venerable brethren, that the whole ground of our confidence is placed in the most holy Virgin henceforth, if there be in us any hope, if there be any grace, if there be any salvation, we must receive it solely from her, according to the will of Him who would have us possess all through Mary.

4. On December 8, 1864, Pope Pius IX, issued another encyclical letter, entitled Quanta Cura, and a Syllabus of Errors which he anathematized. It was this Syllabus that roused Mr. Gladstone to issue his pamphlet entitled “Vaticanism.”

As an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI, in 1831, condemned the liberty of the press, so this encyclical letter, together with the Syllabus condemns liberty of conscience and worship, liberty of speech, free schools under secular control, the authority of the state to define the civil rights of the church, the binding force of any marriage not performed by Romanist authority, the right of a state called Catholic to tolerate any religion but the papal system. Not only are these and many like things condemned, but there are affirmed: The union of church and state, provided it be the Romanist church only; the right of the Romanist church to employ force. Those also are condemned who hold that Roman pontiffs have ever transgressed the limits of their lawful power. Hence I say that these four things, to wit: The bull Unum Sanctum, 1320; the bull Unigenitus, 1713; the bull Ineffabilis Deus, 1854; the Syllabus of Errors, 1864, serve as well as a thousand things to show what papal infallibility, decreed in 1870, means and involves. The dogma certainly places any Pope, however ignorant or immoral, in the place of God to the whole world, and substitutes a sinful and fallible woman for the immaculate Son of God.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the scene and who are the historians of the great confession of Peter at Philippi?

2. What three general observations on these accounts?

3. Give the outline submitted for the whole of sections 64-65.

4. What question arose in the minds of the people from Christ’ Galilean ministry?

5. What were the various answers and how do you account for the divergent answers to this question? Illustrate each.

6. What, probably, was our Lord’s prayer on this occasion, and what occasion, what Peter’s answer and what elements of his answer?

7. What was our Lord’s question addressed to the disciples on the meaning of the terms used?

8. What was Christ’s response to Peter’s answer and what is the inference to this effect?

9. What does Christ’s answer to Peter reveal and what other pas sages show the same thing?

10. Indicate the beginning and growth of the disciples’ faith in bin as the Messiah up to this time.

11. What important questions arise from this passage?

12. Who founded the church and when?

13. Upon what did Christ found his church and what is the scriptural proof?

14. What is the import of Deu 32:4 ; Deu 32:15 ; Deu 32:31 ; 1Sa 2:2 ; 2Sa 22:2 ; 2Sa 22:32 ; Psa 18:2 ; Psa 18:31 ; Psa 61:2 ; Psa 89:26 ; Psa 92:15 ; Psa 95:1 ; Isa 7:10 ; and 1Co 10:4 ?

15. How may faith in Christ be the foundation also? Proof.

16. What do the majority of Protestant scholars regard as the “rock'” here and in what sense is it true?

17. In what sense are the apostles the foundation and what is the scriptural proof?

18. In what sense may the church be founded on Peter?

19. What is the doctrinal foundation? Proof.

20. What is the Roman Catholic position on this question and on what scriptures do they rely to prove it?

21. What are the names of their various arguments? Explain each.

22. What is the resultant jurisdiction of the Pope?

23. What have the Romanist authorities cited here?

24. What four propositions of the Vatican Council? Explain each.

25. What proof is necessary to support these stupendous claims?

26. What was the author’s reply to Cardinal Wiseman’s contention?

27. Give a summary of Bishop Kenrick’s speech combating the papal argument.

28. What was the nature of the pronunciamento of the Vatican Council in 1870?

29. How does the author illustrate its awful significance?

30. What is the sum total of such dogma?

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

13 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?

Ver. 13. Whom do men say that I, &c. ] This question Christ asked, not as tickled with ambition to hear his own commendation (which yet is held and said to be the only sweet hearing), a but as taking occasion to make way for their Christian confession, and likewise for their further information.

The Son of man am ] So he was called: 1. Because a true Man 1:2. Because he passed for no more than an ordinary man. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Joh 6:52 ; Joh 3:1-36 . Because as man born of a woman, he was of few days and full of trouble: yea, he was the man that had seen affliction by the rod of God’s wrath.

a . Xenophon.

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

13 20. ] CONFESSION OF PETER. Mar 8:27-30 . Luk 9:18-21 . Here St. Luke rejoins the synoptic narrative, having left it at ch. Mat 14:22 . We here begin the second great division of our Saviour’s ministry on earth, introductory to His sufferings and death. Up to this time we have had no distinct intimation, like that in Mat 16:21 , of these events. This intimation is brought in by the solemn question and confession now before us. And as the former period of His ministry was begun by a declaration from the Father of His Sonship, so this also, on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

13. .] A town in Gaulonitis at the foot of Mount Libanus, not far from the source of the Jordan, a day’s journey from Sidon, once called Laish (Jdg 18:7 ; Jdg 18:29 ) and afterwards Dan (ibid.), but in later times Paneas, or Panias, from the mountain Panium, under which it lay (Jos. Antt. xv. 10. 3. , , Euseb. H. E. vii. 17). The tetrarch Philip enlarged it and gave it the name of Csarea (Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 1). In after times King Agrippa further enlarged it and called it Neronias in honour of the Emperor Nero (Jos. Antt. xx. 9. 4). This must not be confounded with the Csarea of the Acts, which was Csarea Stratonis, on the Mediterranean. See Act 10:1 , and note. The following enquiry took place , Mar 8:27 . St. Luke gives it without note of place, but states it to have been asked on the disciples joining our Lord, who was praying alone, Luk 9:18 .

] who do men say that the Son of Man is? . being equivalent to in the corresponding sentence below, Mat 16:15 . Of those who read in the text, some would render as if our Lord had said, ‘ Who say men that I am? the Son of Man? ’ i.e. the Messiah? (Beza, Le Clerc, and others,) but this is inadmissible, for the answer would not then have been expressed as it is, but affirmatively or negatively . Equally inadmissible is Olshausen’s rendering . ( ) , ‘Me, who am, as ye are aware, the Son of Man?’ an expression, Olshausen says, by which the disciples would be led to the idea of the Son of God . But then this would destroy the simplicity of the following question, But who say ye that I am? because it would put into their mouths the answer intended to be given. The E. V. has beyond doubt the right rendering of this reading: and . . . is a pregnant expression, which we now know to imply the Messiahship in the root of our human nature , and which even then was taken by the Jews as = the Son of God , (see Luk 22:69-70 ,) which would serve as a test of the faith of the disciples, according to their understanding of it.

(generic: = in Luke), i.e. the . of Mat 16:17 , the human opinion .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 16:13-28 . At Caesarea Philippi (Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1 ; Luk 9:18-27 ). The crossing of the lake (Mat 16:5 ) proved to be the prelude to a second long excursion northwards, similar to that mentioned in Mat 15:21 ; like it following close on an encounter with ill-affected persons, and originating in a kindred mood and motive. For those who regard the two feedings as duplicate accounts of the same event these two excursions are of course one. “The idea of two journeys on which Jesus oversteps the boundaries of Galilee is only the result of the assumption of a twofold feeding. The two journeys are, in truth, only parts of one great journey, on which Jesus, coming out of heathen territory, first touches again the soil of the holy land, in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi.” Weiss, Leben Jesu , ii. 256. Be this as it may, this visit to that region was an eventful one, marking a crisis or turning-point in the career of Jesus. We are at the beginning of the fifth act in the tragic drama: the shadow of the cross now falls across the path. Practically the ministry in Galilee is ended, and Jesus is here to collect His thoughts and to devote Himself to the disciplining of His disciples. Place and time invite to reflection and forecast, and afford leisure for a calm survey of the whole situation. Note that at this point Lk. again joins his fellow-evangelists in his narrative. We have missed him from Mat 14:23 onwards ( vide notes on Lk.).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 16:13 . : here again this verb may mean not arriving at, but setting out for, or on the way: unterwegs , Schanz. So Grotius: cum proficisceretur, non cum venissct . Fritzsche dissents and renders: postquam venerat . Mk. has to indicate where the conversation began. On the whole both expressions are elastic, and leave us free to locate the ensuing scene at any point on the road to Caesarea Philippi, say at the spot where the city and its surroundings came into view. . .: a notable city, romantically situated at the foot of the Lebanon range, near the main sources of the Jordan, in a limestone cave, in the province of Gaulonitis, ruled over by the Tetrarch Philip, enlarged and beautified by him with the Herodian passion for building, and furnished with a new name (Paneas before, changed into Caesarea of Philip to distinguish from Caesarea on the sea). “A place of exceedingly beautiful, picturesque surroundings, with which few spots in the holy land can be compared. What a rush of many waters; what a wealth and variety of vegetation!” Furrer, Wanderungen , 414. Vide also the description in Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine , and in Professor G. A. Smith’s Historical Geography of the Holy Land . , etc.: with this grand natural scene possibly or even probably (why else name it?) in view, Jesus asked His disciples a significant question meant to lead on to important disclosures. The question is variously reported by the synoptists, and it is not easy to decide between the forms. It would seem simpler and more natural to ask, “whom do, etc., that I am?” ( , Mk. and Lk.). But, on the other hand, at a solemn moment Jesus might prefer to speak impersonally, and ask: “whom that the Son of Man is?” (Mt.). That title, as hitherto employed by Him, would not prejudge the question. It had served rather to keep the question who He was, how His vocation was to be defined, in suspense till men had learned to attach new senses to old words. It is intrinsically unlikely that He would combine the two forms of the question, and ask: “whom, etc., that I , the Son of Man , am?” as in the T. R. That consideration does not settle what Mt. wrote, but it is satisfactory that the best MSS. leave out the . The question shows that Jesus had been thinking of His past ministry and its results, and it may be taken for granted that He had formed His own estimate, and did not need to learn from the Twelve how He stood. He had come to the conclusion that He was practically without reliable following outside the disciple circle , and that conviction is the key to all that follows in this memorable scene. How the influential classes, the Pharisees, and the priests and political men = Sadducees, were affected was apparent. Nothing but hostility was to be looked for there. With the common people on the other hand He had to the last been popular. They liked His preaching, and they took eager advantage of His healing ministry. But had they got a definite faith about Him, as well as a kindly feeling towards Him; an idea well-rooted, likely to be lasting, epoch-making, the starting-point of a new religious movement? He did not believe they had, and He expected to have that impression confirmed by the answer of the Twelve, as indeed it was.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 16:13-20

13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” 15He said to them, ” But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Mat 16:13 “Caesarea Philippi” This was a city in Philip’s territory about 20 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. This was Jesus’ second attempt to get away with the disciples alone (cf. Matthew 15).

“Son of Man” This phrase was used several times in the OT. It implies humanity (Psa 8:4; Eze 2:1) and deity (Dan 7:13). The phrase was not used by the rabbis of Jesus’ day; therefore, it had no nationalistic or militaristic implications. This was Jesus’ self-chosen designation because it combined the twin aspects of His person, fully God and fully man (cf. Php 2:6-8; 1Jn 4:1-3). See note at Mat 8:20.

Mat 16:14 “John the Baptist” Herod Antipas guessed that Jesus was actually John the Baptist (cf. Mat 14:1-2).

“Elijah” This was from the prophecy of Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5 which said Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah. It would have acknowledged the dawning of the new age of the Spirit.

“Jeremiah” The rabbis held that he hid the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Nebo and that he would bring it out just before the New Age began.

“one of the prophets” This made Jesus a prophet like other OT figures. It could have related to the prophecy of Deu 18:15-22 (cf. Joh 2:2). All of these guesses involved a resuscitation!

“But who do you say that I am” “You” is plural. Jesus asked all of His disciples this question. Peter answered first. His personality made him the spokesman for the group.

Mat 16:16 “You are the Christ” This had been expressed before by Andrew in Joh 1:41, Nathaniel in Joh 1:49, and Peter in Joh 6:69. The Greek title “Christ” is the equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” or ” Anointed One.” See Special Topic: OT Titles For the Special Coming One at Mat 8:20.

“the Son of the living God” Peter did not fully understand Jesus’ Messiahship as is obvious from Mat 16:21-23. Therefore, the blessing of Mat 16:17 related to the phrase “Son of the living God.” The phrase ” living God” was a paraphrase of YHWH which is the from the Hebrew verb “to be” (cf. Exo 3:14). See SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY at Mat 1:21.

Mat 16:17

NASB”Simon, Barjonah”

NKJV”Simon Bar-Jona”

NRSV, NJB”Simon son of Jonah”

TEV”Simon son of John”

This Aramaic “Barjonas” meant “son of John.”

“but My Father who is in heaven” The content of Peter’s confession (Mat 16:16) was not human discovery, but divine revelation. The Spirit is the person of the Trinity who is attributed this task, but here it is the Father, possibly because of the mention of “Son of God.”

The gospel cannot be comprehended nor responded to without divine aid (cf. Joh 6:44; Joh 6:65; Joh 10:29). This does not eliminate the mandated human response (cf. Joh 1:12; Joh 3:16; Rom 10:9-13), but it does show that humans can only respond to the initiation from the spiritual realm. The cannot/do not initiate spiritual decisions! The verb tense related to the “binding” and ” loosing” of Mat 16:19 reflect this same truth!

Mat 16:18 “Peter” This is the Greek word “petros,” a masculine noun. It referred to a detached boulder. For much of his life (i.e., Mat 16:22-23; Mark 14) he was anything but a “rock” !

“this rock” This is the Greek work, “petra,” a feminine noun. It referred to bedrock (cf. Mat 7:24). These two words (petros and petra) cannot grammatically link up to each other because of their gender. The disciples did not see this as a reference to Peter’s superiority because they continued to argue over who was greatest (cf. Mat 18:1; Mat 18:18; Joh 20:21). These two terms are related but distinct in Greek. There is an obvious play between Peter’s faith and the faith of all the apostles. However, in Aramaic there is only one term, “kepha” (” Cephas, Joh 1:42; 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 15:5) for both of the Greek terms for “rock.” Jesus spoke Aramaic but His words are recorded by inspired writers in Greek. Therefore, we must deal with the Greek text, not a supposed Aramaic statement.

“church” “Ekklesia” was the word used in the Septuagint for “the congregation of Israel” (Qahal, BDB 874, cf. Deu 18:16; Deu 23:2). One must be careful not to read post-Pentecostal definitions and forms into this very early and Jewish passage. These early disciples saw themselves as an extension of the OT people (i.e., Qahal) of God. They were the fulfillment of the OT people. The term itself implied a called gathering for some purpose. Its Greek background was a called town meeting (cf. Act 19:32; Act 19:39; Act 19:41). This term does not occur in Mark, Luke, or John. It occurs in Matthew only three times (cf. Mat 16:8; Mat 18:17 [twice]). The Mat 18:17 text obviously refers to a later period of time. The term does occur often in Acts and Paul’s writings.

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHURCH (EKKLESIA)

“gates of Hades” “Gates” can refer to (1) the idea of a city of death from which no one escapes, (2) a city council meeting held at the gate, or (3) an active scheme of evil against the Church. Hades was from the word “to see” negated, therefore invisible. It equals the OT “Sheol,” where the righteous and wicked alike go at the time of death. See Special Topic: Where Are the Dead? at Mat 5:22.

“will not overpower it” This word had an active connotation of “to assault, to gain control.” Death and evil have not overcome nor even comprehended (the two meanings of this term) the Church of the Living God.

Mat 16:19 “keys of the kingdom of heaven” This was a metaphor for ownership by gaining entrance. See Isa 22:22; Rev 1:18; Rev 3:7. The keys are the proclamation of the gospel with an invitation to respond. This concept of Hades and heaven having gates like a city goes back to Isaiah (see Special Topic following). The author of Hebrews also uses this metaphor for heaven (cf. Heb 11:10; Heb 11:16; Heb 12:22; Heb 13:4), as does John in Revelation (cf. Rev 3:12; Revelation 21-22).

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE TWO “CITIES” OF ISAIAH

“kingdom of heaven” Mark and Luke have, “kingdom of God.” The difference is not one of substance, but a difference of recipients. See special topic on the Kingdom of God at Mat 4:17.

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV, NJB”bind. . .loose”

TEV”prohibit. . .permit”

These were rabbinical terms used for legal decisions of permitting or not permitting something. The tense of these two periphrastic verbals is significant. They are both future indicatives of “I Am” with perfect passive participles. They should be translated ” shall have been bound” and “shall have been loosed” (cf. Mat 18:18). This reflects the truth that what humans, led by the Holy Spirit, decide on earth about spiritual matters will have already been decided on in heaven. This passage does not express a human decision, but humans following God’s lead (cf. Mat 18:18; Joh 20:23).

Mat 16:20 “He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ” The gospel was not yet complete. The current Jewish notions about the work of the Messiah were incorrect. The disciples must wait (cf. Mat 8:4; Mat 9:30; Mat 12:16; Mat 17:9).

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

into. Greek. eis. App-104.

coasts = parts.

Whom = Who. The pronoun being governed by the verb “am”, not by the verb “say”, it must be “who” as in Act 13:25 also.

men. Greek plural of anthropos. App-123.

the Son of man. See App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

13-20.] CONFESSION OF PETER. Mar 8:27-30. Luk 9:18-21. Here St. Luke rejoins the synoptic narrative, having left it at ch. Mat 14:22. We here begin the second great division of our Saviours ministry on earth, introductory to His sufferings and death. Up to this time we have had no distinct intimation, like that in Mat 16:21, of these events. This intimation is brought in by the solemn question and confession now before us. And as the former period of His ministry was begun by a declaration from the Father of His Sonship, so this also, on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 16:13. , …, But when Jesus had come, etc.) A noticeable interval of time occurred between the things just narrated and those which are now declared.[728] The connection, therefore, of the passages is not close. The matters which follow took place a short time before our Lords Passion; and the shortness of this interval[729] assists the right interpretation of the promises made in Mat 16:18; Mat 16:28, and of the prohibition uttered in Mat 16:20, ch. Mat 17:9, etc.[730]-, of Csarea) This very name, which had not heretofore been given to the towns of Palestine, might have warned all that the Jews were subject to Csar, that the sceptre had departed from Judah, and that the Messiah had therefore come. See, however, James Alting,[731] Schilo, pp. 147, 153. In Scriptural exegesis, the reader ought to place himself, as it were, in the time and place where the words were spoken, or the thing was done, and to consider the feelings[732] of the writer, the force of the words, and the context.- , Philippi) Thus the inland Csarea is distinguished from that on the sea-shore.[733]-, whom) The disciples had profited by listening and inquiry; now their Master examines them by questioning, and gives an example of catechising.- , the Son of Man) i.e. Me, whom I myself am wont to call the Son of Man. Peter gives the right antitheton [in his reply[734]], Mat 16:16 : Thou art the Son of the living God.-Cf. Joh 5:19; Joh 5:27. This title, the Son of Man, which frequently occurs in the Evangelists, should be carefully observed: no one was so called but Christ Himself, and no one, whilst He walked on earth, so called Him except Himself. He first applies this appellation to Himself in Joh 1:51, when they were first found who acknowledged Him as the Messiah and the Son of God (ibid. Joh 1:50), and thenceforth very frequently, both before and after His prediction of His Passion. For they who expressed their faith in Him, called Him the Son of David. The Jews rightly suspected (Joh 12:34), that by this title He claimed to be the Messiah. For as the first Adam, with all his progeny, is called Man, so the second Adam (see 1Co 15:45) is called Son of Man, not with that notion with which (filii hominis), i.e. the weak, are opposed to (filii viri), i.e. the powerful (in Psa 49:2 (Psa 48:2); or that in which men are called generally, sons of men (filii hominum), as in Mar 3:28; Eph 3:5; Eze 2:1, etc.: but with the article, . The article appears to refer to the prophecy of Daniel, Dan 7:13. This, in sooth, is that One Man whom Adam, after the fall, expected by promise for his whole race: , the second (1Co 15:47), to whom every prophecy of the Old Testament pointed, who holds the rights and primogeniture of the whole human race (see Luk 3:23; Luk 3:38), and to whom alone we owe that we are not ashamed of the name of man: see Psalms 49(48):20, and cf. Rom 5:15. Moreover, our Lord, whilst walking amongst men, by this appellation, both expressed, and as suitable to the circumstances (pro economi) of that time, concealed amongst men (cf. ch. Mat 22:45) and hid from Satan the fact that He was , the Son, absolutely so called, i.e. the Son of God promised and given to man, Gen 3:15; Isa 9:6; and sprung from man, Heb 2:11; and at the same time, as it were, reminded Himself of His present condition, Mat 20:28; Php 2:7-8. In the same manner, He expressed both His crucifixion and His ascension by one word, , I be lifted up, Joh 12:32. Neither is this appellation suited only to the state of His humiliation, but the expression, the Son of man, is used for every conspicuous situation of His, either in humiliation or exaltation; see Joh 12:34, and compare therewith, in the following verse, the light is with you. And it agrees with the very form of His body, as implying youth; see Dan 7:13. Consider the following passages:-Mat 16:27-28; ch. Mat 12:32, Mat 24:27; Mat 24:30; Mat 24:37; Mat 24:39; Mat 24:44, Mat 25:31; Luk 17:22; Joh 12:23-36; Joh 5:27; Act 7:56. Therefore also this appellation does not once occur in the whole of the twenty-one apostolic epistles, but instead of it, the appellation, the Son of God; for in Heb 2:6 the article is not added, and the words are those of David, not of St Paul, who yet frequently calls Christ both (homo), and (vir). See the Gnomon on Rom 5:15. And even in the Apocalypse Rev 1:13 and Rev 14:14, as long before in Dan 7:13, that appellation is only alluded to, not actually applied to our Lord. The agreement of the apostles, even in the case of this single phrase, shows that they wrote by the same Divine inspiration.

[728] Mark and Luke, it seems, as well as Matthew, here begin a new section, wherein, with a common design, they show how He proceeded upon His last journey (tour of preaching), replete with salvation, in the northern coasts of the land of Israel. Near Cserea Philippi. He asks the disciples, when He was alone with them, Whom do men say that I am? and then He informs them of His Passion. Then He so arranges His departure (the course of His journey), as that He now imbues the whole land of Israel with the good seed. After having exhibited His glory on the mountain of Transfiguration, He returns to Capernaum, directing His course from thence through the midst of Samaria and Galilee; then onward beyond Jordan, bending His course towards Judea, He bids farewell to Bethabara [Joh 10:40, comp. with Joh 1:28], and, having crossed the Jordan afresh, He came finally to Jericho and Bethany, Mat 16:13 to Mat 20:34, etc.-Harm., p. 367.

[729] Consisting of about one month and a half.-V. g.

[730] A few weeks later, all the details of the truth concerning Him were published on every side, the restraints (which He had imposed on them, Mat 16:20) being removed. The sum of all which the disciples heretofore learned was this, Jesus is the Christ: This is repeated and confirmed, Mat 16:16, and furthermore on it this additional thesis is built, Christ shall suffer, etc., which constitutes the sum and substance of the rest of the Gospel history.-V. g.

[731] JAMES ALTING was born at Heidelberg in 1618: he studied at the Academy of Groningen, where he attained distinction as a divine, a Hebrew philologist, and a Syriac scholar. He died in 1679.-(I. B.)

[732] Affectus. See Authors Preface, Sect. xv., and Translators foot-notes in loc-(I. B.)

[733] Csarea Philippi, previously called Paneas, was enlarged and adorned by the Tetrarch Philip, who gave it the name of Csarea in honour of the Emperor Tiberias, adding the cognomen Philippi to distinguish it from the great Csarea, the Roman metropolis of Judea. For further particulars, see Kittos Scripture Lands, and Lewins Life and Writings of St Paul.-(I. B.)

[734] In the original, Petrus antitheton tangit,-literally, Peter touches the antitheton, a metaphorical expression apparently derived from shooting at a target.-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 16:13-20

19. THE CONFESSION AT CAESAREA

Mat 16:13-20

13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi.-This is the most northern point of which we have any record that Jesus reached during his personal ministry. “Caesarea Philippi” is to be distinguished from “Caesarea” which is frequently mentioned in Acts of the apostles as the seat of the Roman government for that region. Caesarea was about seventy-five miles northwest of Jerusalem on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Caesarea Philippi was situated at the easternmost and most important of the two recognized sources of the Jordan. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament and is mentioned only twice in the New Testament (Mat 16:13; Mar 8:27);these two mentions are with respect to the same transactions. It was named for Herod Philip; his name was added to Caesarea to distinguish it from the other Caesarea. Jesus and his disciples were alone and Luke tells us that Jesus was praying. (Luk 9:18.) Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” By this question he begins to lead to the great confession made by his disciples. We may mark with fairly clear accuracy the development of the faith of his apostles. The first step was their following the call of Jesus; the second was their obedience to the limited commission; and the third stage of development begins with their confession. Jesus’ earthly ministry has now about reached its zenith. He has exhibited his character and laid his lessons clearly before his disciples; he has trained them so that they may go into all the world bearing his message. They need their faith strengthened and their convictions deepened. This occasion serves to do these two things. They had returned from their limited commission and had gathered some information as to what the people generally thought of him. “Son of man” was a usual designation that Jesus used with respect to himself. The question simply meant, “Who do men say that I, Jesus, am?”

14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist.-They could have said that some affirmed that he was an agent of Beelzebub; possibly only a few made this affirmation. They further could have reported that he was a prophet as some thought that he was merely another prophet. However the apostles chose to give the most favorable reports that they had heard this is natural in speaking to or of a friend. So they answered, “John the Baptist.” Herod had started this report. (Mat 14:1-3.) It was thought that John had been raised from the dead; hence he had supernatural power. In this way they could account, they thought, for the miracles of Jesus without acknowledging him to be the Messiah. However public opinion was not agreed on who he was, as some said that he was “Elijah.” Elijah had lived in the days of King Ahab; he had rebuked the wicked king and his queen Jezebel for their sins, and had been taken up to heaven without dying a natural death. (2Ki 2:1-12.) The Jews cherished a tradition that this Elijah would come back to earth; they thought that when he did come back he would do mighty wonders; they also misunderstood the prophecies which referred to John the Baptist and Jesus as Elijah. This was another way of accounting for the mighty works of Jesus without acknowledging him as a Son of God. Still others claimed that he was “Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” Jeremiah was the prophet of God who lived in the last days of the kingdom of Judah before it was carried into Babylonian captivity. (Jer 1:1-3.) He had wept over Israel and had pleaded for Jehovah. Some saw in Jesus a similar work to that of Jeremiah, hence they ascribed to him the works of Jeremiah rather than acknowledge him as the Son of God.

15-17 But who say ye that I am?-This question is presented after the preparation made by the answer of the question, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” This question struck down to the depths of their hearts and called for a confession of their own conviction; it probed to the very depth of their faith and called for a clear and definite expression of their faith. Jesus knew what they believed; he knew the strength and depth of their faith; but for their good he asks for a confession. It is the question that every one ought to ask his own heart. Jesus did not care so much what others thought of him, but he wanted an expression from his disciples as to what they believed about him. In answer to the former question the disciples could relate the various opinions that others had of Jesus, but this question called for a faith, and not an opinion.

Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.-Simon Peter true to his prompt, decisive nature, always ready to speak out, whether for himself or for his brethren, gave this clear, emphatic, and decisive answer. We have in this chapter the good and the dark side of Peter’s character. Peter was possibly the senior apostle and on this occasion represented the entire group. “The Christ” is Greek for “the Messiah”; Messiah is the Hebrew for anointed, and means the anointed of God as the Redeemer of the world. “The Son of God” is put in contrast with “Son of man”; he is not merely the Son of man, but he is “the Son of the living God.” “Living God” is used to distinguish God from the dead idols of the heathen, distinguishes him as the source of all life ; he is “the living God,” the eternal and everlasting God.

Jesus answered, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah.” The word “Bar” is the Syriac for the Hebrew “Ben,” both meaning “the son of.” Jonah was the father of Peter, hence “Bar-Jonah,” son of Jonah. This blessing was pronounced upon him and as he spoke for the group, the blessing belongs to the group. It also belongs to all henceforth who so confess him. The source of evidence had not come from “flesh and blood,” but had been revealed by “my Father who is in heaven.” Here Jesus claims God as his Father and thus emphasizes the truth confessed by Peter that he is “the Son of the living God.” “Flesh and blood” is used in the New Testament simply to represent men. (Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12 ; Heb 2:14.) Men had not taught the disciples of Jesus this truth; they differed about him and would not believe in him as the Son of God. Jesus’ disciples had not been swayed by the prejudices and opinions of those who rejected him. God had revealed this knowledge to them, not by any unusual or extraordinary communication, nor by any partial or arbitrary favor to them, but as a result of their faith and obedience. These disciples had not received their evidence from the scribes or religious teachers of that day. The prophets of the Old Testament were moved by the Holy Spirit, and when Jesus fulfilled these prophecies in the presence of his disciples, God was declaring unto them that Jesus was his Son.

18-20 Thou art Peter, and upon this rock.-The name “Peter” here means “a stone” (Joh 1:42), and in the Greek is in the masculine gender. Peter as a rock should be firm, immovable, fixed as to preaching the gospel in the clearest terms, on facts and reasonings which enemies could not successfully deny. Peter’s energy and boldness helped to mold the first growths of the early disciples in the form of stern, simple unyielding characters. In the first wave of persecution against the church he was the rock on which the rage of the Jews spent itself. (Act 4:8-10; Act 12:3; Act 12:5.) His inflexible courage defended the flock in the first absence of the chief Shepherd.

Upon this rock.-“Rock” here is feminine and refers to the foundation upon which Jesus built his church. “Petros,” which means “a stone,” is one thing, and “Petra,” which means a ledge of rock, is another. Jesus did not say nor mean to say that his church would be built upon “a stone,” but upon a solid “ledge of rock”; a stone might be too small for a foundation, but a ledge of rock furnished sufficient foundation for the greatest superstructure. What was this “petra” upon which the church was to be built? Various answers have been given to this question. Some have said that it was Peter, but this is impossible; others have said that it was Peter’s confession”; still others have said that it was the “faith” that Peter confessed; still others have said that it was the “truth” embodied in the divinity of Jesus; and others have said that it was the person of Jesus. It is true that Jesus is referred to as the foundation by Paul in 1Co 3:11. It seems clear from the context that Jesus by using the term “Petra” referred to the truth that Peter had just confessed, which was the deity of Jesus. The truth that Jesus is the Son of the living God is the most fundamental and basic of all truths pertaining to man’s redemption.

I will build my church.-The future tense is here used, which shows that at this time Jesus had not established his church. It was only in a preparatory stage, and was yet to be established . This is the first instance of the use of the word “church” in the New Testament. The church as here referred to by Jesus as “my church” was not set up during the days of Abraham, neither during the days of John the Baptist, nor during the personal ministry of Jesus up to this point; he simply says now that “I will build my church.” What has heretofore been spoken of by Jesus as “the kingdom of heaven,” “the kingdom of God,” is here spoken of as “my church.” “Church” is derived from the Greek “ekklasia” which is composed of the Greek preposition “ek,” which means out, and “kaleo,” which means to call or summons; hence “ekklasia” means called out or assembly. Here “my church” means the assembly or people who have been called out of the world by the gospel of Christ.

The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.-Ancient cities were surrounded by walls with gates; these gates were often assaulted in battle, and were guarded by special garrisons. The protection of the city was estimated by the strength of its gates; hence the word “gates” became synonymous with “powers.” “The gates of Hades” means “the powers of Hades.” “Hades” was originally the name of the god who presided over the realm of the dead; hence the phrase “house of Hades.” It designates the place to which all who depart this life descend, without reference to their moral character. In the New Testament, Hades is the realm of the dead; here “Hades” is represented as a mighty city with gates representing its power. Jesus simply meant that though he would be crucified, buried, yet he would arise from the dead and build his church; the powers of death or the unseen world, or “the gates of Hades,’ would not be able to hold him in the unseen realm and prevent his coming out and building his church. Not only would the church be established in spite of the powers of Hades, but the church would be continued in spite of these powers. The church will never fail, though generation after generation yields to the power of death, yet other generations will perpetuate the church, and it will continue until it has filled its mission on earth.

I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.- This is another way of saying, “I will give unto thee the terms or conditions of admitting people into the church.” “The keys” is a figure of speech from which its meaning may easily be determined. (Isa 22:22; Rev 3:7.) This expression occurs also in Luk 11:52; Rev 1:18; Rev 9:1; Rev 20:1. In all these references the one who bears the keys is the one who has power over the subjects assigned to him. There is no significance attached to the plurality of “keys” further than it represents the power to admit into the kingdom or church. Peter exercised the authority to announce to the Jewish people on the day of Pentecost the terms of admission into the church. (Acts 2.) He also announced first the terms of admission of the Gentiles into the church. (Acts 10.) The same terms were announced in both cases.

Jesus promised to ratify in heaven just what the apostles preached on earth. They were not left to their own wisdom, but were guided by the Holy Spirit in announcing the terms of admission into the kingdom of God on earth. The terms of admission into the church were the terms of the forgiveness of sins. Those who complied with these terms were forgiven and constituted a part of his church; heaven ratified this. Those who refused to comply with the terms were still held guilty and stood condemned; this condemnation was ratified in heaven. “Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.” He strictly forbade his disciples publishing at this time that which they had just confessed, namely, that he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Two reasons may be clearly seen for this charge: (1) It would endanger his life and would hinder his work by exciting more prejudice in the minds of his enemies; (2) the disciples were unfit to preach this doctrine; they did not know at this time what rising from the dead meant; they did not understand that Jesus had to die, be buried, and be raised from the dead before he could establish his kingdom. They would preach that he would establish a temporal kingdom, hence it is best for them to remain silent until they had all of the facts necessary and could proclaim them by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Here the church and the kingdom of heaven are used interchangeably to denote the same institution. The statement that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” says, in other words, it “shall never be destroyed,” “it shall stand forever.” The church was to be built on the truth confessed by Peter and proved by the resurrection that Jesus is the Son of God. Peter was to bear and use the keys to this kingdom of heaven. This settles beyond the possibility of a doubt that the kingdom was set up in the lifetime of Peter. To use the keys was to open the door or give the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. Did he give the keys of the kingdom to Peter thousands of years before it was set up? When did Peter open the door of the kingdom of heaven and direct men into it? Persons who followed the direction of Peter when he told them what to do to be saved were introduced into the kingdom of heaven, or Jesus was mistaken.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The Son of the Living God

Mat 16:13-20

The shadows of Calvary were beginning to gather and the Lord desired to prepare His friends for all that it stood for. His questions elicited Peters magnificent confession.

Notice the date of the Church. It was still future when He spoke. I will build. The materials may have been prepared beforehand, but the actual building began at our Lords resurrection. He is the Architect. Through the centuries He has been building, and if we are in His Church today, we are there because He excavated us out of the first Adam, and placed us in the very position we now occupy. The foundations of that Church were not in the Apostle (Petros) but in his confession (petra)of the divine sonship of Jesus. See Joh 5:18. Its impregnability is attested, for the Lord Himself defends it. See Rev 2:1. The gates of Hades, that is, the unseen world, include all the principalities and powers that are allied against Gods people. They cannot prevail, Eph 6:12.

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

Chapter 41

Thou Art the Christ

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 Barjona: 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.

(Mat 16:13-20)

What is the meaning of our Lords statement Upon this rock I will build my Church? Without question, the papists fabrication that Peter was to be the foundation of the church is ludicrous. To speak of a fallen, sinful, depraved son of Adam as the foundation upon which Gods holy temple is built is contrary to Scripture. Such an exaltation of Peter above the rest of the Apostles would have been contrary to the plainest teachings of our Lord (Mat 20:1-28). The rock upon which the Church of God is built is Peters confession, not Peter (Eph 2:20-22; 1Co 3:11). Christ himself is the Rock God has laid in Zion (Isa 28:16). Peter himself, writing by divine inspiration, tells us this (1Pe 2:6-8). When the Lord Jesus said, Upon this rock will I build my church, he was, obviously, referring to himself. He is the Rock upon whom Peter and all true believers are built by Gods saving grace (1Pe 2:5). Being built on him, we are safe and secure. Hell itself can do us no harm.

What is the meaning of our Lords promise I wilt give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Again, the papal doctrine that Peter and his successors, the popes, and priests of Rome (as they dream) have the power to admit souls into heaven is a delusion. Peter does not open and close the gates of heaven. That prerogative belongs to Christ alone (Rev 1:18). This sentence appears to have no greater meaning, and no less, than this. By Gods special decree Peter was ordained to be the first messenger, the first preacher of the gospel after the resurrection, by whom (as Gods mouthpiece and instrument) the doors of salvation were thrown open to both Jews and Gentiles (Act 2:10, Act 15:7-9).

What do the last words of Mat 16:19 mean? Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Our Lord did not give Peter the power to forgive and absolve sins! And this promise of our Lord has nothing to do with church discipline. What the text does teach is this: Peter and the Apostles were commissioned to teach the way of salvation with inspired authority (Act 15:9-11; Act 16:31; Rom 10:9-13). J. C. Ryle wrote, As the Old Testament priests declared authoritatively whose leprosy was cleansed, so the apostles were appointed to declare and pronounce authoritatively whose sins were forgiven.

As the Apostles of Christ they were inspired to lay down and establish the rules and regulations by which the church and kingdom of Christ must be governed. Those things which they made binding are binding. The doctrine of Christs church and kingdom is the gospel, Jesus Christ and him crucified. The ordinances of the kingdom are believers baptism and the Lords Supper. The divinely appointed rulers of the kingdom are faithful pastors. All matters of indifference they left as matters of indifference. Those things they loosed, so that each believer is free to decide what is best for himself (Act 15:19; Rom 14:4-5).

It is important to state that this authority and power to bind and loose things in the kingdom of heaven was confined to the apostles. It began with them. And it ended with them. It has never been given to anyone else. I am not an infallible teacher. Neither is any other man. No pastor, no church, no denomination has any right or power to lay down any laws, rules, or guiding principles for the kingdom of God. The Word of God alone is our only rule of faith and practice.

Remember, that which Peter here confessed is the Rock of Foundation upon which the Church and Kingdom of God is and must be built. Here are five blessed things spoken of in this passage of Scripture.

A Blessed Confession

At first glance, the careless reader might pass over these words, thinking there is nothing extraordinary in them; but such thoughts arise from great ignorance. Peters confession here is truly remarkable. The more I study it, the more remarkable and blessed it appears. Consider it carefully.

This confession put Peter at odds with the rest of the world. Few were with Christ in those days. Many were against him. But Peter confessed him. When the rulers of his own nation and all the religious people he knew, the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the priests, and the people, all opposed Christ, Peter confessed him. Many would gladly acknowledge him to be a prophet, even a great prophet, even a resurrected prophet. But Peter confessed him to be The Christ, The Son of the living God.

This confession of faith came from a man of tremendous faith, character, commitment, and zeal. Say what you will about Peter. He had his faults, I know. But do not underrate this man. His heart was under the rule of Christ. Grace is evident in him. Peter was a true-hearted, fervent, faithful servant of our God.

Now, look at the content of Peters confession. Looking in the face of the Son of man, Peter said to that man, Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God. Peter confessed that the Man Christ Jesus is God, the eternal Son; that the despised Nazarene is the Christ, the promised Messiah, the One of whom all the prophets spoke. In a word, he confessed that the Man, Jesus, is God come to save his people from their sins (Mat 1:21). I do not know what all Peter knew or did not know. But he knew Christ and confessed him. Do you?

A Blessed Man

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Mat 16:17). Peter was a truly blessed man. His blessedness was manifest, not in his lifestyle, or his freedom from trouble and sorrow, but in the grace of God he had experienced, as was evident in his confession. Like all who are born of God, he was blessed with spiritual understanding (Joh 6:44-45; 1Co 2:11-16; 1Jn 2:20). He was blessed by divine decree (Eph 1:3-14). And he was distinctively blessed by distinguishing grace (1Co 4:7).

Who can describe the blessedness of knowing him, whom to know aright is eternal life? As it was in Peters day, so it is today, and so it is in every age. The people of this world, religious and irreligious, have many and varied opinions about Christ. But only one opinion is right; and that is the opinion formed in the heart by divine teaching and illumination. If we know him, our Savior says, Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee. That is to say, we did not come to know him on our own, and no mere man revealed him to you. We do not know Christ after the flesh, or by human learning (2Co 5:16). But my Father which is in heaven. God himself, by his Holy Spirit, has revealed him to us and in us by the preaching of the gospel (Mat 11:25-27; Joh 6:45-46; Gal 1:15-16; Eph 1:17-18; Eph 3:14; 1Co 12:3; Rom 10:14-17).

A Blessed Foundation.

The Foundation upon which Gods church is built, the Foundation on which our souls are built, the Foundation on which our faith and hope is built is the Rock Christ Jesus. He is the Foundation laid by Gods Decree (Isa 28:16), the sure Foundation, a precious Foundation, an indestructible Foundation (Mat 7:24-27), and a tried Foundation.

Christ is the Rock upon which we must be built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1Co 3:11). He is the precious Corner Stone the Lord God has laid in Zion. Those who believe on him shall never perish, but have everlasting life. Those who build on the sand of their own works shall be buried in the everlasting ruins of their own confusion in hell.

Faith in Christ is compared to the building of a house of refuge (Mat 16:24). Sooner or later your house will be tested by earthly trials, spiritual trials, rains of trouble, floods of sorrow, and winds of adversity (Mat 16:25). If your house is built on Christ the Rock, it will endure the trial and stand the tests of time. If your house is built on the sand, anything other than Christ, sooner or later the rains and floods and winds will bring it crumbling down around you.

Everything built upon the sand will crumble. Only that which is built upon Christ, the Stone that God has laid, will stand. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Foundation, and Gods elect are the building reared upon that Foundation. He alone is the Rock of our salvation.

A Blessed Promise

Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mat 16:18). Perhaps no word in the Bible has been more misunderstood, more abused, and more confusing to men than the word church. Mans misunderstanding of this word has led to bigotry, sectarianism, strife, isolationism, and even persecution.

What is this Church, which the Son of God calls, my church? The word church is used in three ways in the New Testament. Sometimes, the word church is used to describe local, visible assemblies of professed believers in a given place. In every local church there are both believers and unbelievers, wheat and tares, sheep and goats, true possessors of faith and false professors of faith. Every local church has in its membership both the true and the false; but still every local assembly of men and women, who profess faith in Christ and the gospel of Gods free grace in him, is set forth as a local church and is called, the church of God (Rom 16:1-5).

Sometimes the word church is used to describe all true churches at any given time in the world. Obviously I do not suggest that the church of God is made up of all churches and denominations, but it does include all New Testament churches at any given time in the world. We are one in Christ, one in purpose, one in heart, and one in desire. All true gospel churches in this world in Jesus Christ are one (1Co 10:32; 1Co 12:28).

The word church, as it is used here, does not refer to any local church, or any denomination, but to the church which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all (Eph 1:22-23), the family of God, the redeemed and called ones of Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named (Eph 3:15). Here, as in many other places in the New Testament, the word church is used to describe all true believers of all ages, from the beginning of the world to its end, all the saints of the Old Testament and New Testament ages, all of Gods elect upon the earth and in heaven. This is what we call the universal church. It is the mystical body and spiritual bride of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that spiritual body of which Jesus Christ is the Head (Eph 1:22; Eph 5:23-25).

What does the Lord Jesus here promise his church? He promised to build it. I will build my church. It is his church. He chose it. He redeemed it. And he builds it, calling his elect to life and faith by his Spirit. And he promised to protect it. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Local churches do wither and die. How often we have seen the Lord remove the candlestick from different places! But not one member of Christs mystical body shall perish (Joh 10:28).

A Blessed Gift

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 (Mat 16:19). The Lord Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and he has given them to us by them in the Volume of Holy Scripture. Christ brought in everlasting righteousness by his obedience to God as our Representative. He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself as our sin-atoning Substitute. And the gospel declares that every sinner who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ hath everlasting life(1Jn 5:1).

Now, look at Mat 16:20. Here is a charge our Master has reversed. He told his disciples to tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ, because his hour was not yet come. But now he commands us to tell all men everywhere that he is Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mat 28:18-20). It is the business of his church in this world (the only business of his church) to proclaim the gospel to all. And by this means the Lord God our Savior builds his church.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

The King alone with his Friends

Mat 16:13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Csarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Our Lord knew well enough what the people thought of him; but he asked his disciples the question that he might instruct them after the Socratic method by drawing out their own minds. Our Lord was about to inform them as to his death, and it was well that they should have very clear ideas as to who he was. He begins by asking, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Human opinions about heavenly things count for little; yet it is as well to know them, that we may be prepared to withstand them 14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets

These were all conjectures, and far from the mark; yet was there some likeness to truth in them all. Herod’s notion that Jesus was John the Baptist, newly risen from the dead, seemed a probable one to many, since our Lord had like courage and fidelity with John. Elijah, too, seemed to live again in our Lord’s words of fire; Jeremiah was revived in his constant sorrow; and the prophets were repeated in his memorable teachings and marvellous life. Since many of these were types of him, it is small wonder that he should seem to be identical with them. Yet men make no discovery of the Lord’s true character by their own guesswork: only those to whom he reveals himself will ever know him.

Error has many voices; truth alone is one, and abiding. Men say differing things concerning our Lord; but his Spirit alone bears effectual witness to the one true Christ of God.

Mat 16:15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

This is a far more searching question. Our personal thoughts of Jesus touch a vital point. Our Lord presupposes that his disciples would not have the same thoughts as “men “had. They would not follow the spirit of the age, and shape their views by those of the “cultured” persons of the period. They would have formed a judgment, each one for himself, by what they had heard and seen while in his company. Therefore, he enquired, “But whom say ye that I am?” Let each reader answer the question before he goes further.

Mat 16:16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Peter, as usual, was spokesman for the rest; and he spoke right well. He had perceived the Messiahship and the divine Sonship of his Lord, and in outspoken words he uttered, his inward belief. It was a simple but satisfactory Confession of Faith. Wo should always be ready to give an answer to those who would know what we believe on a matter so central as the person and nature of our Lord. A mistake on this point would involve all our religion in failure. If he is not to us the Christ, the Lord’s Anointed, and “the Son of the living God,” we know not Jesus aright.

Mat 16:17. 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.

His old name is mentioned to bring out the distinction between what he was by nature and what grace had made him. Simon Bar-jona, the fluttering son of a dove, has now become Peter, a rock. He was a happy man to be taught of God on the central truth of revelation. He had not arrived at his belief by mere reason: flesh and blood had not worked out the problem; there had been a revelation to him from the Father who is in heaven. To know the Lord in mere doctrinal statement, no such divine teaching is required; but Peter’s full assurance of his Lord’s nature and mission was no theory in the head: the truth had been written on his heart by the heavenly Spirit. This is the only knowledge worth having as to the person of our Lord, for it brings a blessing with it,-a blessing from the mouth of the Lord Jesus: “Blessed art thou.”

Mat 16:18. 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.

“Thou art Peter,” a piece of rock; and on that rock of which thou art a piece “I will build my church.” He had, by the revelation of the Father, come to know the Son, and to be identified with him: thus he was a stone of the one Rock. Christ is the Rock, and Peter has become one with him, and “upon this rock “is the church founded. If there had been no Romanists to twist this passage, it would have presented no difficulty. Jesus is the Builder, and he and his apostles make up the first course of stone in the great temple of the church, and this first course is one with the eternal Rock on which it rests. In the first twelve courses or foundations are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:14). We are “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Apostles are not the foundation of our confidence meritoriously; but they underlie us as to date, and we rest upon their testimony concerning Jesus and his resurrection.

The assembly which Christ gathers he builds together; for he says, “I will build my church.” He builds on a firm foundation: “Upon this rock I will build.” What Jesus builds is his own: “my church.” He makes his rock-founded building into a stronghold, against which the powers of evil lay continual siege, but all in vain; for “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Mat 16:19. 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.

The new kingdom would not be all-comprehensive, “like Noah’s ark; but would have its doors and its keys. For practical purposes the people of God would need discipline, and the power to receive, refuse, retain, or exclude members. Of these keys our Lord says to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Foremost among the apostles, Peter used those keys at Pentecost, when he let three thousand into the church; in Jerusalem, when he shut out Ananias and Sapphira; and at the house of Cornelius, when he admitted the Gentiles. Our Lord committed to his church power to rule within herself for him; not to set up doors, but to open or shut them: not to make laws, but to obey them and see them obeyed. Peter, and those for whom he spoke, became the stewards of the Lord Jesus in the church, and their acts were endorsed by their Lord. To-day the Lord continues to back up the teaching and acts of his sent servants, those Peters who are pieces of the one Rock. The judgments of his Church, when rightly administered, have his sanction so as to make them valid. The words of his sent servants, spoken in his name, shall be confirmed of the Lord, and shall not be, either as to promise or threatening, a mere piece of rhetoric. When he was here on earth our Lord himself personally admitted men into the select circle of disciples; but on the eve of his departure he gave to their leading spirit, and thus to them also, the power to admit others to their number, or to dismiss them when found unworthy. Thus was the church or assembly constituted, and endowed with internal administrative authority. We cannot legislate, but we may and must administer the ordinances and statutes of the Lord; and what we do rightly in carrying out divine law in the church on earth is ratified by our Lord in heaven. A church would be a mere sham, and its acts a solemn farce, if the great Head of the Church did not sanction all that is done according to his statute-book.

We need not at any length deal with the claims of the Pope of Rome. Even if Peter had been made the head of the church, how would that affect the bishop of Rome’? As well say that the Cham of Tartary is the successor of Peter, as make that claim for an Italian Pontiff. No unsophisticated reader of his Bible sees any trace of Popery in this passage. The wine of Romanism is not to be pressed out of this cluster.

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

As yet they were to be silent as to our Lord’s highest claims, for fear the people should in rash zeal set him up as king by force of arms. It was dangerous to tell such an ill-instructed multitude what they would be sure to misunderstand and misuse. The command to tell no man must have sounded very strangely in the disciples’ ears. It was no business of theirs to discover the reason of their Lord’s orders; it was enough for them to do as he bade them. We are under no such embargo, and therefore we will tell to all that our Lord is the Saviour, the Anointed of God, or, as he has himself worded it, “Jesus the Christ.’1

Mat 16:21. From that time forth began Jesus to shew 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.

The Church or Assembly being now actually arranged, and treated as a fact, our Lord began to prepare his disciples for the time when, as an associated body, they would have to act alone, because he would be taken from them. Their first great trial would be his death, of which he had spoken darkly before. “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples ” his death more plainly. There is a fit time for painful disclosures, and our Lord is wise in selecting it. He mentions the gathering together of his foes: “elders and chief priests and scribes ” will eagerly unite. Their fury will show itself in multiplied cruelties: he will suffer many things. He declares that they will push their enmity to the bitter end; he will “be killed.” He foretells that he will “be raised again” and he specifies the time, namely, “the third day.” All this must have fallen sadly on the ears of men who still indulged visions of a kingdom of a very different sort. The most of them were wisely silent in their sadness, yet there was one who had far too bold a tongue.

Mat 16:22. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Peter could not be trusted as steward or major-domo. He takes too much upon himself. See, how great he is! He half fancies that he is the master. He loved his Lord so well that he could not bear to hear of his being killed, and he would gladly stop him from talking upon a subject so terribly sad. He thinks the Lord is morbid, and is attaching more importance to the opposition of the Pharisees than it deserves. Therefore he gets the Lord alone, and chides him. The words are very strong: “Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.” He meant to be his Lord’s candid friend, and at the same time to maintain towards him that respectful bearing which would be becoming in his follower; but evidently he took too much on himself when he ventured to rebuke his Lord. He could see in our Lord’s death nothing but ruin to the cause, and therefore he felt it must not be. He implored the mercy of heaven to forbid so dire a catastrophe. “Be it far from thee, Lord.” It must not, cannot fall out as Jesus had prophesied. “This shall not be unto thee.” He would even drive such an idea out of our Lord’s mind. Should we not have done the same, had we been there, if we had been as much concerned for the honour of our Lord as Peter was? Should we not have been horror-stricken at the idea that such a One as he should be put to a cruel death? Might we not have vowed in terrible earnest, “This shall not be unto thee “?

Mat 16:23. 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.

Our Lord was superior to the temptation which grew out of the very love of his friend. He would remain no longer aside with Peter: he turned away from him. Seeing the devil using Peter as his instrument, he addresses Satan himself, and Peter too, so far as he was identified with the evil suggestion. “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The attempt was made to put a stumbling-block in that path of self-sacrifice which our Lord intended to pursue, even to the bitter end. He spied out the hindrance, and said, “Thou art an offence unto me” His dearest friend was his direst foe when he would put him off from his life-work. The devil thought to succeed through our Lord’s newly-appointed foreman; but Jesus made short work of the temptation: he threw the stone out of the road, and cast it behind him, so that he could not be stumbled. The pith of the error was that Peter looked at things from the point of view of human honour and success, and not from that grand standpoint in which the glory of God in the salvation of men swallows up everything.

A marvel is here. A man may know what only the Father can reveal, and yet he may not savour the things that be of God. Unless he accepts the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, he has no savour for divine things. He who does not heartily rejoice in the atonement does not discern that sweet savour of rest which the Lord God perceives in the great sacrifice, and therefore he has no fellowship in the things that be of God. He knows not the taste, the aroma, the essence of spiritual things; and however much he may honour Jesus in words, he is an enemy, yea, a real Satan towards the true Christ, whose very substance is his work as our atoning sacrifice. Those who at this day revile the substitutionary sacrifice of our Lord, are fonder of the things that be of men than those that be of God. They are loud in their claim to be great philanthropists; but sound theologians they are not. Humanitarians they may be; but divines they cannot be. They may be the friends of man; but they are not the servants of God. How sorrowfully do we write these words when we think of the many preachers to whom they apply!

Mat 16:24. 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.

As our Lord, to fulfil his destiny, must sacrifice himself, so also must every one who would be his follower. To keep close to our Lord (which he intends by the words “come after me,”) we must have done with self; for he denied himself to redeem his people. We must not know self, nor assent to it; but we must each one “deny himself.” Doing this, each man must cheerfully shoulder his own personal burden of sorrow and service, and carry it with self-sacrifice, as Jesus carried his cross.

He had told them of his cross; now he tells them of their own crosses. They might now choose again whether they could and would follow him. With their increased information as to his destiny, the question was again set before them, whether they would follow or forsake him. If they did continue to be his followers, it must be as cross-bearers and self-deniers. Nor are the terms altered in these days. Do we accept them? Can we keep step in the long procession of cross-carriers, or will we fall in with the spirit of the age, and say fine things about Jesus, while we deny his substitutionary sacrifice, and shirk the personal self-denial which he demands? Our own wisdom, if it leads us to think lightly of “the precious blood”, must be utterly denied and even abhorred.

Mat 16:25. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Now they were to practise the doctrine he had taught them before. They could only save their real selves by the loss of this present life; but if they settled it in their own minds that they must first and foremost save their outer life, it would be at the expense of their truest being. To tell them plainly of this was honest dealing on our Lord’s part; and it argued well for the disciples that they still remained faithful to him. Alas! there was one even of the chosen twelve who probably at this very moment was scheming how he could continue to keep the bag, and yet could ultimately escape from the consequences of his Master’s demand.

Mat 16:26. 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?

If he loses his real life, how can he profit, even if the world be his? The true gain or loss is a gain or loss of life. All external things are trifles compared with that life. Even now, “What is a man profited? “He has no real life in Christ, and what is all else that he may possess? What but a painted pageantry with which he is amusing his soul upon the brink of hell? As to the world to come, there is no question. To lose eternal life is overwhelming loss indeed.

Nothing can be compared with eternal life. The soul’s value cannot be estimated by ordinary reckonings. Worlds on worlds were a poor price. “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? “Barter is out of the question. His soul is so a man’s sole inheritance that if he has lost it he has lost all.

Mat 16:27. 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.

There will come a day when Christ, from the judgment-seat, will make it appear who was wise in his way of life; for then shall the reward or the punishment throw its light on the past conduct of men. He who was himself despised shall be the Rewarder of those who laid down their lives for the sake of his cause. In that day the crucified “Son of man shall come in glory”: that glory will be seen to be “the glory of his Father”; that divine glory will be illustrated by hosts of attendant angels. In all the pomp of heaven he shall distribute the rewards of the last assize. The righteous shall through divine grace have their works taken as evidence of their love to God; and the wicked shall with justice have their doom appointed according to their works, because those works will be the evidence that they had not the faith which produces good works.

Lord, by thy good Spirit, keep me ever in mind of that great day of days, which will make eternity bright with immeasurable bliss, or dark with unutterable woe! May I look at everything in the blaze of light which surrounds thy judgment-seat!

Mat 16:28. 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.

So near was that reign which would repay the losses of the saints for Christ’s sake, that before certain of them were dead the Lord would have held a rehearsal of it in his judgment of Israel, by the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, and would have set up his kingdom, of which the judgment-seat is an index and an instrument.

We have here a difficult passage, and this appears to be the simplest way of reading it in its connection. Our Lord seems to say, “Through suffering and death I pass to a throne; and by that fact it shall be seen that loss and death are often the way to true gain and real life. That kingdom of mine is not far away and unreal: some of you will see me in the exercise of my royal power before you die.”

Yet it has been thought that it means that some would never really taste of death, or know the fulness of its terrible meaning, till the judgment-day. This is true, but it can scarcely be the teaching in this place.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

Son of man

Also, Mat 16:27; Mat 16:28 (See Scofield “Mat 8:20”)

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

came: Mat 15:21, Act 10:38

Caesarea Philippi: Cesarea Philippi was anciently called Paneas, from the mountain of Panium, or Hermon, at the foot of which it was situated, near the springs of Jordan; but Philip the tetrarch, the son of Herod the Great, having rebuilt it, gave it the name of Cesarea in honour of Tiberius, the reigning emperor, and he added his own name to it, to distinguish it from another Cesarea on the coast of the Mediterranean. It was afterwards named Neronias by the young Agrippa, in honour of Nero; and in the time of William of Tyre, it was called Belinas. It was, according to Josephus, a day’s journey from Sidon, and 120 stadia from the lake of Phiala; and, according to Abulfeda, a journey of a day and a half from Damascus. Many have confounded it with Dan, or Leshem; but Eusebius and Jerome expressly affirm that Dan was four miles from Paneas, on the road to Tyre. It is now called Banias, and is described, by Seetzen, as a hamlet of about twenty miserable huts, inhabited by Mohammedans; but Burckhardt says it contains about 150 houses, inhabited by Turks, Greeks, etc. Mar 8:27

Whom: Luk 9:18-20

I the: Mat 8:20, Mat 9:6, Mat 12:8, Mat 12:32, Mat 12:40, Mat 13:37, Mat 13:41, Mat 25:31, Dan 7:13, Mar 8:38, Mar 10:45, Joh 1:51, Joh 3:14, Joh 5:27, Joh 12:34, Act 7:56, Heb 2:14-18

Reciprocal: Son 5:9 – What is Eze 2:1 – Son Mat 20:17 – took Mat 21:11 – This Mat 22:42 – What Mar 2:10 – General Luk 5:24 – that the Joh 7:12 – some Act 9:30 – Caesarea

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE SON OF MAN THE SON OF GOD

When Jesus came into the coasts of Csarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:13-16

The title Son of man was perhaps a Messianic title. The other title, the Son of God, was undoubtedly Messianic. Are there not signs that, for our Lord Himself and His apostles, it meant what the Church means by it to-day?

I. The Son of man.There are three cases of the emphatic use of the title Son of man, which postulate, if their full value is to be given them, a recognition in Jesus of something far transcending the ordinary human consciousness. They imply the consciousness (1) of power to forgive sins (St. Mat 9:6); (2) of authority to revise a Divinely given law (St. Mat 12:8); (3) of possessing the very spirit of God (St. Mat 12:32). And the more than human implications of the title become more emphatic as the Gospel story proceeds. The King that was to come was to be as Daniel foretold, a Son of man (Dan 7:1-14); one who would seek and save the lost (St. Mar 10:45); one who would serve rather than be served (St. Luk 19:10). Yet the claim was to nothing less than Divine kingship. Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (St. Mat 26:64).

II. The Son of God.Consider that other title, Son of God, which, at this critical moment of His ministry, our Lord accepted from St. Peter. To speak of the Divine King as the Divine Son was to follow the language of the Old Testament, especially of the Second Psalm. But our Lords previous objection to this title, His adoption of the title Son of man instead of it, and His acceptance of it at last from St. Peter, must have had some meaning. If Jesus were Son of God in such a sense that in Him was all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9); if He were Son in such a sense that He who had seen the Son had seen the Father also (St. Joh 14:9)then, to come to Jesus was to come to God. And this was the belief that grew up slowly in the hearts of the disciples as they listened to His teaching, and this was the meaning of the confession that found utterance through St. Peters lips. We get light on the implications of this Confession from the reply it at once drew from our Lord: On this rock (of your confessed faith in me) I will build My church.

III. Mans sonship through Him.The Gospels make it plain that our Lords teaching was that all men might come to God through Him. If we ourselves would claim an equal sonship, we must put in evidence words of authority and works of power like to His. To as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the Sons of God, even to those who believe on His name. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth? Shall we still be debating whether He was but a son of God like ourselves, or, as St. Peter confessed, the Son of the living God?

Canon Beeching.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

A THREEFOLD REVELATION

The Apostle gives us a threefold revelation of the Son of man.

I. The Christ of prophecy.In that single sentence, Thou art the Christ, St. Peter declared his belief in our Lord as the Messiah of prophecy. Christ (Anointed) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title of our Lordthe Anointed Onethe Messiah.

II. The Christ of history.The second article of this creed of the Apostle far transcends the first in its flight of faith. It uplifts us to the very throne of the Eternal GodheadThou art the Son of the Living God. We are now face to face with the Christ of historyGod manifest in the flesh.

III. The Christ of experience.Above all, Christ in the heart is the complete creed of the Apostle. All Scripture was written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His Name.

Archdeacon Madden.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

6:13

Jesus and his disciples having landed on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee they journeyed northward until they came into the coasts or vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. This is to be distinguished from the Caesarea that was on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. The place got its name by the desire of Herod Philip who wished to honor Caesar and himself both by a twofold name. That was accomplished by the name which we have just read as the double name includes both Caesar and Philip. Jesus concluded it was time to introduce the most serious phase of his own authority and purposes. He opened the subject by inquiring about the current opinions concerning himself; not of his doings but of his identity. He had been out among the people long enough for them to have formed some kind of ideas as to his real standing as a public teacher. He could not have asked this question for information for he already knew what was in man (Joh 2:24-25). Hence it was asked to bring out the contrast that should be existing between the opinions of the common people and that of the men who had been chosen to be the apostles after .Jesus was ready to leave this world.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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?

[Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?] I. That phrase or title, the Son of man; which Christ very often gives himself, denotes not only his humanity, nor his humility (for see that passage, Joh 5:27; “He hath given him authority of executing judgment, because he is the Son of man “); but it bespeaks the ‘seed promised to Adam, the second Adam’: and it carried with it a silent confutation of a double ignorance and error among the Jews: 1. They knew not what to resolve upon concerning the original of the Messias; and how he should rise, whether he should be of the living, as we noted before, the manner of his rise being unknown to them; or whether of the dead. This phrase unties this knot and teaches openly, that he, being a seed promised to the first man, should arise and be born from the seed of the women. 2. They dreamed of the earthly victories of the Messias, and of nations to be subdued by him; but this title, The Son of man; recalls their minds to the first promise, where the victory of the promised seed is the bruising of the serpent’s head, not the subduing of kingdoms by some warlike and earthly triumph.

II. When, therefore, the opinion of the Jews concerning the person of the Messias, what he should be, was uncertain and wavering, Christ asketh, not so much whether they acknowledged him the Messias, as acknowledging the Messias, what kind of person they conceived him to be. The apostles and the other disciples whom he had gathered, and were very many, acknowledged him the Messias: yea, those blind men, Mat 9:27, had confessed this also: therefore that question had been needless as to them, “Do they think me to be the Messias?” but that was needful, “What do they conceive of me, the Messias?” and to this the answer of Peter has regard, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God”: as if he should say, “We knew well enough a good while ago that thou art the Messias: but as to the question, ‘What kind of person thou art,’ I say, ‘Thou art the Son of the living God.’ ” See what we note at Mat 17:24.

Therefore the word whom asks not so much concerning the person, as concerning the quality of the person. In which sense also is the word who; in those words, 1Sa 17:55; not “The son of whom;” but the son “of what kind of man;” is this youth?

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 16:13. The parts of Cesarea Philippi. Mark: villages. Probably not the city itself, but retired localities in the neighborhood, better adapted for private intercourse. The city was situated at the foot of Mount Hermon, and formerly bore the name Paneas. Philip the Tetrarch beautified it, and called it Cesarea; his name (Philippi) being commonly added to distinguish it from Cesarea on the sea-coast (where Paul was afterwards imprisoned). The name was changed to Neronias by Agrippa II., but the village which now marks the site is called Banias.

He asked his disciples. While in the way (Mar 8:27), not to that region but from some retired spot, where He had been praying (Luk 9:18).

Who do men say that the Son of man is? The common reading is an alteration to bring out more fully the implied thought: I am the Son of man, the Messiah.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 4. (Mat 16:13-28; Mat 17:1-21.)

“The Kingdom and patience” in man’s world and day.

We come now to what furnishes the ground of Peter’s two epistles, – what John speaks of as “the Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:9); set up in a world of which Satan is still the prince, through the lusts by which he holds men captive. Thus the world is that which knew not Christ when He came into it, and of which the cross is the characteristic sign. The cross for the Master means, therefore, the cross for the disciple, as He declares here, if indeed we will be true to Him. The light for the path is a glory outside the world, and which is in His face whom the world has rejected and cast out. Thus we are “called,” as Peter says, (2Pe 1:3) “by glory and virtue” – the last being the soldier’s virtue, “courage,” the virtue of the Church militant; and as in Colossians (Col 1:11), “strengthened with all might, according to the power of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness.”

We have in connection with this the first plain announcement of Christ’s assembly, not as Paul long afterwards was given to declare it, as Christ’s “body” or “bride,” but rather as the house of God, “a spiritual house” of “living stones,” as Peter preaches from this very text (1Pe 2:5). Moreover the administration of the Kingdom is committed to Peter, as representative of the assembly, no doubt (comp. Mat 18:17-18). We have already seen its history. (Mat 13:1-58), and that the opposition of the world which is the necessary consequence of moral oppositeness, comes to be introduced within the Christian profession itself, so as to entail the need of overcoming in this way also: of which the epistles give us everywhere abundant proof, if indeed the experience of any true disciple permitted him to doubt it.

(1) It is in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi – stamped thus doubly with the assertion of the power of the world rulers, the Caesars and the Herods, there where Israel should have been sole possessor of the land, upholding and upheld by the name of her God, – that this revelation of the Divine purpose in the assembly is made. Israel is but as a wanderer among the nations now. Her doom is upon her, although not as yet fully carried into effect; and the world which is uniting with her in the rejection of the one hope of deliverance must still be left for Caesar and Herod to divide between them. Out of it God is going to separate a people for Himself, and in the over abounding of divine grace to give them an inheritance in heaven. But this they are to reach by His own pathway of suffering in the world, the fellowship of His sufferings being the fit training for fellowship upon the throne and in the glory.

The first point here is in the apprehension of Himself; and so He asks His disciples now. “Who do men say that I, the Son of man; am?” He uses the term by which we find Him, in the synoptic Gospels, most commonly speaking of Himself, the term so perfect in its lowliness, so tender in its intimacy, so unique in its very generality: for, just because all were “sons of men,” the claim to be the Son of man would by itself be suited to awaken attention. If Daniel, and, still more, Ezekiel were addressed by the Lord as “son of man,” this of course was a thing quite different. Whatever else it signified, the reminder of essential difference between the glorious Speaker and the frail instrument by whom He pleased to speak to men; was obviously in place. But, just on that very account, no prophet of them all, in speaking to other men, could have called himself the “Son of man.” On the other hand, Daniel had spoken of “One like unto a son of man” coming in the clouds of heaven to receive universal dominion (Dan 7:13-14), a passage to us abundantly clear, but which does not in fact give Messiah this title, as is plain, and by the Jews in general it does not seem to have been even applied to him.* The question put by them afterwards would apparently indicate this: “We have heard out of the Law, that Christ abideth for ever; and Thou sayest, the Son of man shall be lifted up: who is this Son of man? (Joh 12:34). As a title indeed, to those whose expectations of the Messiah were so different, its lowliness would not commend it to such use as the Lord constantly made of it. The form of it in Daniel (Bar Enahsh) is the very lowliest, “a son of frail, or mortal, man,” so that we are naturally reminded of the “likeness of sinful flesh” (it could only be “likeness” here of which the apostle speaks, Rom 8:3). Little fit would they be to understand the tenderness of the adoption of such an epithet as “Son of man.”**

{* Edersheim in his “Life and Times of Jesus,” so often referred to, in a list of Old Testament passages so applied, says of this one only: “Dan 7:13 is curiously explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 a) where it is said that, if Israel behaved worthily, the Messiah would come in the clouds of heaven; if otherwise, humble, and riding upon an ass.” In the “Book of Enoch” also, the Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven as a son of man,” amid the angels of the divine judgment-seat; and in the Sibylline Oracles there are allusions.

** Not, however, the equivalent of Bar Enahsh, but of Ben Adam, ho huios tou anthropou, “of man” generically.}

What did they make of One who came after this manner: not emblazoning His name upon the skies, but writing it upon the hearts of those relieved by divine mercy through Him? of One who, instead of skimming over the surface of the sore of humanity, probed it to the bottom, though but to heal it effectually? “Who do men say that I, the Son of man; am?”

The answer only takes the judgment of friends into account, and this is various: “some say, John the Baptist; some Elias; some, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” But this various judgment is, in fact, but one: no one really knows; among the crowds around, and recognizing too, the best that could be said for them, the desire to do Him honor, there is yet, so to speak, no true faith. No matter as to the difference between these thoughts, compared with their amazing unanimity. Well might He say, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nought and in vain.” Israel is surely not now to be gathered, though there is still an election of grace. He turns to the disciples with the same question: “But ye, who do ye say that I am?” And Peter breaks out with his answer for the rest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Here, then, while Israel remains in unbelief, is the faith of the Church. It is founded on Scripture, but along with this on the knowledge of Christ Himself, – on the revelation of Christ by the Father to him, as the Lord immediately declares. The Spirit and the Word act together, and so constantly: the Shepherd comes in by the door, and the porter opens to Him; He speaks, and the sheep hear His voice.

That the Christ would be the Son of God, Scripture had again and again declared. The second psalm expressly represents Him as rejected by men; yet owned of God as His Son by nature, yet in manhood, and to be (in spite of all opposition) King at last on Zion. And this is the Scripture which with one accord the disciples quote, after the first appearance of the apostles before the rulers of the Jews, when dismissed, they go to their own company (Act 4:25-28).

Similarly, according to Isaiah, the virgin’s Son would be Immanuel, and this no mere or hyperbolical name: the Child born, the Son given; upon whose shoulder was to be the government in Israel, would be “the mighty God, the Father of eternity, the Prince of peace” (Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6).

His deity, though born in Bethlehem, but dose goings forth had been of old, from everlasting, Micah had borne witness to, in those words which the scribes and chief priests, so unavailingly for either, could quote to Herod.

Other scriptures there were to shame Israel’s unbelief in God’s marvelous grace to her, and her great glory. But Peter, taught of God, expresses his faith in a way that shows it to be personal, not traditional nor mere orthodoxy, but a divine energy within his soul. It is the Eternal Life that He has seen in Christ – that indeed was in Him “the Light of men” (Joh 1:4). Thus he calls Him not simply the Son of God, but “the Son of the living God.” Living power it is that he has realized in Him, the manifested Life, the incarnate, creative Word, and in the sense of this he bears witness to Him.

Striking it is, too, that John; His most intimate disciple, speaks of Life so much. And with Peter, if we look at his first epistle, we shall find that “living” is a characteristic word. A “living hope,” the living word,” “living stones” built up upon the “Living Stone,” living unto righteousness, living according to God: all these harmonize with his confession of righteousness, here; while some of them carry us right back to the confession itself or to the Lord’s words in response to it. They combine to assure us of the Presence in which he had lived and walked, and of its power over him.

The Lord answers immediately: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my assembly; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.”

Peter’s faith is thus a divinely given faith, the fruit of a divine revelation to his soul, and thus he is a true “bar-jona,” (son of a dove,) born of the Spirit of God; and, Israel having rejected Christ, he must have a new place provided for him, and for those of like faith. Thus he becomes Peter, a stone in a new spiritual building which will be Christ’s assembly. It is not yet said that this is the house of God, which in Israel, as we know, had been always a material building. Relationship to God is not yet opened up, but rather to Himself as the Builder of it. It is to be His assembly, a people “called out,” as the word indicates,* to Himself and Peter himself explains it to us as consisting of living stones,” who “coming to” Him, the “Living Stone,” “are built up a spiritual house” (in opposition to Israel’s material one). He thus very simply settles the old controversy which Rome has raised upon the Lord’s words to him, – none more competent to settle it surely than the one to whom the words were spoken; and, moreover, Rome’s own chosen interpreter, whom for very shame they cannot refuse, and by refusing whom they still destroy their own interpretation: so has God doubly guarded the truth against their perversion. Peter assures us that the “Rock” upon which the assembly is founded is not Peter but Christ Himself. The Petra is not the Petros, near as these may be together: for indeed the “stone” derives all its rock-like qualities from the “rock,” – is, so to speak, quarried out of the rock upon which it is founded.

{* Ecclesia from ekkaleo, to “call out.”}

There is no question here, then; to raise or to settle: the “prophetic scriptures” have settled it for us in anticipation, before it was raised. The assembly called out to Christ, is built upon Christ, and every way His assembly: relationship to Himself is now the whole question. And He being the Son of the living God, the gates of hades – of death – cannot prevail against it. Death has prevailed over the whole human race, but in the Son of God become Son of man, a new and eternal life has come into humanity, annulling, for those who believe in Him, him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. For these death is abolished, and life and incorruption are brought to light through the gospel.

Here, then; the assembly stands, upon the rock of resurrection; though resurrection has not yet been mentioned in connection with it. But Christ, says the apostle, is marked out Son of God by resurrection of the dead (Rom 1:4). Life is thus not in Him simply, but in Him meets the power of death and vanquishes it: the assembly (though in the meanwhile on earth) belongs to the other side of death, yea, to heaven: the gates of hades open in vain for it.

This is not, therefore, as Rome again alleges, an affirmation of the infallibility of the Church, but rather of its continuance; and it does continue until at the coming of Christ it is removed to heaven. Of the saints of the Old Testament the apostle could speak as “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb 12:23); and if by the latter expression he intimates, as he surely does, their resin, section, that still shows that, as a body, they had been removed by death. But the Church of Christ could never be spoken of in such a manner: spite of all that it has come through – all the opposition of men and Satan through which it has come, – the yawning jaws of the grave have never engulfed it. Though in its character an exotic, and not of earth, the power of the Spirit has maintained it here without interruption; a witness even in her failure and suffering to her absent Lord.

But under all this, and shining through it, there is a higher truth, as has been already said: the Church is that in which, first of all, the power of life over death, death itself made to minister to it and sustain it, comes out in its full character. The eternal life has come in Christ in its perfection; but in Him as a corn of wheat which, falling into the ground and dying, brings forth fruit in which it is perpetuated and multiplied. This is, of course, John’s doctrine, or that of his Gospel rather, and Paul also must come in to give it full utterance; but it is wrapped up here in the Lord’s first announcement of the Church to Peter.

He is going to build it. His words are as yet but prophecy, not a declaration of what He has done, or is doing, but of what He is going to do. Between that and the present lies for Him, as He begins now to declare explicitly, that awful valley of the shadow of death through which a deeper death darkens, – an uttermost woe which He alone can bear, a depth in which no foot but His could find standing. Then the “light of life” will have come, the weight be removed from off man’s heart, the cloud from his path, but more, – the veil rent which covers the sanctuary, he will draw near to God, distance done away for ever, to where the full glory of God in a Human Face shall greet and bless and glorify him with its radiance. This is what Christianity means for us even here; and oh that one could tell it out, but it is impossible. Christ must be for Himself the Speaker, and every one must hear from His own lips, find in His own face, drink in from His own love, that else ineffable reality.

From the announcement of the assembly (or, as it is commonly called the Church*) and of Peter’s place in it, the Lord goes on to speak of the Kingdom and his place in it: two things which are surely connected together, while they are different, and of which it is important to see both the connection and the difference. Here also there has been on both sides as much confusion of thought as in the former case, and far more widely spread. We shall do well therefore to examine with the more care the meaning of what is here before us.

{*While in common parlance we may still use this term, it is important in all interpretation of Scripture to keep to the true word, “assembly,” which, if it had been always adhered to, would have done much of itself to prevent some of the perversion of thought which has connected itself with the other. Church, as is perfectly well known, comes from the Greek Kuriake, “of the Lord,” which (as is evident) leaves out the very thing which ecclesia defines, and so permits the free substitution of other thoughts in its place.}

A common confusion is that of the Church and the Kingdom, and which has both proceeded from and led on to very serious confusion in other respects. We have already seen sufficiently what the Kingdom is, to be delivered from the possibility of any absolute identification of them. It certainly was not the Church which John the Baptist proclaimed to be “at hand.” Israel was alone before him as the people of God, though needing to be purged by the Lord for entrance into His Kingdom. Even so, people and Kingdom were plainly different thoughts, however closely they might be connected together.

The Kingdom in its Old Testament character being for the time set aside, on account of Israel’s rejection of the King, the “assembly” which Christ owns as His, in the day of that rejection, becomes the recognized people of God; and in the same relation to the “Kingdom and patience” that Israel will yet have in relation to His “Kingdom and glory.” Still the Kingdom and the people are very different thoughts; although in any picture of the Kingdom we necessarily see the people. So it has been in that history of the Kingdom which we have had put before us in the parables of the thirteenth chapter. But there even; if we have been able to interpret them aright, the people before us in the first parables are not the same people as in the closing one at all; and the Kingdom, while changing in character at the close, goes on beyond the time of the “assembly,” of which we have been speaking, altogether.

Church and Kingdom are not, then, even for the present time, the same; though it may be urged that (in the same way as with Israel) in some sense we may identify them. Yet even here, for any right interpretation of the passage before us, we must learn to discriminate. We shall surely find, if we look closely enough, that we cannot even say that (even for the present time) the limits of Church and Kingdom are practically the same: there is a difference here also which must be taken into account, although we may not be able, at the point which we have reached in the Gospel here, fully to define it.

The Kingdom, it is plain, in its mystery-form, is established in the world, not by any open act of divine power, but by the sowing of the “word of the Kingdom” in the hearts of men. It is thus not territorial, as the kingdoms of the world are, but a Kingdom of the truth, a sphere of discipleship; which may be, however, merely outward and nominal, a profession true or false, which the end will declare. This is plain by the parables that have been before us. Its blessings are thus conditional, dependent upon character and conduct, as the parable of the unforgiving servant especially declares (Mat 18:1-35).

That it is administered by men; as representatives of the absent King, the Lord’s words to Peter here are clearly in proof, for the keys of the Kingdom are committed to him: not, I believe, distinctively, but as connected with that place which the Lord had just assigned him. As his confession of Him was just that of the others – of all true disciples, so the place of a stone in Christ’s spiritual building was not Peter’s alone, but that of all disciples; and the keys of the Kingdom go with this: the Church (that is) administers the Kingdom. In the eighteenth chapter, the power of binding and loosing, given here to Peter, is given to the assembly as a whole (ver. 18): and when we consider what the power of the keys implies, we shall find that in fact it is not peculiar to Peter at all. The two statements here go perfectly together, and as Peter is but a living stone founded upon the Rock, Christ Jesus, so every living stone is thus a Peter, and addressed as such through him.

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 Peter’s 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 any 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 not surely 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 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.

Now there are keys, not simply a key; and so, if we are right, a double way of doing this is implied. The first is what the Lord Himself speaks of as “the key of knowledge,” and which He reproaches the lawyers for taking from the people (Luk 11:52). Similarly in this Gospel He denounces the Pharisees for shutting up the Kingdom of heaven against men. “Ye neither go in yourselves,” He tells them, “neither suffer ye those that are entering to go in” (Mat 23:13).

But while the key of knowledge is thus the first and fundamental form of what is here, it is not the whole. There is also an authoritative reception, which the Lord has enjoined, and which, just as submission to authority, is most suited in entering the Kingdom. Baptism is thus “unto Christ” (Rom 6:3), and “unto the name of the Lord Jesus” (Act 8:16), an open “putting on of Christ” (Gal 3:27). It is thus a bowing to the authority of the King, as entering the Kingdom: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,” says Ananias to Saul (Act 22:16). But the Lord Himself most distinctly puts the two keys together when, after His resurrection; with all authority given to Him in heaven and earth, He sends out the eleven with the commission of the King, saying: “Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son; and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the completion of the age (Mat 28:19-20).

All this is in perfect harmony with the words to Peter here, and sufficiently explains them. Thus read, they are in the highest degree appropriate to the occasion upon which they were spoken, as introducing to the new state of things which was at hand. Their very character as outlining, rather than filling in, leaving much to be explained at an after-time, is perfectly suited to their introductory position. This is not, however, all that the Lord announces here; He adds, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven:” words which have been perhaps as much in contention as to their meaning as any of those connected with them here.

There need be no doubt that the terms “binding” and “loosing” have reference to, and are indeed but the application; in a Christian manner, of those in use among the Rabbins, and the Lord’s extension of them to the assembly in the eighteenth chapter shows absolutely that such power as is implied in them was not simply to belong to Simon Peter. Two or three gathered to Christ’s name have exactly the same authority, the same sanction of their acts; in either case the Lord uses the very same words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,” or “loose,” “whatsoever ye shall bind,” or “loose, on earth shall be bound (or loosed) in heaven.” If this were the communication of even apostolic power to Peter, then every two or three gathered to Christ’s name have similar apostolic power. No one doubts, of course, that Peter had this; no one, I suppose, would claim it for the two or three. That is not in contention: the question is solely now of what these words convey. The same words must have the same meaning, if there is to be any certain meaning in words at all: the application, or limitation; must be found in the connection. Not even the Romanist would say that there was to be absolutely no limitation; even in Peter’s case; and if any did, be would have (if he would be consistent) to say exactly the same of every little gathering to the name of Jesus. No one certainly could press a conclusion in the one case that would not have exactly the same title to be pressed in the other.

Now, if we seek the limitation in the context, that in the case of the two or three is easily seen to be to cases of discipline needed to maintain the Lord’s honor in their midst. The assembly does not define doctrine, and has no right to “teach for doctrine the commandments of men.” Christ alone is the authoritative Teacher, by His Spirit, and all we are brethren (Mat 23:8). But the assembly has to maintain by a holy discipline what is due to Him who is Head and Lord, and whatsoever is truly bound in this way is bound in heaven. Here moral conditions also, in the very nature of things, impose a limitation: for to “bind” a saint to do evil cannot be authorized in heaven; and it would be wickedness to maintain this.

When we take this back with us to Simon Peter’s case, we shall find similar limitations. The context does not speak of the discipline of an assembly, but of administration in the Kingdom of heaven. This is not the Church, but the sphere of individual responsibility to the Lord, and hence the individuality of the assurance, “thou” not “ye.” The connection here is with the keys of the Kingdom, – with discipling into it: here individual teachers teach, and disciples baptize. There is no limit to any class that Scripture gives us, except the limit of capacity, and no control over others recognized except as all are subject to the common discipline of which we have been speaking.

Peter, therefore, in what the Lord says to him here, is not the apostle, but the confessor of his Lord. In his faith he does not stand alone, but is the representative of others. As Peter, the living “stone,” he does not stand alone either. In his use of the “keys” he is not alone; and in teaching and baptizing, the sanction of heaven is put upon what is done on earth; but nowhere apart from such necessarily implied conditions as we all own must come in in the case of two or three gathered to the Lord’s name.

There is really no special difficulty in all this. The difficulties have been created for us by ecclesiastical views and claims which have grown up, as the Church, in the decline of spiritual power, came to lean upon external supports and to adopt a legal system as a refuge from license – the boat, as easier than walking on the water. Alas, it must be confessed it is but oh, that Peter might here be suffered to speak to us of what he found in his walk upon that boisterous sea to meet His Lord, and of that Hand stretched out to meet him when the storm was beyond his strength, with the words which rebuked, not his rashness in walking there, but the little faith that had made it to appear but rashness.

(2) All this already tells of rejection of the King. Now He declares it to them in plain words such as He had not uttered yet. Those who have just expressed their faith in Him as the Christ are now told that they are not to utter this to any man. There is no hope as to the nation, and He shows them that He must “go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.” It is not atonement of which He speaks, but of rejection by men, the human side of His death, and not the divine. But this brings out in him who had been the spokesman of the apostles the working of that which was not faith but the opposite of it, and in which the Lord discerned the attack of the enemy. “Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee, Lord: this shall never be to Thee!” But He, turning round, said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; for thou art an offence unto Me; for thou hast not a mind toward the things of God, but toward the things of men.”

Thus quickly are the thoughts rebuked of those who would put Peter upon a throne of infallibility above all others. He is now sunk down into a mere ordinary man, with nothing but the thoughts of men; nay, an instrument of Satan to tempt the Lord Himself. Satan too would willingly have spared Him that Cross that He foresaw: for all the counsels of God hung upon it. From one side it was, indeed, but the awful wickedness of man; but from another the display of the glory of God, at once in righteousness and in love towards men. Peter knew not yet his own need, nor yet the unique place and dignity of his Master. He is praying God to be propitious to Him who is to be Himself the one propitiation for others; and to spare Him that by which propitiation could alone be wrought. Thus human wisdom may mistake its way, and human affection set itself against the path of divine love. And thus may the same man who has just now been drinking in, in faith, the revelation of God, without any consciousness of the transition, presently with equal zeal and earnestness be listening to the adversary! How we need constantly to pray, “Search me, O God, and try me!”

But the Lord not only declares His own path; He announces it as the path also of all His followers. What was peculiar to Himself in it, the cup that none but Himself could drink, He does not speak of, and here there is indeed an infinite difference; but as far as man’s part in it is concerned, He warns us all, “If any one 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; but whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it.” Thus the conditions of discipleship are laid down with the most decisive plainness, for all without exception. It is a world which has crucified Christ through which our path lies, and we have to make up our mind to face it. It is evident that He does not hold out any hope of the world changing, nor therefore of the path changing. The style of its opposition perhaps may change – even in His case it varied but the opposition itself, proceeding from its unbelief in Him, could not possibly change, except by that unbelief being given up: and that would mean; of course, the world ceasing to exist, in all that which, according to Scripture, constitutes it the “world.

Its moral characteristics the apostle John describes for us, where he says that “all that is of the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1Jn 2:16). When men are no more characterised by these things, then the world (as such) will have ceased to exist. We know that this has not taken place, however, and Scripture never contemplates such a state before the Lord comes, at least. The path still exists for us, therefore: and the conditions of the path exist.

The Lord calls upon His people, therefore, to take their life in their hand, if necessary in order to follow Him. We must not “will” to keep it, if we “will” to follow Him. That is to be the spirit of our discipleship, and with the implication; of course, that we shall be tested as to it. We know how fully the generations immediately following the days of the Lord on earth were tested – how often the cross and the sword and the flame made His people fully understand the conditions which He here proclaims. Can we fairly refuse the application to ourselves today? or to ask whether there is not still, and for all of us, such a test remaining? or if the spirit of such discipleship must not be found with us at least in order to abide the test?

Our lot may be cast in so-called Christian times and lands, and the arm of open persecution may seem to be, if not shattered, at least so weakened, as to permit us to look upon a test of this kind, for most of us, as hardly to be made. Christian profession is mostly in repute Christians themselves are in high places of authority, the government as a whole would not wish to be considered other than Christian. The world still exists, but, as the parables we have considered show, and as we all must recognize, has changed its tactics. As Pharisees and Sadducees followed John when all the rest were doing so, so the world largely follows Christ now, after its own worldly fashion. The Church too, bids for popularity, and does not disclaim but is glad of the alliance. Amid all this, is it not possible for the spirit of discipleship any longer to find a cross, when the Church and the world unite to say, “Lord, Lord,” and you are only asked not to take too seriously the things that He says?

Some way it must surely be that the Lord’s words here must have to us also, if we are disciples, some present application and that straightforward obedience, in the laxest and easiest times, would (even on that very account) find penalty of some real kind in seeking to follow Christ according to His word rather than popular interpretations of it. If this be not just the losing life, this cannot make it less imperative for one to suffer it; and good it is to go back in thought to times in which men in reality “suffered the loss of all things,” and even counted them but dung that they might win Christ.” There can be no question that the Christ they went after in that way seemed to them unspeakably glorious; and for us it will be well indeed it; being the same Christ, He shine as bright.

The Lord closes here with that appeal to consider the soul’s value which has rung through so many hearts since then “For what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” The question needs no answer: the impossibility to answer it is the answer. He adds, that it is the Son of man, soon to come in glory, who will render to every one according to his doings. Some of those standing there, moreover, should not taste of death until they saw the Son of man coming in His Kingdom.

(3) The reference made by one present at the Transfiguration (which now follows) to this as making visible “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Pe 1:16) should settle all question as to meaning of the last quoted words opinions as to which have been, however, most various. The great variety has all arisen from taking “the Son of man coming in His Kingdom” in a non-natural way as applying to the destruction of Jerusalem and the going out of the gospel and its successes, – both entirely different things. “The Son of man coming in His Kingdom” is a plain reference to the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:13-14), which indeed in like manner has been interpreted as applying to the “gospel dispensation,” or the Kingdom in that “mystery” form in which we have seen it in the parables of the thirteenth chapter. But this is not the Kingdom of the Son of man as Daniel and the New Testament agree in representing it. We find the expression; no doubt, in the interpretation of the parable of the “tares of the field” (ver. 41) but only when in time of harvest the end of the present time is reached, and the Son of man (having come) sends forth His angels to gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and those that work iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire. Then; clearly, the gospel dispensation will be over, and the Kingdom will have taken its open and millennial form.

That the Kingdom of the Son of man is not the present one, the Lord’s words to the overcomer in Laodicea (Rev 3:21) make absolutely plain; in which He distinguishes between the throne on which He had sat down with His Father – where no mere man could ever sit – and His own throne, which He will share with His people. The opening vision (Rev 1:13) assures us that it is as “Son of man” that He is speaking here. Thus, then; the “Son of man coming in His Kingdom” cannot refer to the present period.

The second epistle of Peter again helps us as to the meaning of the transfiguration; when it speaks of our being called “by glory and virtue” (2Pe 1:3). Glory at the end awaits us, to be reached by a pathway of trial, which necessitates “virtue” (or “courage”) to endure it. The apostle evidently refers to what is recorded in the Gospel here, the transfiguration being directly spoken of in the latter part of the chapter, as we have already seen. In it he could not but realize the call of the glory. That which is at the end of the course is in it brought before the disciples at the beginning, to animate and strengthen them in view of what has just been declared as to the conditions of discipleship, and he can appeal to it in proof that “we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty: for He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came to Him such a voice from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; and this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him on the holy mount.” Thus it is the goal before them that is here exhibited to them, but the glory of the Kingdom, not the still more wondrous glory of which John speaks, “the glory of the Only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.” It is the human side that is here dwelt upon; though of course one cannot be separated from the other. John does not give us the transfiguration; because the Only-begotten (as such) cannot be transfigured.

The “after six days” with which the account begins, both here and in Mark, (in Luke differently expressed as “about an eight days after,”) has reference, I believe, to the final character of what the scene here pictures, after the time of labor and of overcoming is fulfilled. The three disciples whom alone the Lord takes up with Him to witness it, point out to us the need of intimacy with Him such as only the comparatively few possess, if we would enjoy such disclosures. The “high mountain” most probably was Hermon; which was near Caesarea Philippi, but it is not named, and were this certain; we could base nothing on it. Earth has in fact no knowledge of the elevations where such visions of the future may be enjoyed, though even yet it is not so poor as to be without them; and at these times and places it is still the Lord Himself who puts on special glory before the eyes of those so blest as to behold it, and who is the glorious Centre around which all else revolves. So it surely will be in the day of His coming which is here before us. His face will shine as the sun,* for with Him the day will come – the blessed day in which the watch-night ends; and His apparel will be as the light, for it is with the light the sun apparels itself. It is God who is manifested in Him, and God is light. Earth is no more an outcast, but brought nigh.

{*Notice, that it is only Matthew who says this. Mark draws attention altogether to His garments. Luke says, His countenance was altered, and His raiment was white and glistering. The dispensational character of Matthew is here again strongly marked.}

Another thing takes place which strikes them with special wonder. “And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him.” In the two other Gospels there are slight differences which yet must have significance: Mark says, “Elias with Moses;” Luke, in evident accordance with the character of the truth as he presents it, presses the fact of men being in such a place: “two men, which were Moses and Elias.” In Matthew the lawgiver and the prophet of judgment because of the broken law, are mentioned in the natural order to remind us of this relation to each other. And they are talking with Jesus: so they had been; we may say, all through the centuries. Law in its fulfilment and law in its non-fulfilment, both alike required and foretold Him whose coming as the Priest-King is the full end of them reached. With Elias judgment itself is 4n view of-restoration; and the last note of the Old Testament prophecy ends with the announcement of his preparation work. Thus Moses and Elias have each a special suitability in connection with this anticipation of the coming of the King. The ages are thus seen all through in harmony; and with power in the hand of Christ eternal harmony is perfectly secured.

Peter’s voice breaks in, even here, and with words which show how he has failed to realize the meaning of the glorious vision. Terribly like his would-be followers today, he would enshrine the saints alongside of Christ, and make the Kingdom which is to come a present thing; giving, moreover, his help as if it were needed to accomplish this! But here he is stopped at once, and by an overwhelming spectacle: “There came a bright cloud and overshadowed them” the well-known token of the Divine Presence as it had led Israel of old through the desert, and dwelt in the sanctuary, – “and behold a Voice out of the cloud which said: This is My beloved Son; in whom I am well pleased; hear Him.” No wonder that, “when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces, and were sore afraid.” It was, in fact, the holiest of all unveiled. They stood where, only once a year, and with covering incense and atoning blood, the feet of the high priest alone might stand. And they were but men of the people, no sacrifice in their hand, no covering incense, and the glorious Presence, which had long been absent from the temple, – nay, had never appeared since the captivity in Babylon, – was indeed here. He whom none could see and live, had drawn nigh to them, and they heard His voice, as the people had heard it of old, when they prayed, in their fear, that they might no more hear it.

Yet all else was changed from the time of the shaking mount. Nor was it the Law which was now proclaimed to them, a law which brought but the knowledge of sin; and was, indeed, its “strength” (1Co 15:56). This Voice pointed them but to the Son of God, whom Peter had but just now confessed as this, their own gracious Master; to put Him in His rightful place, and separate Him from all their misconceptions – from the misconceptions which, alas, have nevertheless followed Him since, and still follow Him. Moses and Elias had but been drawn thither by Him who had drawn them also, and opened heaven to them. Moses cannot open heaven; Elias brings but fire out of it, though he himself is caught away there: in Christ, the Son; the Father’s Name is revealed, the object of the Father’s heart is found, communion with God is attained, the throne of God becomes a throne of grace, His “Kingdom righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Rom 14:17). In all this He is alone, and thus alone is to be heard.

He comes now, therefore, and touches them, and says what He alone is able to say to such as we are, “Arise, and be not afraid.” And now all else has disappeared: they see no man but Jesus only.

Here we have, then; the central features of the Kingdom, as Christ Himself will introduce it. In Moses and Elias, the dead and the living saints are represented the glory in which He is seen is that of the Son of man; and the glory of His Father is also here. Thus the hearts of the disciples are strengthened in view of the cross by the knowledge of the end before them. “The knowledge of His glory” is given to sustain them by the way: “glory and virtue” are linked together as principles of the divine calling; for if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.”

(4) After all, as yet even these favored disciples know little of what is implied by this glorious vision and the rest seem not to have been prepared for it in any way, so that it is forbidden to be told them. It would not have given light, but dazzled. They themselves, as Mark tells us, did not know what the rising from the dead of which He spoke could mean; yet it was to be so soon the heart of their message. That Elias was to come and restore all things, as the scribes declared, they could not reconcile with the fact that Messiah was here, and as to the general condition nothing seemed accomplished. Elias they had just seen; but in what different connection! and the very glory of the heavenly vision only seemed, doubtless, to show the more the darkness of things on earth. They turn to Him with this question; which He answers with the assurance that Elias was indeed to come and to restore; but he had already come unrecognized, and men had treated him according to what was in their hearts. So too the Son of man was presently to suffer from them. And then they know that He has been speaking of John the Baptist.

But in fact it was difficult for them to reconcile what was so opposite: Messiah upon whom all depended for them, yet cut off and having nothing. And the divine purpose could not fail; but how could they imagine a victory by defeat, a cross as the way to glory? Israel rejecting also and rejected, and yet the promises to be fulfilled to her in spite of all. In fact, as Christians, we from another side have found it hard to keep the even balance of truth as to just these things. John was the Elias for his day, but “if they would receive it,” as the Lord had already declared. It was in the wisdom of God that he should be so offered them for their acceptance, that there might be the complete trial of man thus: John being “sent to bear witness of that Light” whom he preceded, and who yet (as Light) needed no such witness, if they had had eyes to see. Alas, they had not eyes or hearts; and Elias, for the fulfilment of the message of Malachi, has yet to come, as Christ has also, to bring in the blessing of Israel to a repentant people. Meanwhile more wondrous purposes are being disclosed.

(5) The weakness and folly of man (which are but his perversity) are now exhibited among those who have received Christ, and have received from Him also a power which they are not competent to use. It is this which the case of the lunatic child is evidently intended to impress upon us. The disciples had been applied to, to cast out the demon, for which they had had authority given them by the Lord, and they had failed to do so. The father brings his child to Christ with this statement; and it is this which forces from Him the groan over a “faithless and perverse generation” by whom the love which bound Him to them was made to suffer through their unbelief. Seldom does the Lord exhibit to us so clearly the trial of uncongeniality which was His amid His chosen associates. Here it is openly exhibited, and the occasion was such as to require that the cause of a failure which had been manifest should be manifest also.

But He remained still, only the more seen as the unique dependence of His people. “Bring him to Me,” is the assurance of resources that cannot be overtaxed, at the command of a love that cannot be too absolutely relied on. Accordingly the demon departs, and the child is healed. Matthew does not give us the details which we find in Mark, but leaves thus the main point clearer, the glorious power so freely used, where disciples have failed, with all else. But the failure must be searched out, and the disciples themselves inquire about it. They are not conscious of the cause of it, which the Lord had already implicitly declared, and now does explicitly: “Because of your little faith: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain; Depart hence, and it shall depart; and nothing shall be impossible to you.” This implies, of course, that we are on the path of His appointment for us: for, indeed, faith is impossible for any other; and the suggestive figure of the mountain speaks clearly of the disappearance of the most firmly rooted obstacles in a path like this. In the path of self-will and self-indulgence, how vain would it be to expect anything of this kind! And this the closing words here show: for “prayer” is vain – “we ask and have not,” when we “ask amiss, to consume it upon our lusts” – or “pleasures” (Jam 4:3); – and “fasting,” if it is to have any spiritual value, implies self-mortification. People often speak of having (or not having) faith for the path; the truth is, we must have the path for faith: faith for any other path than God’s is plainly an impossibility.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Observe here, 1. Our Saviour’s question, and the disciples answer, Our Saviour’s question is twofold:

1. Whom do men say that I am? Not that the Son of God was ignorant what men said of him; but he had an intention more firmly to settle and establish his disciples in the belief of his being the promised Messias.

And therefore, 2. He puts the question to them, Whom do you, my disciples, say that I am? “You, that have heard the holiness of my doctrine, and seen the divinity of my miracles: what say you to me? And what confession do you make of me?”

Christ expects greater measures of grace and knowledge, and higher degrees of affiance and faith, from those that have enjoyed the greatest means of grace and knowledge. The disciples were eye and ear-witnesses of his doctrine and miracles, and accordingly he expects from them a full confession of his divinity.

Observe, 2. The answer returned,

1. By the apostles in general; and they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias: some Jeremias. It is no new thing, it seems to find diversity of judgments and opinions concerning Christ and the affairs of his kingdom. We find, that when our Saviour was amongst men, who daily both saw and heard him, yet there was then a diversity of opinions concerning him.

2. Peter, in the name of the rest, and as the mouth of all the apostles, makes a full and open confession of his being the Son of God; thou art Christ the Son of the living God.

Whence note, that the veil of Christ’s human nature did not keep the eye of his disciples’ faith from seeing him to be the Son of God as well as the Son of man; thou art Christ the Son of the living God.

Observe, 3. How highly pleased our Saviour was with this confession; he pronounces Peter, and the rest in him, Blessed, who had by him made this Christian confession; Blessed art thou, Simon; and tells him,

1. What did not enable him to make that confession, Not flesh and blood; that is, not man, nor the wisdom and reason of man.

2. But postitively, God the Father, by the operation of his Spirit, and the dispensation of the gospel has wrought this divine faith in you, and drawn forth this glorious confession from you, that I am indeed the Son of God.

Thence learn, That no man can savingly believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, and Saviour of the world, but he in whom God himself by his Holy Spirit has wrought such a persecution by the ministry of the gospel.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 16:13-16. When Jesus came, &c. There was a large interval of time between what has been related already, and what follows. The passages that follow were but a short time before our Lord suffered: came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi This city, while in the possession of the Canaanites, was called Lesheim, Jos 19:47; and Laish, Jdg 18:27. But when the children of Dan took it, they named it after their progenitor. In latter times it was called Paneas, from the mountain beneath which it stood. The situation of Paneas pleased Philip the tetrarch so exceedingly, that he resolved to make it the seat of his court. For which purpose he enlarged and adorned it with many sumptuous buildings, and called it Cesarea in honour of the Roman emperor. The tetrarchs own name, however, was commonly added, to distinguish it from the other Cesarea, so often mentioned in the Jewish history, and in the Acts of the Apostles, which was a fine port on the Mediterranean sea, and had been rebuilt by Herod the Great, and named in honour of Augustus Csar. Macknight. Josephus gives Philip so good a character, that some have thought our Lord retired into his territories for security from the insults of his enemies elsewhere. He asked his disciples, Who do men (Luke says, the people,) say that I, the Son of man, am Who do they take me to be, who am really a man, born of a woman, and in outward appearance a mere man? Or, as some understand the expression, Who do men say that I am? the Son of man? Do they say that I am the Son of man, the Messiah? So Macknight, with some others, thinks the words ought to be placed and pointed, to make them agree with the question which Christ afterward proposed to his disciples, namely, But who say ye that I am? words which imply that he had not yet directly assumed the title of the Messiah, at least in their hearing. Dr. Lightfoot, however, conjectures that Christ here inquires, not barely whether the people thought him to be the Christ, but what kind of person they thought him to be: the Jews then doubting concerning the original of him who was to be the Messiah, and whether he was to come from the living or the dead. And it must be acknowledged, that the word , whom, often relates to the quality of the person spoken of. So Joh 8:53, , whom makest thou thyself? Christ made this inquiry, not because he was ignorant what the people thought and spoke of him, for their thoughts and words were perfectly known to him, but that he might have, from themselves, a declaration of their faith, and might therefrom take occasion of confirming and strengthening them in it. In answer to the question concerning the people, the disciples reply, Some say, thou art John the Baptist Namely, risen from the dead, and with an additional power of working miracles; some, Elias That thou art Elijah the prophet, come to prepare the way of the Messiah; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets There was at that time a current tradition among the Jews, that either Jeremiah, or some other of the ancient prophets, would rise again before the Messiah came. Most part of the people took Jesus for a different person from what he was, because he had nothing of the outward pomp or grandeur in which they supposed the Messiah was to appear. Therefore, that he might give his disciples, who had long been witnesses of his miracles, and had attended on his ministry, an opportunity of declaring their opinion of him, he proceeded to ask, But who say ye that I am? And Peter, who was generally the most forward to speak, replied in the name of the rest, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God That is, his son in a peculiar sense, and therefore a person of infinitely greater dignity than either John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremiah, or any other prophet.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

LXX.

THIRD WITHDRAWAL FROM HEROD’S TERRITORY.

Subdivision B.

THE GREAT CONFESSION MADE BY PETER.

(Near Csarea Philippi, Summer, A. D. 29.)

aMATT. XVI. 13-20; bMARK VIII. 27-30; cLUKE IX. 18-21.

b27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Csarea Philippi [The city of Paneas was enlarged by Herod Philip I., and named in honor of Tiberias Csar. It also bore the name Philippi because of the name of its builder, and to distinguish it from Csarea Palestin or Csarea Strotonis, a city on the Mediterranean coast. Paneas, the original name, still pertains to the village, though now corrupted to Banias. It is situated under the shadow of Mt. Hermon at the eastern of the two principal sources of the Jordan, and is the most northern city of the Holy Land visited by Jesus, and save Sidon, the most northern point of his travels]: a13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Csarea Philippi, cit came to pass, bon the way cas he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked bhis disciples, saying, unto them, aWho do men say that the Son of man is? aWho do men {cthe multitude} say that I am? [Jesus asks them to state the popular opinion concerning himself as contrasted with the opinion of the rulers, Pharisees, etc.] 19 And they answering btold him, saying, {csaid,} aSome say John the Baptist; cbut {band} asome, bothers, Elijah; but {cand} others, aJeremiah, or cthat one of the old prophets is risen again. [For comment on similar language, see Gal 1:16] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [Peter was blessed by having a revelation from God by which facts were made known that could not be discovered by the unaided human reason. God had revealed the truth to him in the words and works of Jesus, and this revealed truth was to him a source of happiness both temporal and eternal. Like confessions as to this truth had been made before ( Mat 14:33, Joh 1:49), but they had been made under the pressure of miraculous display and strong emotion. Hence they were rather exclamatory guesses at the truth, and differed from this now made by Peter which was the calm expression of a settled conviction produced both by the character and by the miracles of Jesus.] 18 And I say also unto [411] thee, That thou art Peter [petros, a noun masculine] and upon this rock [Petra, a noun feminine] I will build my church [The tense here is future. Christ had followers, but they were not yet organized, and hence had no such structural form as to suggest a similitude to a building]; and the gates of Hades [Hades was the name of the abode of the dead. Its gate symbolized its power because the military forces of an ancient city always sallied forth from its gates] shall not prevail against it. [Death shall neither destroy the organic church which is in the world, nor the members thereof which go down into the grave ( 1Th 4:15, 1Co 15:54-56). No passage in the word of God has called forth more discussion than this and the succeeding verse, the first point in dispute being as to what is meant by the rock; i. e., whether Christ or Peter or Peter’s confession is the foundation of the church; the second point being as to the extent of the power and authority bestowed on Peter by the symbol of the keys. To aid us in reaching a correct conclusion we must note that Jesus speaks in metaphorical language. He represents: 1. His kingdom as a city about to be built upon a rock. 2. Himself as a builder of the city. 3. Simon Peter as the one who holds the keys to the gates by which egress and regress is had to the city. 4. The gates or powers of the opposing city of Hades are not able to prevail against this kingdom city. Now, since Jesus himself occupies the position of builder in the metaphor, and Simon Peter the position of key-bearer, neither of them can properly be regarded as the foundation. The foundation must therefore be the confession which Peter has just spoken, since it is all that remains that is liable to such application. The case could present no difficulty at all were it not for the unmistakable allusion to Peter (petros, a loose stone) as in some way associated with petra, the bedrock or foundation. But in the light of other Scriptures this allusion presents no difficulty; for all the apostles were such stones, and were closely allied to the foundation ( Eph 2:19-22, Gal 2:9). Compare also 1Pe 2:3-8. The Christian religion in all its redemptive completeness rests and can rest on no other [412] foundation than Christ ( 1Co 3:11). But the church or kingdom of Christ among men rests organically and constitutionally upon a foundation of apostolic authority, for the apostles were the mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit; but in this apostolic foundation the other apostles had equal rights, each one of them becoming a living foundation stone as soon as his faith led him to make a like confession with Simon Peter. Hence we find the apostle Paul asserting the superior authority of the apostles to all other Christian teachers and workers ( 1Co 12:28), and times without number asserting his apostolic office and authority– 1Co 9:1, 1Co 9:2, 2Co 12:12, 2Co 13:1-4, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:8, Eph 3:1-6, Phm 1:8, Phm 1:9.] 19 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. [Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys; i. e., the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense ( Rev 3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isa 22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Csarea Palestin, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms. The words “bind” and “loose” were commonly used among the Jews in the sense of forbid and allow. Abundant instances of this usage have been collected by Lightfoot. They relate to the binding and annulling of laws and rules. [413] In this sense the word for loose, is used very many times in the New Testament, but it is translated by the word break or broken ( Mat 5:19, Joh 7:23, Joh 10:35). The power here given to Peter was soon after extended to the rest of the apostles ( Mat 18:18). The apostles were to lay down, as they afterward did, the organic law of the new kingdom, defining what things were prohibited and what permitted. Their actions in this behalf would of course be ratified in heaven, because they were none other than the acts of the Holy Spirit expressed through the apostles.] b30 And a20 Then {c21 But} acharged he the disciples cand commanded them to tell this to no man; bthat they should tell no man of him. athat he was the Christ. [The people were not ready to receive this truth, nor were the apostles sufficiently instructed to rightly proclaim it. Their heads were full of wrong ideas with regard to Christ’s work and office, and had they been permitted to teach about him, they would have said that which it would have been necessary for them to subsequently correct, thus producing confusion.]

[FFG 410-414]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

CAESAREA-PHILIPPI

Mat 16:13-16; Mar 8:27-29; Luk 9:18-20. This is the northern terminus of our Saviors ministry, two days journey on horseback from the Sea of Galilee up the Jordan Valley to the foot of Mt. Hermon, where a great spring is one of the principal sources of the Jordan. This city is just over the border of Galilee in Iturea, at the time of our Savior under the tetrarchy of Philip. M.: And Jesus having come into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, asked His disciples, saying, Whom do the people say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or One of the prophets. He says to them, But whom do you say that I am? And Simon Peter, responding, said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus responding, said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon, the son of Jonah; because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but My Father who is in the heavens. About twenty-eight months have rolled away since our Lord entered upon His ministry, meanwhile He has flooded Galilee with His miracles; visited, in person or by the Twelve, nearly all the cities and villages in Israel. Despite all efforts, John the Baptist sending his disciples, with the avowed purpose of bringing Him out into an unequivocal proclamation of His Christhood, He simply sent them back, to tell John about the mighty works which they had seen.

a. Doubtless our Lord felt that it was better for His works to proclaim His Christhood than that He should publicly avow it. Here was the trouble: the prophets had wrought miracles, especially Elijah and Elisha, even raising quite a number from the dead. Consequently some, and among them King Herod, thought He was John the Baptist risen from the dead. As Elijah had wrought such stupendous miracles, bringing fire from heaven and raising the dead, on the very ground traversed by Jesus, many thought that He was some one of the old prophets who had risen from the dead. During these twenty-eight months, while the whole country has been flooded with miracles so stupendous as at once to beggar all cavil, the people have had an opportunity, by the irresistible fact of His mighty works, corroborated by His inimitable preaching, to settle down in the conclusion of His Christhood without an open proclamation.

b. The simple fact is that the Jews, having endured the galling yoke of a foreign despotism thirty-two years, and all settled in the prophetical revelation that the Christ is to be King of the Jews, are eager to crown Him the very moment that matter is settled, while the Roman soldiers were holding the gates of every city, ready to kill any man who would claim to be king, without having received the crown from the hands of Caesar. This was the very accusation written over His bead on His cross when He was crucified) This is the King of the Jews. Hence the necessity of postponing the open avowal of His Messiahship to the latest practical date.

c. I trow, this was the reason for His going away off to Caesarea-Philippi, out of the circle of His old audiences, and away from the multitude, who had crowded after Him, professing discipleship. When I visited Caesarea- Philippi, I went up on one of the peaks of Mt. Hermon, hanging over the city, where there is a great military citadel, about two thousand feet long and three hundred wide, built of solid masonry, though in ruins, the walls mainly yet intact, which had been occupied during the ages of Roman, Saracen, Crusade, and French rule, within which there is an old temple, said to have been built by Herod the Great. Tradition says that in this temple, when Jesus preached to the people, He proclaimed His Christhood, propounding the above questions to Peter, the apostolic senior, and in this, as well as other cases, the representative and speaker of the Twelve.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 16:13-28. The Great Confession and the First View of the Cross (Mar 8:27-38*, Luk 9:18-27).Omitting the cure of the blind man (but cf. Mat 9:27-33), Mt. passes to the significant episode of Csarea Philippi. Mat 16:13-16 =Mar 8:27-29, but note the substitution (Mat 16:13) of Son of Man for I, which gives the position away (especially if we read I, the Son of Man), and the addition of Jeremiah (Mat 16:14), and the Son of the living God (Mat 16:16). Mat 16:17-19 is given by Mt. only. Peter is pronounced blessed as the recipient of a Divine revelation. (The evangelist forgets Mat 14:33. Joh 1:41 equally destroys the significance of this scene.) To this unique communication Jesus Himself adds another (Mat 16:18 f.): Thou art Peter (Aram. Kepha, a rock), and on this rock I will build my ecclesia. This rock may be Peter (cf. Gal 2:9, Eph 2:20); if so, it is Peter personally, not officially as bishop of Rome; and in any case it would have been more natural to say upon thee. It may be, as Augustine suggests, Jesus Himself. But it is most likely the truth which Peter had expressed; the foundation of the ecclesia is the Messiahship of Jesus. Church (ecclesia) is only found in the Gospels here and at Mat 18:17. In LXX it translates qahal, i.e. Israel as a congregation (cf. Act 7:38), and sometimes dhah, a word of similar meaning used by the priestly writer (p. 129), though LXX mostly turns this by synagogue. The Gr. meaning of the word is that of the whole body of citizens called out from their private affairs to legislate for the State (cf. Act 19:32). Mt. is obliged to use it to denote the Christian community as separate from Jews.

Against this new community the gates of Hades shall not prevail. The two structures, as it were, the ecclesia and Hades, are ranged against each other. But the mention of the gates is significant. We may, of course, take gates of Hades as equivalent to Hades, and understand the expression of the powers of evil who dwell there. They and all that they imply, persecutions and temptations, shall not overcome the ecclesia. But Hades is usually regarded not as the abode of evil spirits but as the place of the dead, and the gates of Hades (Sheol) in the OT is synonymous with gates of death. Hence MNeile sees here a prediction of the resurrection: the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Messiahs ecclesia by keeping Him imprisoned (cf. Mat 16:21, Act 2:24-31, Rev 1:18). Loisy simply interprets it as death prevails against all men, but shall have no power against the Church, without any specific reference to Jesus. Tatians Diatessaron has Blessed art thou, Simon, and the gate of Hades shall not prevail against thee; thou art Peterperhaps a promise that Peter should survive till the Parousia.

In Exp., June 1916 (= Studia Sacra, ch. iv.), Dr. Bernard advances a new theory. He explains the passage in the light of Mat 7:24-27, and cogently argues that the Gr. word for gates is a mistranslation of an Aramaic word for storms or floods. There are two such words, and they gave trouble to the scribes and translators of OT. Thus in Dan 8:2, where AV and RV read the river of Ulai, the Douay Version, following Vulg., reads the gate of Ulai. If we read here the floods of Hades, we have an easy and familiar metaphor for an incursion of infernal powers, which cannot, however, harm the Church built on a Rock.

The gift of the keys does not mark Peter out as doorkeeper of the Church (or of heaven), but as chief steward in the Kingdom, the major-domo. Their real holder is the Lord Himself (Rev 3:7, cf. Isa 22:22). The primacy of Peter here indicated makes Mat 18:1 and Mat 19:27 rather difficult; considering this and the unusual use of Kingdom of Heaven as denoting the Church, we may well doubt the genuineness of the saying in Mat 16:19 a. The remainder of the verse gives the apostle legislative authority. He will be a scribe of the new age or order (cf. Mat 13:52), giving his decisions for binding (i.e. prohibiting) and loosing (i.e. permitting) after the fashion of an expert Rabbi. And his decisions will be ratified in heaven, i.e. by God. There is no question of absolution from sin here, and no necessary connexion with Joh 20:23. In Mat 18:18 this legislative authority is given to all the disciples, and that passage is probably the source of this one.

With Mat 16:21 Mt. begins the second great division in his life of Jesus. The scene at Csarea Philippi is chronologically and theologically the most conspicuous milestone in the biography. As in Lk., on the third day replaces Mk.s after three days, though some early texts follow Mk. The change is scarcely due to the fact that the resurrection took place on the third day rather than after three days, for the two phrases in Aramaic mean the same thing. Note the additions in Mat 16:22 f. Lk. omits this episode. The teaching on discipleship closely follows Mk. except in Mat 16:27, where Mar 8:38 has been in part anticipated by Mat 10:33, while Mk.s phrase, adulterous and sinful generation, is used in Mat 12:39 = Mat 16:4 a. Mat 10:38 f. also runs parallel with Mat 16:24 f. Jesus announces a judgment according to deeds (cf. Ps. 62:13, Pro 24:12).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 13

Jesus had never openly and directly acknowledged himself as the Messiah. The time had not come. It would have led, probably, to an insurrection. His caution on this point is strikingly manifest in John 2:23, 24.–Csarea Philippi; a city in the northern part of Judea, near Mount Lebanon.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

16:13 {3} When Jesus came into the coasts of {h} Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

(3) There are many judgments and opinions of Christ, nevertheless he is known by his followers alone.

(h) There were two Caesareas, the one called Stratonis upon the Mediterranean Sea, which Herod built extravagantly in the honour of Octavius; Josephus lib. 15. The other was Caesarea Philippi, which Herod the great the Tetrarch’s son by Cleopatra, built in the honour of Tiberius at the foot of Lebanon; Josephus lib. 15.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Instruction about the King’s person 16:13-17 (cf. Mar 8:27-29; Luk 9:18-20)

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The district of Caesarea Philippi lay 25 miles north of Galilee. Its inhabitants were mainly Gentiles. Herod Philip II, the tetrarch of the region, had enlarged a smaller town on the site at the foot of Mt. Hermon. The town’s elevation was 1,150 feet above sea level. He named it Caesarea in honor of Caesar, and it became known as Caesarea Philippi in distinction from the Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, Caesarea Sebaste (also known as Caesarea Palaestinae and Caesarea Meritima).

Since Jesus had previously used the title "Son of Man" of Himself, His question must have meant, who do people say that I am? The disciples answered accordingly.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

B. Jesus’ instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

Almost as a fugitive from His enemies, Jesus took His disciples to the far northern extremity of Jewish influence, the most northerly place Jesus visited. At this place, as far from Jerusalem and Jesus’ opponents as possible, Jesus proceeded to give them important revelation concerning what lay ahead for Him and them. Here Peter would make the great confession of the true identity of Jesus, whereas in Jerusalem to the south the Jews would deny His identity. In this safe haven Jesus revealed to the Twelve more about His person, His program, and His principles as Israel’s rejected King.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 13

The New Departure (Founding of the Church.) – Mat 16:13-28; Mat 17:1-21

THIS conversation at Caesarea Philippi is universally regarded as marking a new era in the life of Christ. His rejection by “His own” is now complete. Jerusalem, troubled at His birth, had been troubled once again when He suddenly came to His Temple, and began to cleanse it in His Fathers name; and though many at the feast were attracted by His deeds of mercy, He could not commit Himself to any of them: {Joh 2:24} there was no rock there on which to build His Church. He had passed through Samaria, and found there fields white unto the harvest, but the time of reaping was not yet. Galilee had given better promise: again and again it had appeared as if the foundation of the new kingdom would be firmly laid in the land of “Zebulun and Naphtali”; but there had been bitter and crushing disappointment, – even the cities where most of His mighty works were done repented not. The people had eagerly welcomed His earthly things; but when He began to speak to them of heavenly things they “went back, and walked no more with Him.” And though opportunity after opportunity was given them while He hovered on the outskirts, ever and anon returning to the familiar scenes, they would not repent; they would not welcome or even receive the kingdom of God which Christ came to found. The country has been traversed from the wilderness of Judea, in the far south, even unto Dan; and as there had been no room for the Infant King in the inn, so there was none in all the land for the infant kingdom.

Thus it comes to pass that, with the very small band He has gathered around Him-called in the land indeed, but now of necessity called to come out of it-He withdraws to the neighbourhood of the Gentile town of Caesarea Philippi; not for seclusion only, but, as the event shows, to found an Ecclesia-His Church. The scenery in this region is exceptionally beautiful, and the place was in every way suited for a season of quiet communion with nature and with natures God. It was, moreover, just outside the land; and in the place and surroundings there was much that must have been suggestive and inspiring. Is not this great mountain, on one of the southern flanks of which they are now resting, the mighty Hermon, the great landmark of the north, rearing its snowy head on high to catch the precious clouds of heaven, and enrich with them the winds that shall blow southward over Palestine? And are not these springs which issue from the rock beside them the sources of the Jordan, the sacred river? As the dew of Hermon, and as the flowing of the water-springs, shall be that Church of the living God, which, as the sequel will unfold, had its first foundation on this rocky hillside and by these river sources.

Into this remote and rocky region, then, the Master has retired with the small band of faithful disciples, on whom alone He can depend for the future. But can He depend even on them? Have they not been tainted with the general apostasy? Does He not already know one of them to be in heart a traitor? {cf. Joh 6:70} And have not all of them just needed the caution themselves to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Are they really strong men of faith, like “faithful Abraham,” or are they to be like reeds shaken by the wind? The time has come to test it. This He does, first by asking them what they think of Himself, and then by showing them what they must expect if they still will follow Him. First there must be the test of faith, to ascertain what they have learned from their intercourse with Him in the past; then the test of hope, lest their attachment to Him should be based on expectations doomed to disappointment.

I-THE CHRIST. {Mat 16:13-20}

The faith test is a strictly personal one. We have seen how the Master has, so to speak, focussed His gospel in Himself. He had begun by preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and calling men to repentance; but as time passed on He found it necessary to make a more personal appeal, pressing His invitations in the winning form, “Come unto Me.” When things came to a crisis in Galilee He first in symbol and then in word set Himself before the people as the bread of life, which each one must receive and eat if he would live. Thus He has been making it more and more evident that the only way to receive the Kingdom of God is to welcome Himself as the Son of the living God come to claim the hearts of men for His Father in heaven. How is it with the little band? Is theirs the popular notion, which classes the Son of God as only one among other gifted sons of men, or do they welcome Him in the plenitude of His divine prerogative and power? Hence the first inquiry, which brings out the answer: “Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” This is manifestly the popular idea at its highest and best. There were, no doubt, among the people those whose thought already was “Away with Him! away with Him!” But it might well go without saying that the disciples had no sympathy with these. It did, however, remain to be seen whether they were not content, like the rest of the people, to accept Him as a teacher sent from God, a great prophet of Israel, or at most a John the Baptist, the mere herald of the coming King. We can imagine, then, with what intensity of feeling the Master would look into the disciples eyes as He put the testing question, “But whom say ye that I am?” and with what joy He would hail the ready response of their spokesman Peter, when, with eyes full of heavenly light and heart glowing with sacred fire, he exclaimed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!”

It would be beyond belief, were it not so sadly familiar a fact, that some, professing honestly to interpret this passage, resolve the answer of the apostle into little or nothing more than the popular idea, as if the Sonship here referred to were only what any prophet or righteous man might claim. He surely must be wilfully blind who does not see that the apostolic answer which the Lord accepts is wide as the poles from the popular notions He so decisively rejects; and this is made peculiarly emphatic by the striking words with which the true answer is welcomed-the Saviours first personal beatitude as if to suggest, His is the kingdom of heaven:- {cf. Mat 5:3; Mat 5:10} “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” It will be remembered that, in asserting His own personal relation to the Father, Christ had said: “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him”; {Mat 11:27} and now that to one at least the Father has been revealed in the Son, He recognises the fact with joy. These notions of the people about Him were but earth-born notions, the surmisings of “flesh and blood”: this faith of the true apostle was born from above; it could have come only from heaven.

Now at last, therefore, the foundation is laid, and the building of the spiritual temple is begun. The words which follow (Mat 16:18) are quite natural and free from most, if not from all, the difficulties in which perverse human ingenuity has entangled them, if only we bear in mind the circumstances and surroundings. The little group is standing on one of the huge rocky flanks of mighty Hermon, great boulders here and there around them; and in all probability, well in sight, some great stones cut out of the rock and made ready for use in building, like those still to be seen in the neighbourhood of Baalbec, to the north of Hermon; for this region was famous for its great temples. Now, when we remember that the two words our Lord uses ( and ) for “rock” in our version have not precisely the same meaning-the one (Petros, Peter) signifying a piece of rock, a stone, the other (Petra) suggesting rather the great bed-rock out of which these stones are cut and on which they are lying-we can understand that, while the reference is certainly in the first place to Peter himself, the main thing is the great fact just brought out that he is resting, in the strength of faith, on God as revealed in His Son. Thus, while Peter is certainly the piece of rock, the first stone which is laid upon the great underlying foundation on which all the faithful build, and therefore is in a sense-the common popular sense, in fact-the foundation stone, yet the foundation of all is the Bed-Rock, on which the first stone and all other stones are laid. Bearing this well in mind, we further see that there is no inconsistency between this and those other scriptures in which God is represented as alone the Rock of our salvation. The Bed-Rock, “the Rock of Ages,” is here, as elsewhere, God as revealed in His Son, and Peter is the first stone “well and truly laid” upon it.

If the surroundings suggest the use of the words “Petros” and “Petra,” stone and rock, the circumstances suggest the use of the word Ecclesia, or Church, which is here employed by our Lord for the first time. Up to this time He has spoken always of the kingdom, never of the church. How is this to be explained? Of course the kingdom is the larger term; and now it is necessary that that portion of the kingdom which is to be organised on earth should be distinguished by a specific designation; and the use of the word “church” in preference to the more familiar “synagogue” may be accounted for by the desire to avoid confusion. Besides this, however, the word itself is specially significant. It means an assembly “called out,” and suggests the idea of separateness, so appropriate to the circumstances of the little band of outcasts.

To see into this more fully let us recall the recent teaching as to the true Israel (chap. 15.), no longer to be found in the old land of Israel. If there is to be an Israel at all, it must be reconstituted “outside the camp.” In view of this, how strikingly significant is it that just as Abraham had to leave his country and go to a strange land to found the old theocracy, so Christ has to leave His country and go with His followers to those remote northern regions to constitute “the Israel of God,” to inaugurate His Church, the company of those who, like these faithful ones, come out and are separate to be united by faith to Him! Christ with the Twelve around Him is the Israel. of the New Testament; and we can imagine that it was on this occasion especially that in the prayers which we know from St. Lukes Gospel He offered in connection with this very conversation, He would find these words of devotion especially appropriate: “Behold, I and the children which God hath given Me”. {Heb 2:13} The family of God {see Mat 12:49} are by themselves apart, disowned by those who still bear unworthily the name of Israel; and most appropriate it is that on this occasion our Lord should begin to use that great word, which means first “called out” and then “gathered in”: “on this rock I will build MY CHURCH.”

When we think of the place and the scene and the circumstances, the sad memories of the past and the gloomy forebodings for the future, what sublimity of faith must we recognise in the words which immediately follow: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”! Oh! shame on us who grow faint-hearted with each discouragement, when the Master, with rejection behind Him and death before Him, found it encouragement enough after so much toil to make a bare beginning of the new temple of the Lord; and even in that day of smallest things was able to look calmly forward across the troubled sea of the dark future and already raise the shout of final victory!

But that day of victory is still far off; and before it can even begin to come, there must be a descent into the valley of the shadow of death. He is about to tell His disciples that He must go up to Jerusalem and die, and leave them to be the builders of the Church. He cannot continue long to be the Keeper of the keys; so He must prepare them for taking them from His hand when the time shall come for Him to go. Hence the words which follow, appropriately addressed in the first place to the disciple who had first confessed Him: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” “Honour to whom honour is due”: the first member of the Church is to be its prime minister as well. When the Masters voice shall be silent, the voice of the rock-disciple (and of the other disciples as well, for the same commission was afterwards extended to them all) shall have the same authority to bind, to loose, to regulate the administration of Church affairs as if He Himself were with them. It is not yet time to tell them how it would be-viz., by the coming and indwelling of His Spirit; it is enough now to give them the assurance that the infant Church shall not be left without authority from above, without power from on high.

The Church is founded; but for a time it must remain in obscurity. The people are not ready; and the gospel which is to be the power of God unto salvation, is not yet complete, until He shall go up to Jerusalem and suffer many things and die. Till then all that has passed in this sacred northern retreat must remain a secret: “He charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ” (R.V).

II-THE CROSS. {Mat 16:21-28}

A still more searching test must now be applied. It is not enough to discover what they have learned from their intercourse with Him in the past; He must find out whether they have courage enough to face what is now impending in the future. Their faith in God as revealed in Christ His Son has been well approved. It remains to be seen whether it is strong enough to bear the ordeal of the cross, to which it must soon be subjected: “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.”

Already from time to time He had darkly hinted what manner of death He should die; but it was only from this time that He began to show it unto them, to put it before them so that they could not fail to see it. Herein see the wisdom and tender considerateness of “the Son of man.” So dark and difficult a lesson would have been too much for them before. The ordeal would have been too severe. Not until their faith has begun with some firmness to grasp His true and proper divinity, can their hope live with such a prospect. There must be some basis for a faith in His rising again, before He can ask them even to look into the dark abyss of death into which He must descend. That basis is found in the confession of the rock-apostle; and relying on it He can trust them by-and-by, if not at once, to look through the darkness of the suffering and death to the rising again, the prospect of which He sets before them at the very same time: “and be raised again the third day.” Besides, there was no possibility of their ever beginning to understand the atonement till they had grasped the truth of the incarnation. To this day the one is intelligible only in the light of the other. Those to whom Jesus of Nazareth is only “one of the prophets” cannot begin to see how He must suffer and die. Only those who with the apostles rise to the realisation of His divine glory are prepared to understand anything of the mystery of His Cross and Passion.

As yet, however, the mystery is too deep and the prospect too dark even for them, as becomes painfully evident from the conduct of the bravest of them all, who “took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee.”

We naturally and properly blame the presumption of the apostle, who, when he did not understand, might at least have been silent, or have contented himself with some modest question, instead of this unbecoming remonstrance with One Whose Messiahship and Divine Sonship he had just confessed. But, though we may blame him for what he said, we cannot wonder at what he thought and felt. The lesson of the cross is just beginning. The disciples are just entering a higher form in the Masters school; and it does not follow, because they have undergone so well their examination on the great lesson of the past, that they are prepared all at once to take in what must be the great lesson of the future. They have had time for the first: may they not be allowed time for the second? Why, then, is Peter reproved so very severely?

We may say, indeed, that faithfulness to Peter himself required it. The strong commendation with which his noble confession has been greeted, instead of making him humble, as it ought to have done, inasmuch as it reminded him that it was not of himself but from above he had the power to make it, seems to have made him over-confident, trustful to that very flesh and blood to which he had been assured he was, in regard to that confession, in no wise indebted. It was therefore necessary that the warm commendation accorded to the strength of his faith should be balanced by an equally strong condemnation of his unbelief. But there is more than this to be said. Christ is looking at Peter, and speaking to Peter; but he recognises another, whom He names and whom in the first place he addresses: “Get thee behind Me, Satan.” He recognises the same old enemy, with the same old weapon of assault; for it is the same temptation as that which formed the climax of the conflict in the wilderness, a temptation to prosecute His work by methods which would spare Him the awful agony of the cross. The devil had departed from Him then; but only, as we were informed, “for a season”; and there are frequent indications in the subsequent history that at critical times the great adversary took opportunities of renewing the old temptation. This is one of these occasions. Let us by all means bear in mind that our Lord was true man-that He was “compassed with infirmity,” that He was “tempted in all points like as we are,” though ever without sin; let us not imagine, then, that His human soul was always on so serene a height that the words of one who loved Him and whom He loved so much would have no effect on Him. It was hard enough for Him to face the awful darkness, without having this new stumbling-block set in His path. It is a real temptation, and a most dangerous one; He may not therefore tamper with it for a moment: He may not allow His affection for His true disciple to blind Him to the real Source of it; He must realise with whom He has to deal; He must behind the love of the apostle recognise the malice of the evil one, who is using him as his instrument; accordingly, with His face set as a flint, with His whole being braced for resistance, so that not a hairs-breadth shall be yielded, He says: “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto Me” (R.V) – words which clearly indicate that He had recognised the danger, and summoned the resources of His faith and obedience to put the stumbling-block away.

“Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” We may be sure, therefore, that so soon as the energetic words were spoken he was gone: the stumbling-block was out of the way. The words which follow may therefore be regarded as spoken to Peter himself, to bring to his own consciousness the difference between the heavenly faith which had come by revelation from above, and the earthly doubt and denial, which was evidently not of God, though so natural to flesh and blood: “Thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men” (R.V).

Thus once more the Christ of God takes up the cross of man. In doing so He not only sets aside the protest, uttered or unexpressed, of His disciples hearts; but He tells them plainly that they too must take the same dark path if they would follow Him: “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.” So He tests them to the uttermost. He withdraws nothing He has said about the blessedness of those who welcome the kingdom of heaven; but the time has come to put the necessary condition in its strongest light, so that, if they still follow, it will be not blindly, . but with eyes fully open to all that it involves. He has given hints before of the stringency of the Divine requirement; He has spoken of the strait gate and the narrow way; now He goes to the very heart of that hard matter, and unfolds the innermost secret of the kingdom of heaven. “Let him deny himself”: here is the pivot of all-the crux.

Be it observed that this is not ” self-denial” as currently understood, a term applied to the denial to self of something or other which perhaps self cares very little about, but something much more radical. It is the denim of self involving as its correlative the giving of the life to God. It is the death of self-will, and the birth of God-will, as the central force of the life.

“Let him deny himself, and take up his cross.” Each one has “his” cross, some point in which the will of God and self-will come in direct opposition. To the Captain of our salvation the conflict came in its very darkest and most dreadful form. Its climax was in the Garden, when after the great agony He cried: “Not My will, but Thine be done.” Our conflict will not be nearly so severe: it may even be on a point that may seem small, -whether or not we will give up some besetting sin, whether or not we will do some disagreeable duty, whether or not we will surrender something which stands between us and Christ, -but whatever that be in which the will of God and our own will are set in opposition, there is our cross, and it must be taken up, and self must be denied that we may follow Christ. “They that are Christs have crucified the flesh.”

Is this, then, the great salvation? Does it resolve itself into a species of suicide? Do we enter the kingdom of life by death? It is even so; and the words which follow resolve the paradox: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it.” It is a surrender of life, certainly, for the giving up of self means the giving up of all; but these words “for My sake” make all the difference. It is a surrender which, in dethroning self, enthrones Christ in the life. It is dying indeed; but it is dying into life: it is an act of faith which puts an end to the old life of the flesh, and opens the gate for the new life of the spirit.

We have seen that all may hinge on some point that may seem quite small, in which case the sacrifice is plainly not to be compared with the compensation; but even when the very greatest sacrifice is demanded, it is folly not to make it: “For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?” (R.V). And, if life is forfeited, how can it be bought back again: “What shall a man give in exchange for his life”? (R.V) “In Him was life,” and in Him is life still; therefore He is more to us than all the world. It is better to suffer the loss of all things for Christ than to have all that flesh and blood could desire without Him.

The world is very large; and the Son of man must have seemed very small and weak that day, as He told them of the coming days when He should suffer so many things at His enemies hands, and die; but this is only while the time of testing lasts: things will be seen in their true proportion by-and-by, when “the Son of man shall come” (what a golden background this to the dark prospect immediately before them! He must go; yes; but He shall come) “in the glory of His Father with His angels; then He shall reward every man according to his works.” Thus, with the searching test the Saviour gives the reassuring prospect; and test by reason of its indefinite distance they may fail to find in it all the encouragement they need for the present distress, He gives them the further assurance that, before very long, there shall be manifest tokens of the coming glory of their now despised and slighted King: “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.”

III-THE GLORY. {Mat 17:1-8}

“After six days”-the interval is manifestly of importance, for the three Evangelists who record the event all lay stress on it. St. Luke says “about an eight days,” which indicates that the six days referred to by the others were days of interval between that on which the conversation at Caesarea Philippi took place and the morning of the transfiguration. It follows that we may regard this important epoch in the life of our Lord as covering a week; and may we not speak of it as His passion week in the north? The shadow of the cross was on Him all His life through; but it must have been much darker during this week than ever before. At the beginning of it He had been obliged for the first time to let that shadow fall upon His loved disciples, and the days which followed seem to have been given to thought and prayer, and quiet, unrecorded conversation. Beyond all question their thought would be fixed on the new subject of contemplation which had just been brought before them, and whatever conversation they had with one another and with the Master would have this for its centre. It cannot but have been a very sad and trying week. The first tidings of the approach of some impending disaster is often harder to bear than is the stroke itself when afterwards it falls. To the disciples the whole horizon of the future would be filled with darkest clouds of mystery; for though they had been told also of the rising again and the glory that should follow, they could as yet get little cheer from what lay so far in the dim distance, and was, moreover, so little understood that even after the vision on the mount, the favoured three questioned with each other what the rising from the dead might mean. {Mar 9:10} To the Master the awful prospect must have been much more definite and real; yet even to His human soul it could not have been free from that namelessness of mystery that must have made the anticipation in some respects as bad as the reality, rendering the week to Him a passion week indeed.

No wonder that at the end of it He has a great longing heavenward, and that He should ask the three most advanced of His disciples, who had been with Him in the chamber of death and were afterwards to be witnesses of His agony in the Garden, to go with Him to a high mountain apart. The wisdom of His taking only these three was afterwards fully apparent, when it proved that the experience awaiting them on the mountain-top was almost too much for even them to bear. It is of no importance to identify the mountain; probably it was one of the spurs of the Hermon range, at the base of which they had spent the intervening week. We can perfectly understand the sacred instinct which led the Saviour to seek the highest point which could be readily reached, so as to feel Himself for the time as far away from earth and as near to heaven as possible. When we think of this, what pathos is there in the reference to the height of the mountain and the loneliness of the spot: He “bringeth them up into a high mountain apart”!

We are told by St. Luke that they went up “to pray.” It seems most natural to accept this statement as not only correct, but as a sufficient statement of the object our Saviour had in view. The thought of transfiguration may not have been in His mind at all. Here, as always, He was guided by the will of His Father in heaven; and it is not necessary to suppose that to His human mind that will was made known earlier than the occasion required. We are not told that He went up to be transfigured: we are told that He went up to pray.

It seems probable that the idea was to spend the night in prayer. We know that this was a not infrequent custom with Him; and if ever there seemed a call for it, it must have been now, when about to begin that sorrowful journey which led to Calvary. With this thought agree all the indications which suggest that it was evening when they ascended, night while they remained on the top, and morning when they came down. This, too, will account in the most natural manner for the drowsiness of the apostles; and the fact that their Lord felt none of it only proved how much more vivid was his realisation of the awfulness of the crisis than theirs was. We are to think of the four, then, as slowly and thoughtfully climbing the hill at eventide, carrying their abbas, or rugs, on which they would kneel for prayer, and which, if they needed rest, they would wrap around them, as is the Oriental custom. By the time they reached the top, night would have cast its veil of mystery on the grandeur of the mountains round about them: while snowy Hermon in the gloom would rise like a mighty giant to heaven, its summit “visited all night by troops of stars.” Never before nor since has there been such a prayer meeting on this earth of ours.

A careful reading of all the records leads us to think of the following as the order of events. Having gone up to pray, they would doubtless all kneel down together. As the night wore on, the three disciples, being exhausted, would wrap themselves in their cloaks and go to sleep; while the Master, to whom sleep at such a time was unnatural, if not impossible, would continue in prayer. Can we suppose that that time of pleading was free from agony? His soul had been stirred within Him when Peter had tempted Him to turn aside from the path of the Cross; and may we not with reverence suppose that on that lonely hilltop, as later in the Garden, there might be in His heart the cry, “Father, if it be possible”? If only the way upward were open now! Has not the kingdom of God been preached in Judea, in Samaria, in Galilee, away to the very borderlands? and has not the Church been founded? and has not authority been given to the apostles? Is it, then, absolutely necessary to go back, back to Jerusalem, not to gain a triumph, but to accept the last humiliation and defeat? There cannot but have been a great conflict of feeling; and with all the determination to be obedient even unto death, there must have been a shrinking from the way of the cross, and a great longing for heaven and home and the Fathers welcome. The longing cannot be gratified: it is not possible for the cup to pass from Him; but just as later in Gethsemane there came an angel from heaven strengthening him, so now His longing for heaven and home and the smile of His Father is gratified in the gladdening and strengthening experience which followed His prayer-a foretaste of the heavenly glory, so vivid, so satisfying, that He will thenceforth be strong, for the joy that is set before Him, to endure the Cross, despising the shame. For behold, as He prays, His face becomes radiant, the glory within shining through the veil of His mortal flesh. We all know that this flesh of ours is more or less transparent, and that in moments of exaltation the faces of even ordinary men will shine as with a heavenly lustre. We need not wonder, then, that it should have been so with our Lord, only in an immeasurably higher degree: that His face should have shone even “as the sun”; and that, though He could not yet ascend to heaven, heavens brightness should have descended on Him and wrapped Him round, so that even “His raiment was white as the light.” And not only heavenly light is round, but heavenly company; for “behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him.”

The disciples could not sleep through all this. “When they were fully awake, they saw His glory, and the two men that stood with Him.” {Luk 9:32, R.V} How they recognised them we are not told. It may have been through their conversation, which in part at least they understood; for the substance of it has been preserved in St. Lukes Gospel, where we read that they “spake of His decease (literally, exodus) which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.” The human soul of Jesus no doubt longed for an exodus here and now, from this very height of Hermon in the presence of God; but He knows this cannot be: His exodus must be accomplished in a very different way, and at Jerusalem. This Moses and Elijah knew; and their words must have brought Him encouragement and strength, and given steadiness and assurance to the wavering hearts of Peter, James, and John.

That the conversation was intended for their benefit as well, seems indicated by the way in which Peters intervention is recorded: “Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus.” What he said is quite characteristic of the impulsive discipline, so ready to speak without thinking. On this occasion he blunders in a very natural and pardonable way. He feels as if he ought to say something; and, as nothing more to the purpose occurs to him, he blurts out his thoughtless proposal to make three tabernacles for their abode. Besides the thoughtlessness of this speech, which is manifest enough, there seems to lurk in it a sign of his falling back into the very error which a week ago he had renounced-the error of putting his Master in the same class as Moses and Elias, reckoning Him thus, as the people of Galilee had done, simply as “one of the prophets.” If so, his mistake is at once corrected; for behold a bright luminous cloud-fit symbol of the Divine presence: the cloud suggesting mystery, and the brightness, glory-wraps all from sight, and out of the cloud there comes a voice: “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”

We now see how appropriate it was that just these two should be the heavenly messengers to wait upon the Son of man on this occasion. The one represented the law, the other the prophets. “The law and the prophets were until John”; but both are now merged in the gospel of Jesus, Who is all and in all. Moses and Elijah have long had audience of the people of God; but behold a greater than Moses or Elijah is here, and they must withdraw; and accordingly, when the Voice is silent and the cloud has cleared away, Jesus is left alone. No one remains to divide His authority and none to share His sorrow. He must tread the winepress alone. Moses and Elijah return to the world of spirits-Jesus, Gods beloved Son, to the world of men. And all His human sympathies were fresh and quick as ever; for, finding His three disciples fallen on their faces for fear, He came and touched them, saying, “Arise, and be not afraid.” They no doubt thought their Lord had laid aside His human body, and left them all alone upon the mountain; but with His human hand He touched them, and with His human voice He called them as of old, and with His human heart He welcomed them again. Reassured, they lifted up their eyes, and saw their Lord-the man Christ Jesus as before-and no one else. All is over; and as the world is unprepared for it, the vision is sealed until the Son of man be risen from the dead.

Why were their lips sealed? The more we think of it, the more we shall see the wisdom of this seal of secrecy, even from the other nine; for had they been prepared to receive the revelation, they would have been privileged to witness it. The transfiguration was no mere wonder; it was no sign granted to incredulity: it was one of those sacred experiences for rare spirits in rare hours, which nature itself forbids men to parade, or even so much as mention, unless constrained to it by duty.

It is one of the innumerable notes of truth found, wherever aught that is marvellous is recorded in these Gospels, that the glory on the mount is not appealed to, to confirm the faith of any but the three who witnessed it. Upon them it did produce a deep and abiding impression. One of them, indeed, died a martyrs death so very early that we have nothing from his; {Act 12:2} but both the others have left us words written late in their after life, which show now ineffaceable was the impression produced upon them by what they saw that memorable night. John evidently has it in mind, both in the beginning of his Epistle and of his Gospel, as where he says: “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father”; and Peter thus conveys the assurance which the experience of that night left with him to the end: “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount.” But while the impression made upon the three who witnessed it was so deep and abiding, it could not be expected to have any direct evidential value to others; accordingly it remained unused in their dealings with others until their Masters work had been crowned by His resurrection from the dead, which was to be the sign, as He had again and again said to those who kept asking. Him for a sign from heaven. The transfiguration was indeed a sign from heaven; but it was no sign for a faithless generation: it was only for those who “by the strength of their faith and the purity of their devotion were prepared to receive it. Signs fitted to satisfy the doubting heart had been wrought in great abundance”; {Mat 11:4-5} and the crowning sign was to be certified by many infallible proofs, after which it would be time to speak of the experience of that sacred night upon the holy mount.

How fitly the transfiguration closes this memorable week! As we linger with the Lord and His disciples at the sources of the Jordan, we realise that we have reached what we may call the water-shed of doctrine in His training of the Twelve. Slowly have they been rising in their thoughts of Christ, until at last they recognise His true divinity, and make a clear and full confession of it. But no sooner have they reached that height of truth than they are constrained to look down into the dark valley before them, at the bottom of which they dimly see the dreadful cross; and then, to comfort and reassure, there is this vision of the glory that shall follow. Thus we have, in succession, the three great doctrines of the faith: Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection. There is first the glory of Christ as the Son of God; then His shame as Bearer of our sin; then the vision of the glory that shall follow, the glory given to Him as His reward. For may we not regard that company upon the mount as a miniature of the Church in heaven and on earth? There was the great and glorified Head of the Church, and round Him five representative members: two from the family in heaven, three from the family on earth-those from the Church triumphant, these from the Church still militant-those from among the saints of the old covenant, these the firstfruits of the new. Could there have been a better representation of “the whole family in heaven and on earth”? How appropriate that the passion week of the north, which began with the founding of the Church in the laying of its first stone, should end with a vision of it as completed, which must to some extent have been a fulfilment of the promise. “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied”!

Observe, too, in quick succession, the great key-words of the new age: The Christ, {Mat 16:16} The Church (Mat 16:18), The Cross (Mat 16:24), The Glory (Mat 16:27): the latter, as still in the future, made real by the glory on the holy mount. The mediaeval interpreters, always on the watch for the symbolism of numbers, especially the number three, regarded Peter as the apostle of faith, James of hope, and John of love. And though we may set this aside as a touch of fancy, we Cannot fail to observe that just as the mind, in its grasp of truth, is led from the incarnation to the atonement, and thence to the resurrection and the glory that shall follow; so the cardinal graces of the Christian life are called out in quick succession: first faith with its rock-foundation; then love with its self-sacrificing devotion; and finally hope with its vision of heavenly glory. The whole gospel of Christ, the whole life of the Christian, is found in this brief passage of the first Evangelist, ending with the suggestive words, “Jesus only.”

IV-THE DESCENT. {Mat 17:9-21}

Who can tell what each step downward cost the Son of man? If it seemed good to the disciples to be on the mountain-top, what must it have been to the Master! and what utter denial of self and conscious taking up of the cross it must have been to leave that hallowed spot! We have already seen a reason, as regards the disciples, why the vision should be sealed till the time of the end; but was there not also a reason which touched the Master Himself? It was well that He had enjoyed such a time of refreshing-it would be something to look back to in darkest hours; but it must be a memory only: it may not therefore be a subject of conversation-not the glory, but the cross, must now, both for Himself and for His disciples, fill all the near horizon.

This view of the case is confirmed by the manner in which He deals with their question respecting Elijah. It was a very natural question. It was no doubt perplexing in many ways to be absolutely forbidden to tell what they had seen; but it seemed especially mysterious in view of Elijahs appearance, which they not unnaturally regarded as a fulfilment of the prophecy for which the scribes were waiting. Hence their question, “Why, then, say the Scribes that Elias must first come?” Our Lords answer turned their thoughts to the true fulfilment of the prophecy, which was no shadowy appearance on a lonely hill, but the real presence among the men of the time of a genuine reformer who had come in the spirit and power of Elijah, and who would certainly have restored all things, had not these very scribes and Pharisees, failing to recognise him, left him to the will of the tyrant who had done away with him. Then most significantly He adds, that as it had been with the Elijah, so would it be with the Messiah of the time: “Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.” Thus, in showing them where to look for the true fulfilment of the prophecy, He turns their attention as well as His own away from the glory on the mount, which must now be a thing of the past, to that dark scene in the prison cell, which was so painfully impressed upon their minds, and those still darker scenes in the near future of which it was the presage.

At the foot of the mountain there is presented one of those striking contrasts with which, as we have seen, this Gospel abounds. It is very familiar to us through Raphaels great painting; and we shall certainly not make the mistake of attempting to translate into our feeble words what is there seen, and may now be regarded as “known and read of all men.” Leaving, therefore, to the imagination the contrast between the glory on the mount and the misery on the plain, let us briefly look at the scene itself. Briefly; for though it well deserves detailed treatment, the proper place for this would be the full record of it in the second Gospel; while the more general way in which it is presented here suggests the propriety of dealing with it in outline only. Without, then, attempting to enter on the striking and most instructive details to be found in St. Marks Gospel, and without even dealing with it as we have endeavoured to deal with similar cures under the head of the Signs of the Kingdom, it may be well to glance at it in the light of the words used by our Lord when He was confronted with the sorrowful scene: “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?”

It seems evident from these words that He is looking at the scene, not so much as presenting a case of individual suffering, appealing to His compassion, as a representation in miniature of the helplessness and perverseness of the race of men He has come to save. Remember how well He knew what was in man, and therefore what it must have been to Him, immediately after such a season of pure and peaceful communion on the holy mount, to have to enter into sympathy with all the variety of helplessness and confusion He saw around Him. There is the poor plague-stricken boy in the centre; beside him his agonised father; there, the feeble and blundering disciples, and the scribes {Mar 9:14} questioning with them; and all around the excited, sympathetic, and utterly perplexed multitude. Yet the kingdom of heaven is so near them, and has been so long proclaimed among them! Alas! alas for the perversity of men, that blinds them to the Sun of Righteousness, already arisen with healing in His wings, and for the unbelief even of the disciples themselves, which renders them, identified though they are with the kingdom, as helpless as all the rest! When we think of all this, need we wonder at the wail which breaks from the Saviours sorrowful heart, need we wonder that He cries “How long? how long?”

“Bring him hither to Me.” Here is the solvent of all. “From that very hour” the boy is cured, the fathers heart is calmed and filled with gladness, the cavillers are silenced, the multitudes are satisfied, and the worn-out faith of the disciples is renewed. Out of chaos, order, out of tumult, peace, by a word from Christ. It was a wilder sea than Galilee at its stormiest; but at His rebuke the winds and waves were stilled, and there was a great calm.

So would it be still, if this generation were not perverse and faithless in its turn-the world perverse, the Church faithless. Above the stormy sea of human sin and woe and helplessness, there still is heard the lamentation “How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?” Here are we groaning and travailing in this late age of the world and of the Church, the worst kind of demons still working their wilt in their poor victims, the cry of anxious parents going up for lost children, disciples blundering and failing in well-meant efforts to cast the demons out, wise and learned scribes pointing at them the finger of scorn, excited and angry multitudes demanding satisfaction which they fail to get-Oh, if only all could hear the voice of the Son of man as the multitude heard it that day; and if we would only with one consent recognise the majesty of His face and mien as they did, {see Mar 9:15} bring to Him our plague-stricken ones, our devil-possessed, bring to Him our difficulties and perplexities, our vexed questions and our hard problems, would He not as of old bring order out of our chaos, and out of weakness make us strong? Oh, for more faith, faith to take hold of the Christ of God, come down from His holy habitation, and with us even to the end of the world, to bear the infirmities and carry the sorrows and take away the sins of men!-then should we be able to say to this mountain of evil under which our cities groan, “Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea,” and it would be done. If only the Church of Christ in the world to-day had through all its membership that faith which is the only avenue by which the power of God can reach the need of man, our social problems would not long defy solution-“nothing would be impossible”; for over the millions of London, and the masses everywhere, there broods the same great heart of love and longing which prompted the gracious words, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”; and there is not a wretched one in all the world for whom there is not a blessed ray of hope in this pathetic wail which still proceeds from the loving heart of Him Who is the same yesterday and to-day and for ever. “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to Me.”

“Bring him hither”-this is a work of faith as well as a labour of love. The Church on earth is in the same position now as were the nine when the Master was absent from them on the mountain-top. He has ascended up on high, and the work must be carried on by the members of His body on the earth; and it is only in proportion to their faith that any success can attend them in their work.

Is faith, then, all that is necessary? It is: provided it be genuine living faith. This seems to be the point of the reference to the grain of mustard seed. The little seed, small as it is, is set in true relation to the great life-force of Mother Nature, and therefore out of it by-and-by there comes a mighty tree; and in the same way even feeble faith, if it be genuine, and therefore set in true relation to the power of the Father of our spirits, becomes receptive of a force which in the end nothing can resist. But genuine living faith it must be: there must be the real opening up of the soul to the Spirit of the living God, so that the mans nature becomes a channel through which unobstructed the grace and power of God shall flow. It need scarcely be remarked that the notion which mistakes faith for mere belief of certain doctrines is utterly misleading. In nothing is the perversity of a faithless generation more conspicuous than in the persistency with which this absurd and unscriptural notion of faith holds its ground, even with those who are supposed to be leaders of thought in certain directions. If only that mountain of folly could be cleared away, there would be a decided brightening of the spiritual outlook; for then men everywhere would see that the faith which Christ expects of them, and without which nothing can be accomplished, is no mere intellectual belief, but the laying open and leaving open of the entire nature to the Spirit of Christ. Thus spurious dead faith would be utterly discredited, and genuine living faith would alone be recognised; and while the first effect would be to disclose the exceeding scantiness of the Churchs faith, the result would be that even though what stood the test should be small as a grain of mustard seed, it would have in it such vitality and power that by-and-by it would become mighty and all-pervading, so that before it mountains would disappear (Mat 16:20).

The last words of the paragraph carry us back to the ultimate necessity for prayer. It is plain that our Lord refers to habitual prayer. We cannot suppose that these nine disciples had utterly neglected this duty; but they had failed to live in an atmosphere of prayer, as was their Masters rule. We may be sure that they had not prayed at the base of the mountain as their Lord had prayed on the summit, or they would certainly not have failed in their attempt to cure the lunatic child. This demand for prayer is not really anything additional to the faith set forth as the one thing needful. There has been a good deal of discussion lately as to whether we can think without words. We shall not presume to decide the question; but it may safely be affirmed that without words we could not think to any purpose. And just as the continuance and development of our thinking are dependent on words, so the continuance and development of our faith are dependent on prayer. Is not the weak spot of our modern Christianity just here? In this age of tear and wear, bustle and excitement, what becomes of prayer? If the amount of true wrestling with God in the daily life of the average Christian could be disclosed, the wonder might be, not that he accomplishes so little, but that God is willing to use him at all.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles