{"id":25303,"date":"2022-09-24T11:02:02","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T16:02:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-918\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T11:02:02","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T16:02:02","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-918","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-918\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 9:18"},"content":{"rendered":"

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? <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

18<\/strong> – 22.<\/strong> St Peter’s Confession. Christ prophesies His Death and Resurrection.<\/p>\n

18<\/strong>. alone<\/em> ] Rather, in private, <\/strong> as the context shews.<\/p>\n

the people<\/em> ] Rather, the multitudes<\/strong>; those whom Jesus had taught and healed and fed, or those who seem to have been always at no great distance. The two other Evangelists place this memorable scene in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi. His life at this epoch had come to resemble a continuous flight. He did not enter Caesarea Philippi. He always avoided towns (with the single exception of Jerusalem), probably from His love for the sights and sounds of nature, and His dislike for the crowded squalor and worldly absorption of town-communities; and He specially avoided these Hellenic and hybrid cities, with their idolatrous ornaments and corrupted population. This event may well be regarded as the culminating point<\/em> in His ministry. He had now won the deliberate faith and conviction<\/em> of those who had lived in close intercourse with Him, and who, in continuation of His ministry, were to evangelize the world. See Mat 16:13-21<\/span>; Mar 8:27-31<\/span>.<\/p>\n

that I am<\/em> ] <\/em> “That I, the Son of man,<\/em> am?” Mat 16:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

See the Mat 16:13-27<\/span> notes; Mar 8:27-38<\/span> notes.<\/P>

Luk 9:20<\/B><\/span><\/P>

The Christ of God – <\/B>The Anointed of God. The Messiah appointed by God, and who had been long promised by him. See the notes at Mat 1:1<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18-20<\/span><\/p>\n

Whom say the people that I am?<\/em><\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

One of Christs conferences with His disciples<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>OUR LORDS PRAYER. Brethren, He ever liveth to make intercession for us, and if the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, what are we to think of that Intercessor whom the Father heareth always? It was the privilege of Jacobs family to have a friend at court, and that friend was their own brother. It was the privilege of David to have a friend at court, and that friend was the kings own son. Ah, Christians, both these are combined in your privilege; you have both in Him who now appears in the presence of God for us. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>OUR LORDS INQUIRY. He asked them, Whom say the people that I am? This is a frequent question, arising not only from curiosity, but vanity. It would be indeed well if we were anxious to know what God says of us, for it is a light thing to be judged of men: He that judges us is the Lord, and upon His decision depends our happiness or misery. But how frequent is the inquiry, What do people say of me? As to some, the answer would be, Why, nothing at all; they do not even think of you; they do not know enough of you to make you the theme of their discourse. <\/p>\n

But what do people say of me? asks another. Why, they say, Your tongue walketh through the earth; some call you the Morning Herald, and others, the Daily Advertiser. But what do people say of me? asks another. They say that you are very hard-hearted and closefisted; that you are a busy-body in other mens matters; they say that you are such a Nabal that a man cannot speak to you; they say that you are wiser in your own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. It would be well in certain respects if we knew what people say of us–what friends say of us; yes, and what enemies say of us, too. I remember Archbishop Usher says in an address to God, Lord, bless me with a faithful friend; or, if not, with a faithful enemy, that I may know my faults, for I desire to know them. But Jesus was meek and lowly of heart; He, therefore, did not ask this question from pride or vanity. Nor did He ask it from ignorance. He knew all the numerous opinions afloat concerning Him. But this question seems designed to affect them, to bind them to Himself, and to furnish them with further instruction upon it. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>Observe THE CHARGE here given. And He straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing. We should rather have supposed that He would have ordered His disciples to go and publish it, but His thoughts are not as ours; There is a time for every purpose under the heaven. It seems to be a general law of heaven, that knowledge of every kind should gradually spread. There are some things which must precede others, and make way for them. It is thus you deal with your children, keeping back for a time things from their knowledge. Thus a wise instructor will do with his pupils, he will teach them as they are able to bear it. And this was the method of our Saviour Himself in dealing with His disciples. Had our Lord then immediately proclaimed Himself as the Messiah, it is easy to suppose what insurrections might have taken place by those who would have endeavoured to make Him a king, and to keep Him from suffering. Besides this, the prohibition was only for a limited period. After His resurrection from the dead He appeared to His disciples, and said, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel, beginning at Jerusalem; and Peter, to whom He here spake, filled Jerusalem with His doctrine, and said to the murderers of the Savour, God hath made this same Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>Observe HIS SUFFERINGS. The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be slain. You see, first, that He foreknew them. Secondly, He foretold them, to prepare His disciples for their approach. Thirdly, He describes them. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>Observe His GLORY. And be raised the third day. We have demonstrations in proof of this. See the witnesses as they come before their adversaries. Believers have other kinds of evidences. They have the witness in themselves; they know the power of His resurrection; they have felt it raising them from a death of sin to a life of righteousness; that like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so should they also walk in newness of life. (W. Jay.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Lords question<\/strong><\/p>\n

Who say ye that I am? <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> A question of conscience. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> A question of controversy. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> A question of life. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> A question of the times. (Van Oosterzee.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Jesus will have His disciples<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Independently recognize Him as the Christ; <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Voluntarily confess Him as the Christ. (Van Oosterzee.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Jesus the Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE WORLDS JUDGMENT Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? So, too, in our own time is there infinite divergence among the builders who reject the chief stone of the corner. To some He is the object of a hatred which, in its malignity, would construe His good as evil–others simply pass Him by as though His claims were unworthy of serious thought–others regard Him with respect and veneration, exhaust the resources of language in their attempts to picture His moral beauty, will do anything but trust in Him as a Saviour. To some He is a man full of imperfections, in consistency of goodness far below vast numbers of His unhonoured disciples, to others He is the perfect man, the noblest of all creatures, everything but God. These diversities may be considered under two aspects. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The disbelief of the intellect, including all those phases of opinion held by men who distinctly reject the claim of the Lord Jesus to the honours of the Godhead, who do not regard His life and death as the ground of the sinners acceptance with God, and who deny that faith in Him is the condition of salvation. There is a certain amount of respect which this theorist is willing to pay to our Lord. He tells us that Jesus has done for religion what Socrates did for philosophy, and Aristotle for science, that He fixed the idea of pure worship, and that He has thus exerted a wondrous power over the heart of humanity. Yet he would have us believe that He was Himself a self-deluded enthusiast, who yielded His mind up to the idea of His own Messiahship, until He was driven, though almost unconsciously, to act a part in order to sustain His own pretensions, and whose miracles, where they are not the pure inventions of His evangelists, were deceptions practised either by Himself or by some too-zealous followers to impose on popular credulity. The power which Christianity exerts cannot be ignored, and it is necessary to give some explanation of the way in which it has arisen. It is simply impossible to persuade the world that it owes some of its mightiest impulses, and has consecrated some of its noblest affections, to a being who, after all, was nothing more than the creation of the too luxuriant fancy and the too fond affection of a few Jewish disciples, who had contrived to throw around the humble life of an unlettered peasant of Galilee the unreal glory of legends and traditions. Rationalists, therefore, set before us a Jesus from whom they would have us believe this marvellous power has proceeded. Jesus of Nazareth would thus be removed from the page of history, but this other Jesus would not take His place. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> We note a more frequent and formidable antagonism in the unbelief of the heart. Disbelief involves a certain exercise of mind as to the claims of Christianity. Unbelief may be nothing more than simple passive indifference. Disbelief says there is no Christ, no atonement, no redemption. Unbelief says if there be a Christ I will not worship Him; though there be an atonement I care not to seek its blessings; though there be a Redeemer, of His salvation I care not to partake. Disbelief take up an attitude of positive opposition, and would fain disprove the claims of the gospel. Unbelief may often use friendly words, and do some kindly deeds on behalf of the truth–may treat it with seeming reverence, and even make generous contributions for its support–will, in truth, do everything but receive its message and submit to its power. The practical issue is the same. How many different causes serve to create this secret distaste of the heart to the religion of Christ. In some it is the all-absorbing passion of worldliness which holds the spirit back from faith. In others the pride of self-reliance revolts against a scheme of salvation which ascribes nothing to human merit, and therefore leaves no place for human boasting. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE CHRISTIANS CONFESSION. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And in relation to it we observe–<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> That it is entirely independent of the worlds judgment. The unanimity of the entire world in an adverse opinion ought not to shake, could not shake the un-doubting confidence of a Christian heart in Jesus. What to Peter were the sneers of Sadducees, the scorn of priests and Pharisees, the various opinions that divided the multitude? Even were the intellect confounded, and the arguments of its logic all silenced, and did the reasoning against the authority of the gospel appear unanswerable, the heart, out of the depths of its own consciousness, would cry out, Still there is a gospel, still there is a Christ, and He is my Saviour, my Lord and my God. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It is the expression of a personal faith. The trust which Christ acknowledges, and over which He rejoices, is that which the soul itself reposes in Him, and which is infinitely more than the acceptance of any creed or the association with any Christian Church. It is nothing less than the mans own sense of dependence on Christ as a Redeemer. What can be the value of any so-called belief which stops short of this? Orthodoxy, as fair as the marble statue and as cold, as symmetrical in its proportions and as lifeless in its nature, is a wretched substitute for the living trust of a true soul, which may fall into some errors, but has, at least, this one cardinal excellence, that it cleaves to the Lord with full purpose of heart. Such was the spirit that prompted the words of Peter. He was far from being a perfect man. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> This faith is the fruit of Divine teaching. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. Peter had not reached the conviction thus boldly uttered by means of greater intellectual vigour, or in virtue of any special opportunities of observation, but solely through the grace of God. There were others who knew the great facts in connection with the life and ministry of Christ, on whom they had made no such impression as they had produced on him. It was God alone who made him, as He makes all believers, to differ. The prejudices and passions of the heart, which opposed the acceptance of the gospel, will never yield except to a power Divine. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> The confession is the necessary outward expression of the hearts inward trust. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. There are various modes by which a man may confess Christ. But there is one act for which no other can be a substitute–unmeaning, nay, rather, self-condemning if it stand alone–but itself the proper supplement to every other deed of holy service. To confess Christ, we must seek to be like Him, but we must also obey Him by bearing His name, and uniting with His people to show forth His death until He come. My brother, are you one of those who shrink from this special confession of Christ? (J. G. Rogers, B. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Alone praying<\/strong><\/p>\n

The bloom of the hawthorn or White May looks like snow in Richmond Park, but nearer London, or by the road side, its virgin whiteness is sadly stained. Too often contact with the world has just such an effect upon our piety; we must away to the far-off garden of paradise to see holiness in its unsullied purity, and meanwhile we must be much alone with God if we would maintain a gracious life below. (C. H. Spurgeon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Alone with God<\/strong><\/p>\n

One Sabbath night (says a Scotch clergyman), after discoursing on a very solemn subject which had stirred my own soul, I took a walk before going home. It was clear starlight, without any moon, and the heavens looked down upon me with all their sublime impressiveness. I found myself unconsciously walking in the direction of the mill. I had not gone far when I met a friend pacing slowly up and down by the side of a stream near his house. As soon as I came up, he said: Men, I couldna gang hame direct frae the chapel the nicht. After hearing your sermon, I wanted to be alane wi God; and I never feel His presence so much as when I am, too, in a nicht like this. <\/p>\n

Praying alone<\/em>:—<\/em>A minister, visiting the cottages of the poor, met a little boy who had been taught at school the duty, as well as the privilege of prayer. He said, Do you love to pray, my little fellow? Oh yes, sir! But in so small a house, with so large a family, when and where do you pray? The boy answered, I go to bed with the others; and when they are asleep, I rise. But then you, yourself, must be sleepy; how do you keep awake? asked the minister. I wash my hands and face in the pitcher where the cold water is kept; then I do not feel sleepy. <\/p>\n

What men say of Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Christ did not ask this question for information. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> He did not ask it because He desired the applause of men. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> He did not ask it because He intended to form His course according to the reply. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> But what He did ask it for was that He might ground His disciples in the deepest faith. The answer to His question suggests–<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THAT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS CONCERNING CHRIST, <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE OPINIONS HELD OF HIM WERE HIGH AND HONOURABLE. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>FOR ALL THAT THEY FELL FAR SHORT OF THE REALITY, <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE TRUE ESTIMATE OF HIM: that of Peter–The Christ of God. There is a great difference between believing Him to be the Son of God, and believing Him to be Jesus of Nazareth only. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> You can never trust Him for your spiritual safety if you believe in Him merely as a man. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> If you believe in Him only as a man, He can never satisfy the yearnings of your spirit. Who is He then? He is not only the greatest of men, but the Son of the Living God, the Saviour of the world. (Thomas Jones.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Jesus–the Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

Peters confession remains the central article of the creed of Christendom. <\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>IT IS A FACT THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH ACTUALLY LIVED. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>IT IS A FACT THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH LIVED SUBSTANTIALLY AS REPORTED IN THE FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS. I specify these three Evangelists because their testimony is sufficient for the traditional picture of Jesus, and because their testimony is admitted by those who regard the fourth Gospel as a book of later date, and of less strictly historic character. Any one who is suspicious of the substantial accuracy of our Gospels cannot better treat his haunting fear of legend and myth than by a study of the apocryphal Gospels. (R. H. Newton<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Christ of God: Tokens of the true Saviour<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>WHAT DID PETER MEAN BY THIS PHRASEOLOGY? Undoubtedly he intended to express his belief that Jesus was the true Messiah. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>HOW DID PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES DISCERN IN SO SATISFACTORY A MANNER THAT JESUS WAS NO IMPOSTOR, AS SOME PRETENDED, BUT WAS INDEED THE CHRIST OF GOD? <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It may be answered that their common sense was sufficient to discover this. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Though common sense might convince them of the excellence of the Saviours character, they had more–there was a Divine impression on their minds giving clearer sight and more satisfactory conviction (See Mat 16:17<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> To this may be added, the discernment arising from their own faith, giving them experience of His faithfulness and goodness. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> We may add, having more to judge upon than Peter had, we know this is the Christ of God by the effects of His death, the wondrous influence it has had, and still has. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>LET US, THEN, TRY OUR PERSONAL HOPES BY THIS DESIGNATION OF THE ONLY SAVIOUR ABLE TO REALIZE THEM. It is only the real Christ of God that saves with a real pardon, a real sanctification, a real crown of glory. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Is the Christ of the Socinians the Christ of God? <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Let us look at the Christ of the Antinomians. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> There is another sort of Christ spoken of by the self-righteous, who regard the Saviour only as a help, in case they cannot sufficiently help themselves. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Are not even believers apt to form notions such as injure the character of the Christ of God? (Isaac Taylor of Ongar.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Making known the obscured Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not long ago there was a researcher of art in Italy, who, reading in some book that there was a per trait of Dante painted by Giotto, was led to suspect that he had found where it had been placed. There was an apartment used as an outhouse for the storage of wood, hay, and the like. He sought and obtained permission to examine it. Clearing out the rubbish, and experimenting upon the whitewashed wall, he soon detected the signs of the long-hidden portrait. Little by little, with loving skill, he opened up the sad, thoughtful, stern face of the old Tuscan poet. Sometimes it seems to me that thus the very sanctuary of God has been filled with wood, hay, and stubble, and the Divine lineaments of Christ have been swept over and covered by human plastering, and I am seized with an invincible desire to draw forth from its hiding-place, and reveal to men the glory of God as it shines in the face of Christ Jesus! It matters little to me what school of theology rises or what falls, so only that Christ may rise and appear in all His Fathers glory, full-orbed, upon the darkness of this world! (H. W. Beecher.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Christ the true Messiah<\/strong><\/p>\n

At a solemn disputation which was held at Venice, in the last century, between a Jew and a Christian, the Christian strongly argued from Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks, that Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews had long expected, from the predictions of their prophets. The learned rabbi who presided at this disputation was so forcibly struck by the argument that he put an end to the business by saying, Let us shut up our Bibles, for if we proceed in the examination of this prophecy it will make us all become Christians. (Bishop Watson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 18<\/span>. Whom say the people<\/B><\/I>] , the common people<\/I>, i.e. the mass<\/I> of the people. See this question considered on Mt 16:13<\/span>, &c.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Matthew and Mark tell us this discourse passed at Caesarea Philippi (or at least one of the same import). Matthew also gives us an account of it with more circumstances. See Poole on “Mat 16:13<\/span>“, and following verses to Mat 16:23<\/span>. <\/P>

As he was alone praying; <\/B>that is, free from the multitude, for the next words tell us, the <\/P>

disciples were with him.<\/B> (Luk 9:22<\/span>) is not to be found in the other evangelists; and if Luke hath reported these words in the right order of time, they afford us a probable reason of what is said Luk 9:21<\/span>, why Christ would not yet be published as the Christ, or the Son of God. Because he was to suffer, and it might much have shaken peoples faith, as to that point, if they had seen the person whom they believed such suffering, and to be so despitefully used as he was; he therefore desired to be concealed as to that, until he should be declared the Son of God with power, by his resurrection from the dead. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying<\/strong>,…. To his God and Father, for himself as man, and mediator; for the success of his Gospel, and the increase of his interest; and for his disciples, that they might have a clearer revelation of him; and which they had, as appears in their after confession of him by Peter, as the mouth of them all. The place where he now retired for private devotion, was somewhere in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi; for he was now gone from the desert of Bethsaida, as appears from Mt 16:13<\/span> and when he is said to be alone, the meaning is, that he was retired from the multitude, but not from his disciples; for it follows,<\/p>\n

his disciples were with him<\/strong>, in this solitary place:<\/p>\n

and he asked them<\/strong>, being with them alone;<\/p>\n

saying, Whom say the people that I am<\/strong>? what are the sentiments of the common people, or of the people in general concerning me? The Alexandrian copy, and the Arabic version read, “men”, as in Mt 16:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

[See comments on Mt 16:13]<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Peter’s Enlightened Testimony;Self-Denial Enjoined.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>


<\/P>


<\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      18 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?   19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say,<\/I> Elias; and others say,<\/I> that one of the old prophets is risen again.   20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.   21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them<\/I> to tell no man that thing;   22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.   23 And he said to them<\/I> all, If any man<\/I> will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.   24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.   25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?   26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his<\/I> Father’s, and of the holy angels.   27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.<\/P>

      In these verses, we have Christ discoursing with his disciples about the great things that pertained to the kingdom of God;<\/I> and one circumstance of this discourse is taken notice of here which we had not in the other evangelists-that Christ was alone praying,<\/I> and his disciples with him,<\/I> when he entered into this discourse, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. Observe, 1. Though Christ had much public work to do, yet he found some time to be alone<\/I> in private, for converse with himself, with his Father, and with his disciples. 2. When Christ was alone he was praying.<\/I> It is good for us to improve our solitude for devotion, that, when we are alone,<\/I> we may not be alone,<\/I> but may have the Father with us.<\/I> 3. When Christ was alone, praying, his disciples were with him,<\/I> to join with him in his prayer; so that this was a family-prayer. Housekeepers ought to pray with their households, parents with their children, masters with their servants, teachers and tutors with their scholars and pupils. 4. Christ prayed<\/I> with them before he examined<\/I> them, that they might be directed and encouraged to answer him, by his prayers for them. Those we give instructions to we should put up prayers for and with. He discourses with them,<\/P>

      I. Concerning himself; and enquires,<\/P>

      1. What the people<\/I> said of him: Who say the people that I am?<\/I> Christ knew better than they did, but would have his disciples made sensible, by the mistakes of others concerning him, how happy they were that were led into the knowledge of him and of the truth concerning him. We should take notice of the ignorance and errors of others, that we may be the more thankful to him who has manifested himself to us, and not unto the world,<\/I> and may pity<\/I> them, and do what we can to help them and to teach them better. They tell him what conjectures concerning him they had heard in their converse with the common people. Ministers would know better how to suit their instructions, reproofs, and counsels, to the case of ordinary people, if they did but converse more frequently and familiarly with them; they would then be the better able to say what is proper to rectify their notions, correct their irregularities, and remove their prejudices. The more conversant the physician is with his patient, the better he knows what to do for him. Some said that he was John Baptist, who was beheaded but the other day; others Elias, or one of the old prophets;<\/I> any thing but what he was.<\/P>

      2. What they<\/I> said of him. “Now see what an advantage you have by your discipleship; you know better.” “So we do,” saith Peter, “thanks be to our Master for it; we know that thou art the Christ of God,<\/I> the Anointed<\/I> of God, the Messiah promised.” It is matter of unspeakable comfort to us that our Lord Jesus is God’s anointed,<\/I> for then he has unquestionable authority and ability for his undertaking; for his being anointed<\/I> signifies his being both appointed to it and qualified for it. Now one would have expected that Christ should have charged his disciples, who were so fully apprized and assured of this truth, to publish it to every one they met with; but no, he strictly charged them to tell no man that thing<\/I> as yet, because there is a time for all things. After his resurrection, which completed the proof of it, Peter made the temple ring of it, that God had made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ<\/I> (Acts ii. 36<\/span>); but as yet the evidence was not ready to be summed up, and therefore it must be concealed; while it was so, we may conclude that the belief of it was not necessary to salvation.<\/P>

      II. Concerning his own sufferings<\/I> and death,<\/I> of which he had yet said little. Now that his disciples were well established in the belief of his being the Christ, and able to bear it, he speaks of them expressly, and with great assurance, v.<\/I><\/span> 22<\/span>. It comes in as a reason why they must not yet preach that he was the Christ,<\/I> because the wonders that would attend his death and resurrection would be the most convincing proof of his being the Christ of God.<\/I> It was by his exaltation<\/I> to the right hand of the Father<\/I> that he was fully declared to be the Christ,<\/I> and by the sending of the Spirit thereupon (Acts ii. 33<\/span>); and therefore wait till that is done.<\/P>

      III. Concerning their sufferings for him. So far must they be from thinking how to prevent<\/I> his sufferings that they must rather prepare for their own.<\/P>

      1. We must accustom<\/I> ourselves to all instances of self-denial<\/I> and patience,<\/I> v.<\/span> 23<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. This is the best preparative for martyrdom. We must live a life of self-denial, mortification, and contempt of the world; we must not indulge our ease and appetite, for then it will be hard to bear toil, and weariness, and want, for Christ. We are daily<\/I> subject to affliction, and we must accommodate<\/I> ourselves to it, and acquiesce<\/I> in the will of God in it, and must learn to endure hardship. We frequently meet with crosses in the way of duty; and, though we must not pull them upon our own heads, yet, when they are laid for us, we must take them up,<\/I> carry them after Christ, and make the best of them.<\/P>

      2. We must prefer the salvation and happiness of our souls<\/I> before any secular concern<\/I> whatsoever. Reckon upon it, (1.) That he who to preserve his liberty or estate, his power or preferment, nay, or to save his life, denies Christ and his truths, wilfully wrongs his conscience, and sins against God, will be, not only not a saver,<\/I> but an unspeakable loser,<\/I> in the issue, when profit<\/I> and loss<\/I> come to be balanced: He that will save his life upon these terms will lose it,<\/I> will lose that which is of infinitely more value, his precious soul. (2.) We must firmly believe also that, if we lose our life for cleaving to Christ and our religion, we shall save<\/I> it to our unspeakable advantage; for we shall be abundantly recompensed in the resurrection of the just, when we shall have it again a new and an eternal life. (3.) That the gain of all the world, if we should forsake Christ, and fall in with the interests of the world, would be so far from countervailing the eternal loss and ruin of the soul that it would bear no manner of proportion to it, v.<\/I><\/span> 25<\/span>. If we could be supposed to gain all the wealth, honour, and pleasure, in the world, by denying Christ, yet when, by so doing,<\/I> we lose ourselves<\/I> to all eternity, and are cast away<\/I> at last, what good will our worldly gain do us? Observe, In Matthew and Mark the dreadful issue is a man’s losing his own soul,<\/I> here it is losing himself,<\/I> which plainly intimates that our souls<\/I> are ourselves. Animus cujusque is est quisque–The soul is the man;<\/I> and it is well or ill with us according as it is well or ill with our souls. If they perish for ever, under the weight of their own guilt and corruption, it is certain that we<\/I> are undone. The body cannot be happy if the soul be miserable in the other world; but the soul may be happy though the body be greatly afflicted and oppressed in this world. If a man be himself cast away,<\/I> e zemiotheis<\/B><\/I>—if he be damaged,<\/I>–or if he be punished, si mulctetur–if he have a mulct put upon his soul<\/I> by the righteous sentence of Christ, whose cause and interest he has treacherously deserted,–if it be adjudged a forfeiture of all his blessedness, and the forfeiture be taken, where is his gain? What is his hope?<\/P>

      3. We must therefore never be ashamed<\/I> of Christ and his gospel, nor of any disgrace or reproach that we may undergo for our faithful adherence to him and it, v.<\/I><\/span> 26<\/span>. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed,<\/I> and justly. When the service and honour of Christ called for his testimony and agency, he denied them, because the interest of Christ<\/I> was a despised<\/I> interest, and every where spoken against;<\/I> and therefore he can expect no other than that in the great day, when his case calls for Christ’s appearance on his behalf, Christ will be ashamed to own such a cowardly, worldly, sneaking spirit, and will say, “He is none of mine; he belongs not to me.” As Christ had a state of humiliation<\/I> and of exaltation,<\/I> so likewise has his cause. They, and they only, that are willing to suffer with it when it suffers, shall reign with it when it reigns; but those that cannot find in their hearts to share with it in its disgrace,<\/I> and to say, If this be to be vile, I will be yet more vile,<\/I> shall certainly have no share with it in its triumphs.<\/I> Observe here, How Christ, to support himself and his followers under present disgraces, speaks magnificently<\/I> of the lustre of his second coming, in prospect of which he endured the cross, despising the shame.<\/I> (1.) He shall come in his own glory.<\/I> This was not mentioned in Matthew and Mark. He shall come in the glory of the Mediator, all the glory<\/I> which the Father restored to him,<\/I> which he had with God before the worlds were, which he had deposited<\/I> and put in pledge,<\/I> as it were, for the accomplishing of his undertaking, and demanded again when he had gone through it. Now, O Father, glorify thou me,<\/I>Joh 17:4<\/span>; Joh 17:5<\/span>. He shall come in all that glory<\/I> which the Father conferred upon him<\/I> when he set him at his own right hand,<\/I> and gave him to be head over all things to the church;<\/I> in all the glory that is due to him as the assertor of the glory of God, and the author of the glory of all the saints. This is his own glory.<\/I> (2.) He shall come in his Father’s glory.<\/I> The Father will judge the world by him, having committed all judgment to him; and therefore will publicly own him in the judgment as the brightness of his glory<\/I> and the express image<\/I> of his person. (3.) He shall come in the glory of the holy angels.<\/I> They shall all attend<\/I> him, and minister<\/I> to him, and add every thing they can to the lustre of his appearance. What a figure will the blessed Jesus make in that day! Did we believe it, we should never be ashamed of him or his words now.<\/P>

      Lastly,<\/I> To encourage them in suffering for him, he assures them that the kingdom of God<\/I> would now shortly be set up,<\/I> notwithstanding the great opposition that was made to it, v.<\/I><\/span> 27<\/span>. “Though the second coming of the Son of man is at a great distance, the kingdom of God shall come in its power in the present age, while some here present are alive.” They saw the kingdom of God<\/I> when the Spirit was poured out, when the gospel was preached to all the world and nations were brought to Christ by it; they saw the kingdom of God triumph over the Gentile nations in their conversion,<\/I> and over the Jewish nation in its destruction.<\/I><\/P>

<\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

As he was praying <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Common Lukan idiom of <\/SPAN><\/span> with the articular infinitive for a temporal clause, only here Luke has the periphrastic infinitive ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) as also in 11:1<\/span>. This item about Christ’s praying alone in Luke.<\/P>

Alone <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). In the N.T. only here and Mr 4:10<\/span>. Perhaps <\/SPAN><\/span> (places) is to be supplied with <\/SPAN><\/span> (lonely places).<\/P>

Were with him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). This seems like a contradiction unless “alone” is to be taken with <\/SPAN><\/span>. Westcott and Hort put <\/SPAN><\/span> in the margin. This would mean that as Jesus was praying alone, the disciples fell in with him. At any rate he was praying apart from them. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

As he was praying. Peculiar to Luke.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

PETER’S CONFESSION OF CHRIST V. 18-21<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “And it came to pass,” <\/strong>(kai egeneto) “And it occurred,” happened, or came to be, shortly after the feeding of the multitude, near Caesarea Philippi, Mar 8:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2) “As he was alone praying,” <\/strong>(en to einai auton proseuchomenon kata monas) “While he was praying alone,” by the way, or away from the thronging crowds in the area of Caesarea Philippi, Mat 16:13<\/span>. The place was some forty miles north of the Sea of Galilee.<\/p>\n

3) “His disciples were with him:” <\/strong>(sunesan auto hoi mathetai) “The disciples were with him,” Mat 16:13<\/span>; Mar 8:27<\/span>. They continued a preaching, teaching, and healing itinerary. When alone He prayed, When with the disciples or multitude He taught, preached, or performed miracles.<\/p>\n

4) “And he asked them, saying,” <\/strong>(kai eporotesen autous legon) “And he questioning them saying,” inquiring, Mat 16:13<\/span>; Mar 8:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n

5) “Whom say the people that I am?” <\/strong>(tina me hoi ochloilegousin einsi) “Whom do the crowds say that I am?” How do they identify me? Mat 16:13<\/span>; Mar 8:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n

Luk. 9:18<\/span>. It came to pass<\/strong>.This took place on the way to Csarea Philippi: this was a town in the valley of the upper Jordan near Paneas, which had been enlarged and fortified by the tetrarch Philip. Praying<\/strong>.This circumstance is peculiar to St. Luke. The people<\/strong>.Lit. the multitudes (R.V.).<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:22<\/span>. Elders and chief priests and scribes<\/strong>.The three classes of which the Sanhedrim was composed.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:23<\/span>. To them all<\/strong>.I.e.<\/em> to the multitude as well as to His disciples. Will come<\/strong>.I.e.<\/em> desire to come. His cross<\/strong>.A prophetic allusion to the manner of His own death: in it there is an anticipation of the part the Gentiles were to play in putting Him to death as the cross was a Roman and not a Jewish instrument of punishment.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:24<\/span>. Whosoever will save<\/strong>.I.e.<\/em> desire to save, as in Luk. 9:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:25<\/span>. Be cast away<\/strong>.Rather, suffer damage, as opposed to gain: R.V. forfeit his own self.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:27<\/span>. Till they see the kingdom of God<\/strong>.As is evident from the connection in which it stands, the first fulfilment of these words was in the Transfiguration.<\/p>\n

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>Luk. 9:18-27<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The Divine Christ confessed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. The first section gives us Peters great confession in the name of the disciples<\/strong> (Luk. 9:18-20<\/span>).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. The excitement which He had checked after the first miraculous feeding had died down. Amid the seclusion of Csarea, far away from distracting influences, He puts these two momentous questions. The first question is as to the partial and conflicting opinions among the multitudes; the second hints at the fuller unveiling of the depths of His gracious personality, which the disciples had experienced, and implies, Surely you, who have been beside Me, and known Me so closely, have reached a deeper understanding. It has a tone of the same wistfulness and wonder as that other question of His, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me? For their sakes He seeks to draw out their partly unconscious faith, that had been smouldering, fed by their daily experience of His beauty and tenderness. Half-recognised convictions float in many a heart, which need but a pointed question to crystallise into master-truths, to which henceforward the whole being is subject. Great is the power of putting our shadowy beliefs into plain words. With the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Why should this great question have been preceded by the other? Probably to make the disciples feel more distinctly the chaotic contradictions of the popular judgment, and their own isolation by their possession of the clearer light. He wishes them to see the gulf opening between them and their fellows, and so to bind them more closely to Himself. It is the question the answer to which settles everything for a man. It has an intensely sharp point. We cannot take refuge from it in the general opinion. Nor does any other mans judgment about Him matter one whit to us. Christ has a strange power, after eighteen hundred years, of coming to each of us, with the same persistent interrogation on His lips. And to-day, as then, all depends on the answer we give. Many answer by exalted estimates of Him, like these varying replies, which ascribed to Him prophetic authority; but they have not drunk in the full meaning of His self-revelation unless they can reply with the full-toned confession of the apostle, which sets Him far above and apart from the highest and holiest. The confession includes both the human and the Divine sides of Christs nature. He is the Messiah; but He is more than a Jew meant by that nameHe is the Son of the living God, by which we cannot indeed suppose that Peter meant all that he afterward learned it contained, or all that the Church has now been taught of its meaning, but which, nevertheless, is not to be watered down as if it did not declare His unique filial relation to the Father, and so His Divine nature. Christian progress in doctrine does not consist in the winning of new truths, but in the penetrating further into the meaning of old and initial truths.<\/p>\n

II. The startling new revelation of the suffering Messiah<\/strong> (Luk. 9:21-22<\/span>).The gospel has two parts: Jesus is the Christ, and the Christ must suffer and enter into His glory. Our Lord has made sure that the disciples have learned the first before He leads to the second. The very conviction of His dignity and Divine nature made that second truth the more bewildering; but still the only road to it was through the first. The new teaching as to the sufferings was no new thought to Himself, forced on Him by the growing enmity of the nation. The cross always cast its shadow on His path. He was no enthusiast, beginning with the dream of winning a world to His side, and slowly and heroically making up His mind to die a martyr; but His purpose in being born was to minister to and to die a ransom for the many. Note the detailed accuracy of the prevision which points to the rulers of the nation as the instruments, and to death as the climax, and to resurrection as the issue, of His sufferings; and the clear setting forth of the Divine necessity which, as it ruled all His life, ruled here also, and is expressed in that solemn must. The necessity was no external compulsion, driving Him to an unwelcome sacrifice, but one imposed alike by filial obedience and by brotherly love. He must die because He would save.<\/p>\n

III. The law which ruled the Masters life is extended to the servants<\/strong> (Luk. 9:23-27<\/span>).They recoiled from the thought of His having to suffer. They had to learn that they too must suffer, if they would be His. If any man will gives them the option of withdrawal. A new epoch is beginning, and they will have to enlist again, and do it with open eyes. He will have no unwilling soldiers, nor any who have been beguiled into the ranks. No doubt some went away, and walked no more with Him. The terms of service are clear. Discipleship means imitation, and imitation means self-crucifixion. A martyred Master must needs have for followers men ready to be martyrs too. But the requirement goes much deeper than this. There is no discipleship without self-denial, both in the easier form of starving passions and desires, and in the harder of yielding up the will, and letting His will supplant ours. Only so can we ever come after Him, and of such sacrifice of self the cross is the eminent example. When Jesus began to teach His death, He immediately presented it as His servants example. The ground of the law is stated in Luk. 9:24<\/span>. The wish to save life is the loss of life in the highest sense. If that desire guide us, then farewell to enthusiasm, courage, the martyr spirit, and all which makes mans life nobler than a beasts. He who is ruled mainly by the wish to keep a whole skin loses the best part of what he is so anxious to keep. Regard for self as a ruling motive is destruction, and selfishness is suicide. On the other hand, lives hazarded for Christ are thereby truly saved; and if they be not only hazarded, but actually lost, such loss is gain; and the same law by which the Master must die and rise again will work in the servant. Luk. 9:25<\/span> urges the wisdom of such apparent folly, and enforces the requirement by the plain consideration that life is worth more than anything beside. Therefore the dictate of the wisest prudence is that seemingly prodigal flinging away of the lower life, which puts us in possession of the higher. Note that the appeal is here made to a reasonable regard to personal advantage, and that in the very act of urging to crucify self. So little did Christ think, as some people do, that the desire to save ones soul is selfishness. Luk. 9:26<\/span> confirms all the preceding by the solemn allusion to the coming of the Son of man as Judge. They surely shall then find their lives who have followed Him here. Luk. 9:27<\/span> adds a confirmation of this announcement of His coming to judge. The question of what event is referred to may best be answered by noting that it must be one sufficiently far off from the moment of speaking to allow of the death of the greater number of His hearers; that it must also be an event, after which these survivors would go the common road into the grave; that it is apparently distinguished from His coming in the glory of the Father, and yet is of such a nature as to afford convincing proof of the establishment of His kingdom on earth, and to be, in some sort, a sign of that final act of judgment. All these requirements meet only in the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the national life of the chosen people. That was a crash of which we only faintly realise the tremendous significance. It swept away the last remnant of the hope that Israel was to be the kingdom of the Messiah; and from out of the dust and chaos of that fall the Christian Church emerged, manifestly destined for worldwide extension.Maclaren<\/em>.<\/p>\n

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON <\/em>Luk. 9:18-27<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Luk. 9:18<\/span>. Opinions about Jesus Christ<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. There are those who consider Him to have been the best of men that ever lived, but do not consider Him to have been perfectly sinless<\/strong>.Three objections are fatal to this opinion: <\/p>\n

1. It is contrary to the Saviours own claims.
2. It is founded on a prejudice against the miraculous.
3. It deprives Him of all place in connection with salvation.<\/p>\n

II. That He was a perfect man, but not the God-man<\/strong>.Two objections to this opinion: <\/p>\n

1. It is opposed to the clear testimonies of Scripture.
2. The Christian Church has ever refused to rest in such a view.<\/p>\n

III. That He was a Divine Saviour, but not a Saviour by atoning sacrifice<\/strong>.But we have in Christs own teaching the doctrine of the Atonement. <\/p>\n

1. We have a doctrine of penalty following sin.
2. It is taught by what Christ says of His own substitution.
3. It follows from our Lords connecting His death with the forgiveness of sins.
4. The fact that Christ connects His death with a covenant, and with a new covenant, brings it in His own teaching into line with the Old Testament sacrifices.Cairns<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:18-20<\/span>. The Masters Prayer and the Disciples Confession<\/em>.The time has come for an onward step. These twelve men must be made to gather into one, and to speak out the net result of these months of silent accompanying. They must be brought to book (so to say) as to their dim, floating ideas. The time is come for confession of Christ. How shall it be done? The Divine Master takes them apart by themselves, on a journey the farthest that He ever made northward in Palestine. He had brought them thither for a sacred purpose. They were to pass from an unrealised to a realised convictionfrom the spiritual stage of believing unto righteousness to the further spiritual stage of confessing unto salvation. Can you wonder that St. Luke, the historian of Christs prayers, tells us that this step, this leap, this bound, was prefaced by one of the prayers of Christ? While witnessing His absorbed, engrossed, unconscious solitude, He put to them this question, Whom say the people that I am?<\/p>\n

I. Surely there is Divine skill, and tenderness as well, in this way of putting the question<\/strong>.He asks first, What do other people say? before He goes on to propose the vital question, But what do ye, My disciples, My near ones, My own, say and think of Me? Even when the time has come for fixing their floating thoughts, for getting an answer, positive and peremptory, as to the state of their own beliefeven then He will approach the subject distantly, lest haply, even then, a too sudden and abrupt interrogation might startle, perplex, or deter them.<\/p>\n

II. Well, they say, opinions are divided<\/strong>.John the Baptist, risen again from the death in Machrusthat is one idea. Elias, come again to fulfil the last prophecy of the Old Testamentthat is another. A prophetone of the prophetswithout pledging themselves to a name or an identificationthat is a third. In the midst of all these ignorant or superstitious imaginings, what say ye?<\/p>\n

III. The time has come for an answer from the disciples<\/strong>.The brave, sometimes too brave, Peter, as usual, is the spokesman. The Christ of God. Was it not for this answer, this revelation, this unveiling, that the effectual fervent prayer had ascended? When we think what lay in that good confessionwhat for future generationswhat for a world about to be bought with bloodwhat for a Church to be founded, as upon a rock, on that brief utterance, so vital, so boundless in the thing signified,can we imagine an occasion more suitable for the exercise, by anticipation, even of the mediatorial office, than that which required, and waited for, an unveiling, not by flesh and blood, but by a Father in heaven, to men standing here in all the backwardness, and in all the boundedness, of a fallen humanity, of a mystery kept secret hitherto from eternal times?Vaughan<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:21<\/span>. To tell no man<\/em>.For these, perhaps, among other reasons: <\/p>\n

1. Because His work was not yet finished.
2. Because as yet their faith was very weak and their knowledge partial.
3. Because they had not yet received the Holy Spirit to give power to their testimony.
4. Because the public proclamation of the truth would have precipitated the workings of Gods foreordained plan.Farrar<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:22<\/span>. Must suffer<\/em>.The gospel may be stated in two propositions. <\/p>\n

1. Jesus is the Christ.
2. The Christ must suffer, die, and rise again; or Christ by death will enter into His glory.<\/p>\n

A revelation of the Passion<\/em>.Christ reveals<\/p>\n

I. Who are to inflict the sufferings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

II. The form these sufferings are to take<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

III. The necessity for His enduring them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

IV. Their issue in His resurrection<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:23-26<\/span>. Three Great Lessons<\/em>:<\/p>\n

I. Not only Christ, but also His followers, must suffer and deny themselves<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

II. That all have a life to save, more precious than all else to them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

III. That the great day of account should be ever before them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:23<\/span>. The Christians Journey<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. Those things of which he takes leave.
2. The burden he carries.
3. The road he traverses.<\/p>\n

Will come<\/em>.It is a matter of choice to follow Christ; but if the resolution be formed to do so, there is no choice but to deny oneself and take up the cross.<\/p>\n

Deny himself<\/em>.As Peter said when he denied Christ, I know not the man, so say thou of thyself, and act accordingly.Bengel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deny himself<\/em> take up his cross<\/em>.The one is an active, the other a passive, state. Self-denial is a mans own act, and requires the strenuous exercise of the will. Taking up the cross implies patient submission to the will of another.<\/p>\n

His cross<\/em>.If not <\/p>\n

(1) contempt or suffering endured for the sake of Christ, then
(2) some form of affliction connected with this earthly life, or
(3) temptations from without, or
(4) inward conflict with sin.<\/p>\n

Requisites for Discipleship<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. The first requisite in a disciple is self-denial<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

II. The second requisite is cross-bearing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

III. The third requisite is spiritual service<\/strong>, true and constant obedience.Anderson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

No cross, no crown<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. The cross is to be taken up, not simply borne, when laid on the shoulder<\/strong>.This implies willing, cheerful suffering for Christ. Some people endure trials, but always with repining. The spirit of these words requires cheerfulness in suffering for Christ. Half the trial is gone if we meet it in this glad spirit.<\/p>\n

II. It is ones own cross, and not anothers, that is to be taken up<\/strong>.The particular cross that God lays at our own feet. We are not to make crosses for ourselves, but we are always to accept those that are allotted to us. Each ones cross is the best for him<\/em>. If we knew what other peoples crosses were, we might not envy them, or wish to exchange our cross for theirs. What seems a flower-woven cross may be full of sharp thorns. The easiest cross for each one to bear is ones own.<\/p>\n

III. There is a way to remove the crosses out of our life<\/strong>.Always gladly accept through love to God whatever trial, pain, or loss God sends. If my will acquiesces in His, there is no cross.Miller<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Self-sacrifice<\/em>.Self-sacrifice represents more exactly than self-denial the idea intended to be conveyed by the Lords precept here. Not that let him deny himself<\/em>? is other than a literal translation of the original phrase, but that in popular parlance self-denial has come to mean something much more superficial, much less thoroughgoing, than what is obviously denoted by Christ in this passage. Self-denial, in the sense in which it is an essential condition of coming after<\/em> the Saviour, is the doing by self what St. Peter did by Christrepudiating all connection with self, utterly disavowing it as our master.Goulburn<\/em>.<\/p>\n

What is Self-denial?<\/em>The word is often and much mistaken in common use, as if it meant much the same as self-controlthe control of lower elements of our being by higher; but this is not self-denial as Christ uses the word. To deny self means to treat it as non-existent. It means to ignore, to turn the back upon, to shut the eyes to selfsomething far different from mere self-control.Moule<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Self-denial<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. There are few things in which people play more wretched farces than in their efforts at self-denial<\/strong>.Very few seem to have the remotest conception of what it means. The giving up of meat on Fridays, abstinence from social dissipation in Lent, and many other useless and uncalled-for sacrificesthese things do not constitute self-denial. There is no merit in giving up anything for its own sake.<\/p>\n

II. True self-denial is the yielding of the whole life to the will of Christ<\/strong>.It is self coming down from the lifes throne, laying crown and sceptre at the Masters feet, and thenceforth submitting the whole life to His sway. It is living all the while not to please ourselves, but to please our Lordnot 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 to Christ as the motive of life.<\/p>\n

III. Nothing is true self-denial which is done merely as self-denial<\/strong>.True self-denial, like all other forms of Christlikeness, is unconscious of self, wists not that its face shines. We deny ourselves when we follow Christ with joy and gladness, through cost and danger and suffering, just where He leads.Miller<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:24-26<\/span>. Three Reasons for Cross-bearing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. We must sacrifice something<\/strong>either the lower or the higher life, animal happiness or spiritual blessedness (Luk. 9:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II. The incomparable value of the soul<\/strong>.He who gains the world at the cost of his soul is a loser by the bargain (Luk. 9:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III. At the second advent cross-bearers will receive a crown of righteousness<\/strong>.To cross-spurners will be assigned shame and everlasting contempt.Bruce<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:25<\/span>. Profit and Loss<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. The gain<\/strong> here spoken of is nominal, imaginary.<\/p>\n

II. The loss<\/strong> is real, and it is the greatest conceivable. <\/p>\n

1. The soul is lost by not being exercised.
2. The soul is lost when it is perverted and corrupted.Service<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:26<\/span>. His own glory<\/em>, etc.<\/em>The glory is threefold: <\/p>\n

1. His own, which He has to and for Himself as the exalted Messiah.
2. The glory of God, which accompanies Him as coming down from Gods throne.
3. The glory of the angels who surround Him with their brightness.Meyer<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Ashamed of Christ<\/em>.This is what men are guilty of when Christians are in a minority, or when earnest Christianity is powerfully opposed. There is no temptation to be ashamed of Christ when all the world around you is, at any rate, professedly devoted to Him. But the temptation was a very formidable one when the Church was young, and when Christians carried their lives in their hands. Wonderful, however, it is how, in these first ages of the faith, men and women, boys and girls, in all conditions of life, joyfully accepted a painful death rather than be disloyal to their Lord and Saviour. But the wheel of time brings strange revolutions, and we no longer live in times when it could be said with entire truth that no one is ashamed of Jesus Christ. Many in all Christian countries professedly reject His name. And that this is so surely imposes on all true<\/em> Christians the duty of explicitly confessing Christ before men.Liddon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Butlers Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n

SECTION 3<\/strong><\/p>\n

Testing The Twelve (<\/strong>Luk. 9:18-27<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him; and he asked them, Who do the people say that I am? 19And they answered, John the Baptist; but others say, Elijah; and others, that one of the old prophets has risen. 20And he said to them, But who do you say that I am? And Peter answered, The Christ of God. 21But he charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.<\/p>\n

23 And he said to all, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it. 25For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? 26For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:18-21<\/span><\/strong> Crystallization of Confession: <\/strong>Although Jesus wished to withdraw from the multitudes that His disciples might rest and He might concentrate on their personal training, He conducted an extensive ministry between the feeding of the thousands and the confrontation of the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi. The following events, not recorded by Luke, transpired between Luk. 9:17<\/span> and Luk. 9:18<\/span> :<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Walking on the Water, Mat. 14:1-36<\/span>; Mar. 6:1-56<\/span>; Joh. 6:1-71<\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

Miracles at Gennesaret, Mat. 14:1-36<\/span>; Mar. 6:1-56<\/span><\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

Sermon on Bread of Life at Capernaum, Joh. 6:1-71<\/span><\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

Controversy with Pharisees about traditions, <\/span>Mat. 15:1-39<\/span>; Mar. 7:1-37<\/span><\/p>\n

5.<\/p>\n

Healing Syro-Phoenician womans daughter, <\/span>Mat. 15:1-39<\/span>; Mar. 7:1-37<\/span><\/p>\n

6.<\/p>\n

Healing deaf stammerer, Feeding 4000, Decapolis, Mat. 15:1-39<\/span>; Mar. 7:1-37<\/span><\/p>\n

7.<\/p>\n

Pharisees & Sadducees demand sign at Magadan, <\/span>Mat. 16:1-28<\/span>; Mar. 8:1-38<\/span><\/p>\n

8.<\/p>\n

Warns disciples against leaven of Pharisees on Sea of Galilee, Mat. 16:1-28<\/span>; Mar. 8:1-38<\/span><\/p>\n

9.<\/p>\n

Healing of blind man at Bethsaida, Mar. 8:1-38<\/span><\/p>\n

It may have appeared to the Twelve as if Jesus were retreating. He had refused the crown from the five thousand; He had not yet shown the characteristics expected by the populace in their Messiah; at Magadan it appears as if the Pharisees and Sadducees have him in retreat. The religious leaders have demanded a sign from heaven (a sign of military or political power) but Jesus refused to give such a sign since sufficient evidence for His claims had already been given. Jesus walks away from this confrontation, gets into a boat and heads across the Sea of Galilee toward the northeast. What are the disciples to think? Popular opinion circulating the countryside is confused, trying to find some great prophet with which to compare Him (Jeremiah or Elijah). Jesus seems to have given up the struggle with His opponents.
The Lord knew that this was a critical point in His whole earthly mission. So He proceeds to take the disciples apart from the confused, clamoring multitudes to a place of privacy for questioning and teaching. Jesus knows He must crystallize their convictions concerning His identity and His mission in anticipation of the very dark hours ahead. The only solution to the hopelessness and despair of mankind in rebellion against God is to convince, confirm and commit these twelve disciples to the knowledge of His deity and then to commission them to introduce Him as Savior and Lord to the world.
The city of Caesarea Philippi was typical of the predicament of man in sin (then and now). In earlier times it was called Panium because it was a center of worship for the Greek god, Pan (god of all nature). It was destroyed but rebuilt by the Romans and named after the Roman emperor, Caesar, and eventually became a center of worship to Caesar Augustus. In 31 B.C. the Battle of Actium brought an end to 100 years of civil war in the Roman empire. Men were sick of war and thought they had brought an end to human misery. But 25 years later in the days of Jesus, men were as disillusioned as ever. Injustice, immorality and inveterate hatred between cultures and races was as deeply ingrained in mens hearts as it had ever been. Mankind desperately needed the Anointed One of God, The Christ. Whether mankind came to know its only Savior or not depended upon whether Jesus could crystallize the firm, but immature, convictions the Twelve had about Him.<\/p>\n

Jesus called the Twelve to confess (Gr. homologeo, say the same as) Him. He called them to commit themselves to a Person, Himself, and not a cause. It is important to contemplate the questions Jesus did not ask the disciples here. He did not ask them what they thought of the political situation, the religious status quo or the economic circumstances. He did not say to Peter, Who are you, Peter? He did not indicate, as much modern psychology does today, that mans fundamental problem is a self-identity crisisthat man needs above all else to find out who he is. Contrary to the worlds way of thinking, Jesus knew mans problem was his confusion about Gods identity. So Jesus demanded these men (upon whom the program of the worlds redemption would soon fall) solidify their convictions about His identity.<\/p>\n

What we possess we profess, and what we profess we propagate. If the conviction of the disciples about Jesus identity was really deeply possessed they would profess it. It is also axiomatic that the more a person professes someone or something, the more he possesses it. It is in repeated confession or profession that decision is confirmed and the will is set. Jesus, in asking the disciples who they had decided He was, was aiming for a decision. Jesus Christ always cuts through the jungle of muddled human confusion and speculation and aims at mans logic. Our minds must be made up about His identity. Only he who is convinced will commit himself. C.S. Lewis says, Every time you make a choice, you are turning the central part of you that chooses into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature. The N.T. has a great deal to say about confession (cf. Rom. 10:9-10<\/span>; 1Jn. 2:23<\/span>; 1Jn. 4:15<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:22<\/span><\/strong> Call to Conform: <\/strong>It was the will of God that the Christ should suffer and die and be raised from the dead on the third day. The suffering of the Messiah was predicted in many places in the Old Testament (i.e., Isa. 53:1-12<\/span>; Psa. 22:1-31<\/span>, etc.). Few of the Jews ever recognized this. Most of Jesus disciples would not consider it a possibility (cf. Luk. 24:13-27<\/span>). Therefore, at this most opportune time and place, Jesus focuses all His power of persuasion on the Twelve in an attempt to convert their Jewish preconceptions about the Messiah to the revealed will of God. After Peters emotionally charged confession of Jesus identity, and Jesus characterization of His church (Mat. 16:17-19<\/span>), the Lord abruptly made the shocking prediction about His death. It wasnt that the disciples were naive and didnt know all the hostility Jesus had aroused in the religious leaders of the day. They expected some crisis sooner or later, but they believed (probably from Jewish tradition) that the Messiah would fight and conquer His enemies and they were prepared to fight to the death for Him (Mat. 26:35<\/span>; Mar. 14:31<\/span>). But they were not willing to accept a Messiah who would become a lamb led to the slaughterthey refused to think in these terms. Matthew and Mark record that Peter rebuked Jesus for His prediction of a passive death (Mat. 16:22<\/span>; Mar. 8:32<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Immediately, the Lord rebuked Peter (Mat. 16:23<\/span>; Mar. 8:33<\/span>). Peter had, in fact, become the adversary (Satan) of Christ! Peter stood opposed to the will of God. He was a stumbling-block (Gr. skandalon, scandal) in the path of Christ because He was minding the things of worldly-minded man rather than minding the things of God. Jesus intended that His followers conform their minds to the revealed mind of God in everything. Gods revealed mind about the Messiah was that He should die a vicarious death to atone for the sins of all the world.<\/p>\n

Most men applaud someone who dies for a cause. The world admires martyrdom (as long as I am not the martyr). Millions have sacrificed their lives for political ideologies and they are national heroes. But Jesus death was different than all of this. He died for mans justification before God! Man has absolutely no moral merit by which he can stand before God except trusting in the atoning death of Christ in his place. A man may sacrifice his life to preserve my physical life and I may admire him and be thankful. But to believe there is nothing good in me that would cause God to accept me without Jesus death means death to my human pride. That is what makes the doctrine of the cross foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling-block to the Jews, (cf. 1Co. 1:23<\/span>). Think of it this way: If you should die right now and appear before God and He should ask, Why should I let you into My heaven? what would be your answer? The only answer acceptable to God would be, Because I covenanted with Christ to accept His death for my sins and He promised to give me His life. The self-righteous egotism of the human heart adamantly resists vicarious justification. Some few men claim they do not want to go to heaven after deaththey want nothing to do with God, truth, holiness, or everlasting goodness. Most other men who do propose to go to heaven after they die aim to do so because they have done enough good deeds to balance out their bad deeds and thus feel they deserve to go there. Let us illustrate: A prominent theologian once wrote, We hear much of the substitutionary theory of the atonement. This theory to me is immoral. If Jesus paid it all, or if He is the substitute for me, or if He is the sacrifice for all sin of the world, then why discuss forgiveness? The books are closed. Another has paid the debt, borne the penalty. I owe nothing. I am absolved. I cannot see forgiveness as predicated upon the act of someone else. It is my sin. I must atone. Thus reasons self-righteous man. This is the way the world thinks, but it is not the way God thinks! God has revealed His will concerning mans justification. Man, therefore, has only two options: (1) reject the revealed mind of God in scripture and, assuming he is more powerful than God, try to justify himself apart from Christs vicarious atonement; or, (2) believe the revealed mind of God, Christs death in his place, and accept it by entering into covenant relationship on Christs revealed terms. Man must mind the things of God-man must conform to the will of God, executed in the death and resurrection of Christ, communicated in the N.T. scriptures.<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:23-27<\/span><\/strong> Challenge to Commitment: <\/strong>The acceptance by faith of Jesus death in mans place is precisely what these verses are teaching. To deny himself means to literally do what Peter did later to Christ! The Greek word aparnesastho means, to disown, to contradict, to deny utterly any connection. It does not mean to abstain from certain pleasures and indulgences; it means to deny, disown self. It means to admit Self is dead. It means to acknowledge that I have no claims or rights for Self anymore because I am bought with a price (1Co. 6:19-20<\/span>) and I am not my own! I am dead in Christ! One died for all, therefore all have died, (2Co. 5:14<\/span>). He died our death, we live His life! Paul said it very succinctly in Galatians, I have been crucified with Christ (when Christ died); it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. . . . (Gal. 2:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The struggle to believe and accept and practice this occurs daily. Every day we must take up the cross and accept the death of Self. Dying to Self may only be done by faithnot by feeling or by good works, because the death of Self occurred at a point in ancient historyat the crucifixion of Christ. The death of Self is, of course, accepted and applied to each person at the point in time when that person enters the New Covenant by confession and immersion in water according to the covenant terms. Good works are the fruit of death to Self by faith, but they are not the cause of that deathJesus is the cause!<\/p>\n

One of the great paradoxes of the Christian faith is that men must die to live. Jesus states it, For whoever would save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. What does Jesus mean? He gives us a clue in the following phrase, For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? The Greek word heauton is more emphatic (himself) than the word psuchen (soul) which is in the parallel passages (Mat. 16:26<\/span>; Mar. 8:35<\/span>). Life is identity; life is being, personality, character. Life is purpose. If there is no purpose there is really no life. God made man for a purpose. That purpose was to be conformed to the image of His Son (cf. Rom. 8:29<\/span>). God made us to be truthful, faithful, pure, good, loving and thankful. In this we find our true identity. When we accept the death of Self in the death of Christ and let Him live His life in us, we become children of God, joint heirs with Christ. God adopts us as His children and gives us His name. That is the only identity which will last forever. If Christ is ashamed of us (Luk. 9:26<\/span>) and does not confess us before the Father, we have no identity. Those who search for life apart from union with Christ will hear Christ say, Depart from me, you who work iniquity, I never knew you. To be separated from Christ is deatheternal death. Apparently in the place of eternal death (Hell) there will be consciousness but no life. If there is no life there is no purpose, no identity. The man with no godly purpose or character in this life will have none in Hell. Hell will be an eternal purposelessness, eternal falseness, eternal insecurity, anguish, disorientation and non-identity.<\/p>\n

What has a man gained if he forfeits his birthright to be identified as a child of God and has all the power, fame and riches the world offers? He loses himself! So now we see why Jesus considered it so crucial that His disciples confess His identity. The only way men find out who they really are is to confess and commit themselves to the true identity of Jesus as ChristLord!<\/p>\n

Having mentioned that He would come for final judgment in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels (Luk. 9:26<\/span>), Jesus did not want His disciples to confuse the Second Coming with other events which will manifest the power of His kingdom (such as the destruction of Jerusalem). Therefore Jesus states (Luk. 9:27<\/span>) that some of the disciples standing there with Him would not die before they saw the kingdom of God come (with power Mar. 9:1<\/span>). The popular Jewish concept was that when the Messiah came in his glory . . . with the holy angels it would be the end of the world. What event was Jesus talking about in Luk. 9:27<\/span> (Mat. 16:28<\/span> and Mar. 9:1<\/span> also)? Apocalyptic language in both the O.T. and N.T. often describes any great intervention of God in history as the coming of God in judgment or redemption. There was only one of the Twelve dead before the establishment of the Church on PentecostJudas. The language of Jesus seems to imply that more than one would taste of death prior to the event described here. We think He was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. Later, He speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in the same apocalyptic style (cf. Luk. 21:25-28<\/span>; Mat. 24:29-31<\/span>; Mar. 13:24-26<\/span>, see also Mat. 26:64<\/span>). Many of the apostles died before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. John, and perhaps a few others, lived beyond that event. The destruction of Jerusalem also destroyed the Jewish State and its religious power. Christianity was rescued from apparent obliteration. No longer would it be considered an illegal Jewish sect. It went forth to establish firm beachheads in the world of paganism and cause the Roman empire to tremble at its power. In this sense those who lived beyond the destruction of Jerusalem truly saw the kingdom of God come with power.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Appleburys Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Necessity of the Cross
Scripture<\/p>\n

Luk. 9:18-27<\/span> And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am? 19 And they answering said, John the Baptist; but others say, Elijah; and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 And he said unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 But he charged them, and commanded them to tell this to no man; 22 saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. 23 And he said unto all, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. 25 For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose or forfeit his own self? 26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

Comments<\/p>\n

And it came to pass.Luke was aware of many things that he did not include in his narrative. See Mar. 6:45<\/span> to Mar. 9:1<\/span>. His purpose was to present Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of Man, and it did not take all that He did to establish the claim. But all that he did write concerned Jesus work and teaching (Act. 1:1-2<\/span>). John suggests that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written if the complete record were made (Joh. 21:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n

as he was praying.Jesus constantly communicated with the Father about all that He did. Just before Peter expressed the conviction of the apostles that He was the Christ, Jesus was praying. Matthew reminds us that this incident occurred in the region of Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n

Who do men say that I am?This question was designed to lead the disciples to think clearly about Jesus and to prepare them to see that He must go to the cross, The cross was not only necessary for Him, it was also necessary in the life of each of His followers.<\/p>\n

And they answered, John the Baptist.Herod and others were saying this (Mat. 14:1-2<\/span>). Others were saying that he was Elijah, basing their claim on the prophecy of Mal. 4:5<\/span> which said, Behold, I will send you Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. Others were explaining Jesus powers by saying that He was one of the old prophets who had risen. After the feeding of the five thousand, the people came to take Him by force and make Him king, for they said, This is of a truth, the prophet that cometh into the world (Joh. 6:14-15<\/span>). Later, Peter positively identified Him as the prophet about whom Moses had written (Act. 3:20-24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

But who say ye that I am?Peter said, The Christ of God. Christ means anointed and refers to His office of prophet, priest and king. According to Peters confession as given in Mat. 16:16<\/span>, he added the words, the Son of the living God, This explains His person, for He is Son of God as well as Son of Man. He was often called Son of David referring to Him as Messiah, that is, Christ.<\/p>\n

According to Matthew, Jesus said to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it (Mat. 16:18<\/span>). The rock upon which the church was to be built is the truth expressed in Peters confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Perhaps the best proof of this is Peters own statement in which he quotes Isaiahs prophecy and shows that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the spiritual temple, the church. See 1Pe. 2:3-8<\/span>, See also Pauls statement in 1Co. 3:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The gates of Hades refer to the power of death. In this context, Jesus was speaking about His own death which was to take place in Jerusalem (Mat. 16:21<\/span>; Luk. 9:21-22<\/span>). Peter explained this when he quoted the sixteenth Psalm, on the Day of Pentecost (Act. 2:24-31<\/span>). The antecedent of it (Mat. 16:18<\/span>) is not church but rock. The truth that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God is the rock that could not be destroyed by the powers of Hades. He was to be put to death, but He was to be raised from the dead to prove that He was Prophet, Priest, and King. If He had not been raised, He could not have been any one of these. The victory of the church over death depends on Christ (1Co. 15:22-26<\/span>), but this is not in the context of Matthew sixteen.<\/p>\n

tell this to no man.A similar order is given after the transfiguration with the added word, until the Son of man be risen from the dead (Mat. 17:9<\/span>). The apostles were to wait until they had positive evidence that could be shared with others before telling of their conviction that Jesus is the Christ. The resurrection established it beyond doubt. See Act. 4:2<\/span>; Act. 4:10-11<\/span>; Act. 4:19-20<\/span>; Rom. 10:9-10<\/span>. take up his cross daily.The cross was necessary for Jesus in His office of Prophet, Priest, and King. The cross was necessary in the daily life of His followers as they went out to preach the Word of the Cross.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the cross for the follower of Christ depends on the meaning of the cross to Him. His cross is a symbol of death to sin. Then the cross to His disciples must be more than some burden to be patiently borne. Paul says, our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away (Rom. 6:6<\/span>). Those who belong to Jesus Christ have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof (Gal. 5:24<\/span>). See also Col. 2:20<\/span> to Col. 3:17<\/span>; Gal. 2:20<\/span>; Gal. 6:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The cross, death to sin, must be taken up daily by those who follow Him. Peter said that Christ left us an example that we should follow in his steps who did no sin (1Pe. 2:21-22<\/span>). Should we stumble, as Peter did, there is the gracious provision of the loving Father for the cleansing of the erring Christian (1Jn. 2:1-2<\/span>). But habitual sinning cannot be practiced by the Christian (Rom. 6:1-4<\/span>). The standard of Christ is high, but not impossible. His commandments are not grievious (1Jn. 5:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Self-denial is not merely denying oneself of some material thing. It means to disown self, to act in a completely selfless manner. Paul is a good example: All that he had once counted dear, he set aside for the privilege of gaining Christ (Php. 3:7-11<\/span>). Jesus illustrated this in the parable of the Pearl of Great Price. The man who sought goodly pearls had to sell all in order to gain the one pearl of great price. Nothing short of complete dedication to Christ will satisfy the demand of self-denial.<\/p>\n

save his life shall lose it.This is Jesus own explanation of what He had just said about self-denial, Lose it for Christ, if you would save your life! There is no diluting this to mean partly save, or partly lose; it means complete dedication.<\/p>\n

For what is a man profited?Jesus explained what He meant by losing or saving life. What profit is it if you gain the whole world but lose your life? Reason tells us He is right! The Bible gives us true perspective so that our sense of values may not be limited by what we see at the moment. See Psa. 37:1-40<\/span>; Psa. 73:16-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

ashamed of me and of my words.The one who is ashamed of the Christ of the cross or of the Word of the cross will not be recognized by Christ when He comes to judge the world. See also Mat. 7:22-23<\/span>. Mere profession of obedience is not enough; Jesus demands sincerity in relation to Him. James warns, Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves (Jas. 1:22<\/span>). when he cometh in his own glory.that is, at the last judgment. See Mat. 25:31-46<\/span>; Heb. 9:27<\/span>; Rev. 20:11-15<\/span>.<\/p>\n

till they see the kingdom of God.This is in contrast to what He had just said about the final judgment. All will be present on that day. But some of those who heard Him speak were to be present on another occasion, that is, when they would see the kingdom of God. The kingdom, the earthly phase of it, came on the Day of Pentecost when Jesus was proclaimed both Lord and Christ, reigning at the right hand of the throne of God (Act. 2:33-36<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Some have assumed that Jesus and the apostles expected His second coming within the lifetime of some of those who heard Him speak. But the language of this context shows the contrast He made between His coming at the Judgment and His coming in the kingdom on the Day of Pentecost. Paul wrote II Thessalonians to correct the mistaken view that the coming of Christ was to be expected in his day (2Th. 2:1-3<\/span>). His kingdom did come on Pentecost; He will come at the end of the age. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(18) And it came to pass . . .<\/strong>St. Luke, it will be noted, omits the narrative of our Lords walking on the water, of the feeding of the Four Thousand, of the Syro-Phnician woman, and of the teaching as to the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. We cannot get beyond a conjectural explanation of these phenomena, but it is possible that, as a matter of fact, he simply did not learn these facts in the course of his inquiries, and therefore did not insert them. As far as it goes, the fact suggests the inference that he had not seen the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark in the form in which we now have them. On the narrative that follows (Luk. 9:18-27<\/span>), see Notes on Mat. 16:13-28<\/span>; Mar. 8:27<\/span>; Mar. 9:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

As he was alone praying.<\/strong>There is, as before (see Introduction,<\/em> and Notes on Luk. 3:21<\/span>; Luk. 5:16<\/span>; Luk. 6:12<\/span>), something characteristic in the stress which St. Luke lays on the fact. It is as though he saw in what follows the result of the previous prayer.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

73.<\/em> ENDOWMENT OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE, Luk 9:18-21<\/em><\/span><\/em> . <\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

See notes on Mat 16:13-20<\/span>; Mar 8:27-30<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘And it came about, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” And they answering said, “John the Baptiser. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again.”<\/p>\n

After a time spent in prayer with His disciples, although apart from His disciples (it is significant for His uniqueness that we never read of Him praying together with them), Jesus turned to His disciples who were with Him and asked them what the crowds were saying about Him. This may indicate that He was calling on their knowledge gained on their recent mission, but it may equally simply be a thought provoker leading in to His next question, a question which will hint that He expects better from them than He will receive from the crowds.<\/p>\n

Their reply to His first question is in accordance with Luk 9:7-9<\/span>. It is significant in that it is clear that He had managed to prevent the idea getting around that He was the Messiah. That was the last thing that He wanted volatile Jewish crowds to think, for they had completely the wrong idea about the Messiah, and could quickly have been aroused to fanaticism. John in fact tells us that special ideas had arisen after the feeding of the five thousand when the crowds had begun to think that He was ‘the Prophet who is to come into the world’ and had then thought in terms of making Him a king (Joh 6:14-15<\/span>). That had been difficult enough. But He had been able to dampen such ideas down. How much worse it would have been if they had actually thought that He was the Messiah. But His behaviour and His preaching had clearly dampened down that idea (hence the puzzlement of John the Baptiser)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Peter As The Representative of the Apostles Declares Jesus to Be the Messiah (9:18-22).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Gospel of Luke began with a clear revelations of Jesus as Son of the Most High and as Messiah (Luk 1:32<\/span>; Luk 1:35<\/span>; Luk 2:11<\/span>; Luk 2:30<\/span>). A similar idea had been conveyed in the Temptation story where ‘Son of God’ is prominent and in Jesus’ quotation at Nazareth (Luk 4:18-19<\/span>). It has also been declared in veiled fashion in His descriptions of Himself as Son of Man, and Bridegroom, and in many of His actions and references. But now He recognises that it is time to see how far His Apostles have understood. It is one thing for us to look back and see how clearly Jesus had made it known, quite another for that small group of the ‘humble poor’ to recognise that they were deeply involved in the work of the Messiah come from God. And this was what Jesus was now about to put to the test. Where they aware of Who He really was? Depending on their answer, of which He was probably already cognisant, His aim being to face them with it, from this point on all would change.<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> As He was praying apart, the disciples were with Him, and He asked them, saying, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” And they answering said, “John the Baptiser. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again.”<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> And Peter answering said, “The Christ of God”.<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> But He charged them, and commanded them to tell this to no man.<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Saying, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.<\/p>\n

Note that in ‘a’ we have what the crowds say, reference to John who has been executed, and the sentence ends with a resurrection. In the parallel we have what Jesus says and what the leaders of the Jews say (by rejecting Him), reference to Jesus Who will be executed, and the sentence ends with the resurrection. In ‘b’ the question is put as to Who He is, and in the parallel He charges them not to tell anyone. Central to the whole in ‘c’ is Peter’s statement that He is ‘the Messiah of God.’<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Peter’s Confession About Jesus as the Christ ( Mat 16:13-28<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> , Mar 8:27<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> to Mar 9:1<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ) Luk 9:18-27<\/span><\/strong> gives us the story of Peter making his famous confession to Jesus Christ that He is truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God and Jesus response by prophesying to the disciples of His death and resurrection. This story is a pivotal point in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as He begins for the first time to explain to His disciples His need to suffer and die on Calvary. In the Gospel of Luke, this event immediately precedes the point at which Jesus sets His face towards Jerusalem (Luk 9:51<\/span>). This became the time for Jesus to be received up. <\/p>\n

We see that Peter’s confession was the culmination of the Lord’s training for His disciples. Peter’s confession represented the voice of the twelve apostles. Jesus had called many disciples. These twelve had forsaken all to follow Him. They had been sent out and learned how to minister the Gospel to others and set people free. Now they understood who Jesus Christ was, the Son of the living God. <\/p>\n

Jesus could have continued His earthly ministry for the sake of healing the multitudes and teaching the principles of the Kingdom of God, but He his goal was to delegate this duty to the apostles so that He could redeem mankind at Calvary and send the Holy Spirit from heaven to empower His disciples. Thus, Peter’s confession is the culmination of Jesus’ training and now Jesus set His face towards Calvary to bring His earthly ministry to an end.<\/p>\n

Within the context of the theme of Luke’s Gospel, which is the prophetic testimonies of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, Peter makes his first prophetic utterance on the Mount of Transfiguration.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:18<\/strong><\/span> “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him” <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> I did not understand this wording for years, until I had children of my own. When I went into my prayer closet and shut the door, my children would sometimes come in. At first, they were noisy and I made them leave, but as they grew older, they learned to be quiet and I let them stay, knowing that they needed to see their father in prayer. <\/p>\n

We see Mark making another reference to Jesus being alone while His disciples were with him. It becomes clear from the context of Mar 4:10<\/span> that the crowds had left Jesus and His disciples alone for a season.<\/p>\n

Mar 4:10<\/span>, “And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.”<\/p>\n

Luk 9:20<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> In Luk 9:20<\/span> Peter speaks prophetically for the first time in his declaration of the divinity of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:22<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> Jesus makes His first declaration of His Passion and Resurrection in Luk 9:22<\/span>. He will make several more of these predictions to His disciples leading up to these actual events. It is important to note that Jesus waited until the disciples came to the revelation of His deity and made this confession in Luk 9:20<\/span> before revealing His Resurrection.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:23<\/strong><\/span>  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. <\/p>\n

Luk 9:23<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> Jesus Christ did not expound upon the meaning of taking up one’s cross. Perhaps the disciples were not ready for such doctrinal teachings. Jesus did illustrate this statement comparing the value man’s physical life to his eternal life, and the value of this world’s riches to eternal riches, and temporal, earthly shame to eternal glory. It would be almost twenty years before Paul the apostle would address this truth in his epistles with such statements as “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20<\/span>), and “I die daily” (1Co 15:31<\/span>), and “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.” (Col 1:24<\/span>  ) <\/p>\n

The preaching of the Cross is not just telling others the message that Jesus died and rose again. It is telling others that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must take up their cross daily in order to follow him. The preaching of the Cross is a message of sacrifice, and not pleasure. If we are not taking up our cross today, then it means we are walking in our own path that day, and not following Christ. Rick Joyner adds insight into this passage in his book The Final Quest<\/em>.<\/p>\n

“When we (Paul and his co-workers) served, being in ministry was the greatest sacrifice that one could make, and this reflected the message of the greatest sacrifice that was made the Cross. The Cross is the power of God, and it is the center of all that we are called to live by. You have so little power to transform the minds and hearts of the disciples now because you do not live, and do not preach, the Cross. Therefore, we have difficulty seeing much difference between the disciples and the heathen. That is not the Gospel or the salvation with which we were entrusted. You must return to the Cross.” [215]<\/p>\n

[215] Rick Joyner, The Final Quest <\/em> (Charlotte, North Carolina: Morning Star Publications, 1977), 136.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus’ Authority Revealed <\/strong> After the disciples of Jesus saw His divine authority displayed in every area of human life and even over creation itself, and after they were sent out and walked in this authority, Luk 9:18-50<\/span> records how they came to the place of understanding Him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.<\/p>\n

Outline <\/em> Here is a proposed outline:<\/p>\n

1. Peter’s Confession Luk 9:18-27<\/span><\/p>\n

2. The Transfiguration of Jesus Luk 9:28-36<\/span><\/p>\n

3. A Healing that Revealed His Majesty Luk 9:37-45<\/span><\/p>\n

4. The Disciples Dispute Over Greatness Luk 9:46-50<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Peter’s Confession and Christ’s Answer.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> The confession of Peter and the Twelve:<\/p>\n

v. 18<\/strong>. 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?<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 19<\/strong>. They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say that one of the old prophets is risen again.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 20<\/strong>. He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering- said, The Christ of God.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 21<\/strong>. And He straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing,<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 22<\/strong>. saying, The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> It was some time before Jesus was able to withdraw from the neighborhood of the Sea of Galilee and find time for rest and uninterrupted intercourse with His disciples. But when the occasion offered, He gladly availed Himself of the opportunity, traveling up into the northern part of Gaulanitis. Here He had leisure for prayer. And here He could speak to His disciples alone, to the Twelve that were with Him. And after some time He tested them with a searching question, not so much to determine the state of their faith (for His omniscience knew that) as to have them make an open confession. He asked first what the people in general said of Him, whom they believed Him to be. And the disciples answered what rumors were afloat regarding the Lord’s identity, as in verses 7 and 8. But now came the Lord’s test question as to their own personal conviction. He addressed them all, but Peter gave the answer for them. Boldly and gladly he cried out: The Christ of God. That was saying that they had learned to know their Master as the promised Messiah, the Anointed One of God, that they believed Him to be the One through whom the salvation of the world was to come. This knowledge was indeed still mixed with a good deal of carnal understanding. But it was a wonderful thing that they had ‘made at least so much headway. Jesus therefore accepted the confession and commended them for it, but He also immediately made an effort to lead their thoughts into the right channel concerning His office. Gravely and emphatically admonishing them not to make this fact known among the people at large, lest their false understanding of the work of the Messiah precipitate a crisis, He gave them a prophecy concerning the purpose of His coming into the world, the first prediction of His Passion. He told them that He, the Son of Man, must, that the divine obligation was resting upon Him to suffer much and to be rejected officially by the leaders of the Jewish Church and to be put to death, but also to rise again on the third day. Here the principal moments in the great Passion are given. His fate was sealed when the high priests and elders and scribes, the members of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, declared such a person excommunicated that would declare his adherence to Jesus. The people were too easily cowed. Many believed in their hearts that Jesus was a prophet and the Messiah Himself, but they did not dare to make an open declaration of their faith, and so matters went on through the great suffering to His death. Only one thing the Jewish leaders had not taken into consideration, the rising on the third day, which upset all their fine calculations, and proved Christ the Victor, the Son of God with power.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18-20<\/span> . See on Mat 16:13-16<\/span> ; Mar 8:27-29<\/span> . As to the second miraculous feeding Luke is silent; a silence which Schleiermacher and many others, even Weizscker, make use of in opposition to the reality of the second miracle (see in general on Mat 15:33<\/span> ). But this silence is related to the enigmatical hiatus which Luke has left between Luk 9:17-18<\/span> , entirely passing over everything that occurs in Mar 6:45<\/span> to Mar 8:27<\/span> , and in the parallel passage of Matthew. No explanation is given of this omission, and it seems to have been occasioned by some casualty unknown to us. Possibly the only reason was that in this place he had before him another written source besides Mark, which did not comprise the fragments in question, and from which, moreover, he borrowed the peculiar situation with which Luk 9:18<\/span> begins. Special purposes for the omission (Hilgenfeld, Weiss, p. 699 f.) are arbitrarily assumed, as if in his idea the portion omitted were, on the one hand, not of sufficient importance, on the other, too detailed (as the history of the Canaanitish woman), and the like. Weizscker, p. 66 f., proceeds more critically, but still unsatisfactorily, when he relegates the events to Luk 9:51<\/span> ff., where occur several points of contact with the fragments here passed over.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:19<\/span> . ] without a previous . See on Mat 28:17<\/span> ; Mar 10:32<\/span> . The opinion: . . ., as that of the majority, is first of all declared without limitation.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:20<\/span> . ] , Theophylact.<\/p>\n

. ] See on Luk 2:26<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

5. The Glory of the Son of Man confessed on Earth and ratified from Heaven. The Scene on the Summit and at the Foot of Tabor<\/p>\n

Luk 9:18-50<\/span><\/p>\n

a. The Journey To The Transfiguration (Luk 9:18-27<\/span>)<\/p>\n

(Luk 9:18-21<\/span>, parallel to Gospel for Sts. Peter and Pauls Day; Mat 16:13-20<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

18And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him; and he asked them, saying, Whom [Who] say the people that I am? 19They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say<\/em>, Elias [Elijah]; and others say<\/em>, that one of the old prophets 20is risen again. He said unto them, But whom [who] say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21And he straitly [strictly] charged them, and commanded them<\/em> to tell no man that thing [this]; 22Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, andbe raised [rise again, V. O.5<\/span>] the third day. 23And he said to them<\/em> all, If any man<\/em> will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. 25For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 26For whosoever shall be [have been] ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his<\/em> Fathers, and [that] of the holy angels. 27But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see [have seen] the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Luk 9:18<\/span>. And it came to pass<\/strong>.By comparison with Matthew and Mark, it appears at once that Luke, after the mention of the miracle of the Loaves, passes over all the words and deeds of the Lord which are related Mat 14:22<\/span>; Mat 16:12<\/span>; Mar 6:45<\/span>; Mar 8:26<\/span>. Harmonistics must take note of this, and Isagogics give the grounds of this. The best explanation is given perhaps by the conjecture that the written sources (Digesen<\/em>) of which Luke made use were in relation to this period of the public life of the Saviour less complete, less rich in comparison with, what follows. At least no cause can be discovered for an intentional omission.<\/p>\n

As He was alone praying<\/strong>.According to Matthew and Mark the Saviour was now in the region of Csarea Philippi. (See<\/em>, respecting this place, Lange on Mat 16:13<\/span><\/em>.) Here also, as we have several times remarked, Luke brings into view the praying of the Saviour. Justly does Bengel say: Jesus Patrem rogarat, ut discipulis se revelaret. Nam argumentum precum Jesu colligi potest ex sermonibus actionibusque insecutis<\/em>. Comp. Luk 6:12-13<\/span>. Apparently we must understand the matter thusthat the disciples had found the Saviour praying in solitude, as in Luk 11:1<\/span>, while from Luk 9:23<\/span> it appears to be the case that besides the Twelve, other listeners had soon approached, so that He, in a few moments, found a wider circle, gathered around Him to which He could address His words.<\/p>\n

And He asked them<\/strong>.From the preceding prayer we must conclude that the Saviour Himself considered the conversation now following as in the highest degree momentous, and this will not surprise us if we only transport ourselves into His circumstances during this period of time. The more unequivocally He had lately experienced the irreconcilable enmity of His adversaries, the more clearly did the end of His course, now drawing nearer, rise before His soul. The time had now come when He must speak more openly than hitherto to His disciples of His approaching suffering and death. The prayer which the Saviour offered afterwards for Simon, Luk 22:32<\/span>, can hardly have been excluded here. But before He now grants to the Twelve a deeper view into the nature of His work<\/em>, He will convince Himself of their manner of thought respecting His Person<\/em> and His character.<\/p>\n

Who say the people that I am?<\/strong>He wishes to know for what the [common] people, this interpreter of public opinion, took Him, Him who commonly designated Himself by the somewhat mysterious name of the Son of Man. Other views see in Lange, ad loc.<\/em> The inquiry after the views of men, in which one only heard the voice of flesh and blood, might justly surprise us if we forgot that it only constituted the transition to a far more momentous one.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:19<\/span>. John the Baptist<\/strong>.The opinions are different, yet fully explicable. That John the Baptist had risen, was perhaps an echo of that which was talked of at Herods court, perhaps also an inference drawn by high esteem, to which it appeared impossible that such a man of God should have been actually and forever taken away from the world.Elijah<\/strong>.Comp. Mal 4:5<\/span>.One of the old prophets.<\/strong>Men believed, from Mic 5:6<\/span> and other passages, that they were warranted to conclude that at the time of the Messiah different prophets would again appear. (See<\/em> Lightfoot on Joh 1:21<\/span><\/em>.) In brief, for something ordinary and insignificant no one took the Nazarene: a messenger of God they could not fail to recognize in Him; perhaps He was the Forerunner. For the Messiah public opinion did not<\/em> now take Him to be. It was divided, and moreover had not in the main become more favorable to the Saviour. If there had formerly existed among the people a disposition to believe in His Messianic dignity, now there is no more talk of this. After the great schism, Joh 6:66<\/span> seq.<\/em>, the sun of popular favor is set. Carefully considered, therefore, the popular voice is now no longer a homage, but only a denying of the Lord.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:20<\/span>. But who say ye that I am?<\/strong>Plainly the emphasis falls upon , in opposition to the . First the Lord will hear the echo of the peoples views; He will hear now His powerful witnesses own voice, the expression of their living, personal, and independent faith. It appears how highly the Lord esteemed the confession of faith of His disciples, and how He is the farthest possible from reckoning their Christology among the Adiaphora.<\/p>\n

The Christ of God<\/strong>.The complete form of the answer, see Mat 16:16<\/span>. It is wholly impossible to prove that it was only the theocratical and not the supernatural dignity of the Saviour which here hovered before the mind of Peter. If before this even rough shipmen had recognized something superhuman in Jesus, Mat 14:33<\/span>, the Saviour would certainly not have pronounced His disciple blessed for his confession, had this side of His being yet remained wholly hidden to him, although, of course, it is evident that this faith of the heart in Peter had not for that as yet become in his mind a fully rounded dogma. As to the rest, we must very decidedly declare ourselves against the view that takes this confession of Peter for the same which is related Joh 6:69<\/span> (Wieseler, Rau). This last is much less decided and powerful, at least according to the true reading in Tischendorf. Besides, the two are in their historical connection heaven-wide apart, and the two confessions cannot be identified without most arbitrarily accusing John of inaccuracy.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:21<\/span>. To tell no man<\/strong>.The more detailed answer of the Saviour, and His praise bestowed upon Peter, see Mat 16:17-19<\/span>. Comp. Lange, ad loc.<\/em> That the Saviour was almost, as it were, terrified at the confession of Peter (Fritzsche, Schneckenburger, Strauss), is as little implied in the letter as in the spirit of the narrative. As to the ground on which especially He commanded silence, this is at once evident. For the first time it has now become manifest that His self-consciousness agrees in substance with the confession of faith of the Twelve. He Himself has impressed upon the language of faith the seal of His attestation, and therefore, in fact, from this moment there already existed a little congregation in which the faith on Jesus as the Christ was the centre of union. If this community, with its manner of thinking, manifested itself externally, it would here have found premature adherents, and there have roused renewed opposition. Therefore the Saviour will have them keep silence respecting His person so long as His high priestly work was not yet accomplished, but at the same time now declares His apostles capable of receiving more particular instructions respecting the nature of this work.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:22<\/span>. The Son of Man must suffer many things.<\/strong>In antithesis to the figurative and covert allusions to His approaching death, which they had already heard, comp. Mat 9:15<\/span>; Joh 2:19<\/span>; Joh 4:37-38<\/span>, the Saviour now begins to speak in a literal manner. He makes known, 1. who the accomplishers of this suffering shall be, 2. in what form it is to be prepared for Him, 3. the necessity of this suffering, 4. the issue of this suffering, namely, His resurrection. The view (De Wette, a. o.) that the last is here added only ex eventu<\/em>, is with right denied and refuted by Lange, Gospel of Matthew<\/em>, p. 302. The offence taken by Peter at this word and the rebuke suffered by him are related only by Matthew and Mark.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:23<\/span>. If any man will come after Me.<\/strong>Here, as in Joh 6:67<\/span>, the Lord gives His apostles the choice whether they will follow Him even now, when the way goes for a time into the depth. If they do it, they shall know beforehand what it will cost them. Whoever follows Him, let him take up his cross daily<\/strong>, a symbol of self-denial which the Saviour would certainly not have adopted by preference if He had not Himself, even already in the distance, beheld this instrument of His own pain and ignominy. There exists no ground for declaring the remarkable , which Luke alone has, an interpolation a seriore manu<\/em>. From Jesus Himself does it proceed, and places the extent and the difficulty of this requirement of self-denial in the clearest light. Worthy of notice is it that it is no other than Peter who afterwards so deeply apprehended and so powerfully rechoed this requirement. (See<\/em> 1Pe 4:1-3<\/span>; and comp. Romans 6<\/span>; Col 3:1-4<\/span>, &c.)<\/p>\n

Luk 9:24<\/span>. Whosoever will save his life.<\/strong>In order to make evident the indispensable necessity of self-denial, the Saviour uses a double motive. The first is taken from the present, Luk 9:24-26<\/span>, the other from the future, Luk 9:27<\/span>. Only by self-denial, He says, can a man become partaker even here of the higher life of the Spirit, so that he has therefore the choice between temporary gain and eternal loss. Here also is a proof of the higher unity between the Synoptical and the Johannean Christ. Comp. Joh 12:25<\/span>. The life<\/em>, which the man will commonly preserve at any price, is the natural, selfish life, whose centre is the , considered out of its relation to the . Whoever will preserve this life, and therefore walk in accordance with his natural inclinations, may reckon upon it that he loses his true, his proper life: but those who, for the sake of Christ and His cause, set at stake the possession of life and the enjoyment of life in the common sense of the word, will through this very temporary perishing become partakers in perpetually richer measure of the true and higher life of the Spirit. A word of infinitely deep significance for the first apostles of the Lord, who for His sake left all, yet not less significant for the history of the development of the Christian life of each one. (See<\/em> the profound remarks of Lange, Leben Jesu<\/em>, ii. p. 899.) In the most striking manner has Luke, Luk 9:25<\/span>, expressed the antithesis, the gaining of the whole world, and the , the loss of the personality, to whose preservation the man had brought such sacrifices. As if thou in a general conflagration hadst saved and preserved around thee thy great and full palace, but hadst thyself to be consumed, what wouldst thou then have gained in comparison with him who out of the conflagration of his goods had rescued his life? Therefore, also, on the contrary: what does it harm a man to set at stake the whole world, which after all shall one day pass away, and burn up, if only the soul is delivered? A human souls true, everlasting salvation is more worth than the whole world. Thus must one reckon gain and loss over against one another, and whoever has not so reckoned will at the end experience, to his everlasting loss, how enormously he misreckons! Then will the bankrupt break out with his , whereto the Psalm has already answered: It ceaseth forever! Stier.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:26<\/span>. Whosoever shall have been ashamed<\/strong>.A word of the Lord which reminds us of the sublimest declarations of the fourth Gospel. The there appearing (Luk 12:42-43<\/span>), show us by their example what it is to be ashamed of the Saviour, as Paul, Rom 1:16<\/span>, is an example of the opposite. It is noticeable that the Saviour does not say: Whoever has been ashamed of the Son of Man<\/em>, but: Whoever has been ashamed of Me<\/em> and of My wordsa manifest proof that here the discourse is of a being ashamed which is possible even with outward intellectual knowledge of Him and of His Messianic dignity.Of him shall also the Son of Man be ashamed<\/strong>.A milder form of the threatening, Mat 7:21<\/span>; Mat 25:41<\/span>, and therefore so much the more impressive, since the Saviour here represents Himself as surrounded with a threefold glory: 1. His own, 2. the Fathers, 3. that of the holy angels, who now become witnesses of the well-deserved shame that is prepared for the unfaithful disciple. It is scarcely to be doubted that the Saviour directs His eye towards His last , at the . But before the thought of its possibly great distance could weaken the impression of the warning, He concludes with a nearer revelation of His kingly glory.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:27<\/span>. But I tell you of a truth<\/strong>.Even this solemn exordium, which the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark also give, causes us to expect that it will appear that the Lord Himself attributes especial importance to the assurance which He is now about to give. More plainly can He hardly intimate that His disciples shall outlive Him, that His cause shall triumph over all hostility, and that He, by the name of the Son of Man, means to designate Himself as the Messiah, for He speaks now of a kingdom in which the Son of Man gives law Nay, scarcely can we avoid the belief that this very saying, which the first three Evangelists have with so great unanimity preserved in the same connection, was one of the strongest supports for the hope of the apostolic age, that there would be a speedy and visible return of Christ. The longing for its fulfilment contributed also to preserve the letter of the promises, and the love of the heart sharpened understanding and memory. However, it cannot be difficult to decide which coming of the Saviour He wished to be immediately understood by this saying. He has here in mind, as in Mat 26:64<\/span>, the revelation of His Messianic dignity at the desolation of the Jewish state, which should take place within a human generation. (For a statement and criticism of other views, see<\/em> Lange, on Mat 16:28<\/span><\/em>.) Thus, also, the beginning of this whole conversation is beautifully congruous with the end. For as the Saviour in the beginning had alluded to the humiliation which was about to be prepared for Him by the Jewish magnates, Luk 9:22<\/span>, He now ends, Luk 9:27<\/span>, by making mention of the triumph which He should win over the Jewish magnates, when the ruins of the city and of the temple should proclaim His exaltation. This His coming in His kingdom, which at least John (Luk 21:22<\/span>) beheld, and apparently also others of his fellow-disciples, is at the same time a type and symbol of His last , that mentioned Luk 9:26<\/span>. The shorter form in Luke: . . must be more particularly explained from the fuller one in Matthew and Mark, in the parallel passages. Comp. moreover Mat 10:23<\/span>, as a proof how not alone the Johannean but also the Synoptical Christ speaks of a continuous coming of the Messiah in different phases. In view of the intimate connection which, according to the Synoptics, exists between this saying of the Lord and the Transfiguration which is soon after related, it may be justly supposed that the disciples, even in this event, beheld the actual, even though only preliminary, fulfilment of this prophecy of the Lord.<\/p>\n

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Although the discourse here given opens no new period in the life of our Saviour, it may yet be said that in the region of Csarea Philippi, there began a new period of the intercourse of our Lord with the Twelve. After He had persuaded Himself of their independent and living faith, He now opens to them the sanctuary of His Passion, in order to guard them against apostasy when hereafter the critical period should dawn. Comp. Joh 13:19<\/span>. With deep wisdom He nevertheless connects the first unequivocal declaration of His Passion with the setting forth of His future Glory, into which He was to enter in this very way. Comp. Luk 24:26<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2. Mark indicates very happily the distinction between the Saviours earlier and present intimations of His sufferings by the word , Luk 8:32<\/span>. Instead of covert there come now express, instead of general more particular, intimations. Without doubt this higher truth was closely connected with the development of Jesus own consciousness in reference to His approaching fate, which consciousness became continually clearer the longer He looked upon the prophetic image of the Messiah and observed the course of circumstances. But quite as certain is it that there is no ground to deny the possibility of such a foreknowledge a priori<\/em> (De Wette, Von Ammon, Strauss,) and that the criticism which will explain such prophecies merely ex eventu<\/em> is no way purely historical, but is an entirely arbitrary dogmatism. Further on we hear from Jesus Himself, Luk 24:44-46<\/span>, from the angels, ibid<\/em>. (Luk 9:7-8<\/span>), nay, even from His foes, Mat 27:62-63<\/span>, that He prophesied not only His dying, but also His resurrection. As respects the stiff-necked doubting and afterwards the unbelieving sadness of His disciples, which there has often been a disposition to use against the genuineness of the prophecy of the Resurrection, this was certainly not the first and only time that the Saviour was better understood by crafty enemies than by friends full of prejudice. Very often the disciples took a figurative expression as literal (e.g.<\/em> Mat 16:11-12<\/span>); why can they not, on the other hand, have viewed a literal expression as figurative? From their point of view they could not possibly conceive that the Messiah should die, and could not therefore accommodate themselves to the prophecy of the Resurrection, and still less could they imprint it deeply in their souls. And when our Lord, according to Matthew and Mark, said that He would return definitely , into life, this is only the repetition of that which He had earlier intimated in another form, Mat 12:40<\/span>; Joh 2:19<\/span>. Comp. Hasert, Ueber die Vorhersagungen Jesu von seinem Tode und von seiner Auferstehung<\/em>. Berlin, 1839.<\/p>\n

3. As to the question by what means the Saviour, in the way of His theanthropic development, came to the clear insight of the certainty and necessity of His death, we are warranted by His own declaration to give the answer that He viewed the image of His Passion in the mirror of the prophetic Scriptures. Assertions that He would then have understood the Old Testament incorrectly, as this, rightly explained, says nothing whatever of a suffering or dying Messiah (De Wette, Strauss), make only then some show when one places the hermeneutics of modern science higher than those of the Lord Jesus and of His apostles enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Comp. Steudel, Theol. des A. B.<\/em> p. 402, and Hoffmann, l. c.<\/em> 2. p. 121. Drawn from these sources, the foresight of the Saviour was much less the fruit of a grammatical exegesis of particular Vaticinia<\/em> than of a typico-symbolic apprehension of the whole Ancient Covenant. In the fate of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah, He saw His own, and in all which former men of God had experienced and suffered, He beheld the image of His own future [or as some one has excellently said, He looked into the Old Testament and found it full of Himself.C. C. S.]. Comp. Mar 9:13<\/span>; Luk 13:33<\/span>. Once familiarized with thoughts of death, the Saviour could, even by looking at the political condition of His people, come in a simple and natural way to the conception that heathens, and those heathens Romans, would be the accomplishes of the sentence of death, executioners, therefore, by whom the punishment of the cross had been introduced among conquered nations. And who would consider it as impossible that the God-man should come in still other ways than those of natural reflection to such a thought? In the most intimate communion with the Father, the Fathers will had without doubt become so clear to Him that He could with full certainty speak of a Divine .<\/p>\n

4. The first prediction of His Passion is of so high an importance because it gives us to view this Passion not only from the human but especially from the Divine side. In that which shall come upon Him the Saviour recognizes not only the abuse of the freedom of men, but also the fulfilment of the eternal counsel of God, who not only foresaw and permitted, but expressly willed that Christ should suffer all this. Through the voluntary obedience with which the Son submits Himself to the plainly recognized counsels of the Father, He, at the same time, converts the fate awaiting Him into the highest deed<\/em> of His love.<\/p>\n

5. The necessity of the way of suffering in order to arrive at glory is so great that this way has been ordained not only for the Master, but also for all His disciples without distinction. Here also does the word of J. Arnd hold true: Christ has many servants, but few followers. Only he will gradually attain to bear what the Lord had to take upon Himself, who can as thoroughly deny and abjure the old man in himself as Peter once denied the Lord.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

No specially important turning-point of life but must be hallowed with solitary prayer.To the Saviour it is not indifferent what men say of Him. Neither can it be indifferent to His disciples.Public opinion we must be as far from slavishly following as from haughtily despising.The affinities and the difference between the Saviour on the one hand, John Elijah, and the prophets on the other hand.The spirit of the faithful prophets reappearing in Jesus far more gloriously.The disciple of the Saviour called, 1. To hear the vox populi<\/em> respecting Him, but, 2. to raise himself above it.But who say ye that I ?Amos 1<\/span>. A question of conscience; 2. a question of controversy; 3. a question of life; 4. a question of the times.Jesus will have His disciples, 1. Independently recognize Him as the Christ; 2. voluntarily confess Him as the Christ.No sincere faith without confession, no genuine confession without faith.The confession of Peter the first of the million voices of the Christian confession.What then had to be kept silent is now loudly proclaimed.Silence and speech have each their time.The first prediction of the Passion: 1. Its remarkable contents; 2. its high significance.Expectation of suffering and expectation of glory in the consciousness of our Lord most intimately joined together.The way of suffering: 1. How far it must be trodden by Him alone; 2. how far it must be trodden by all His disciples after Him.The disciple of the Saviour a cross-bearer day by day, willingly coming after Christ.The Christian calculation of profit and loss.To win the highest the highest must be staked.The all-surpassing worth of a soul.The spiritual bankruptcy of him that gains the whole world but loses himself.Even the gain of the whole world is only vain show and harm so long as a man has not won Christ.The Saviours saying concerning the gain and loss of life compared with Pauls experience, Philipp. Luk 3:6-9<\/span>.How a confessor of the Gospel may even to-day be ashamed of the Master: 1. In his heart; 2. in his words; 3. in his deeds.The Christian, 1. Needs not to be ashamed of his Lord; 2. may not, and, 3; will not, it he is a Christian in truth.The seeking of honor with men, the way to shame before God.He who willingly humbled Himself, shall come again in glory.No disciple of the Lord shall die till he has in greater or less measure seen the coming of the kingdom of God.The coming of the Lord, 1. A bodily, afterwards, 2. a spiritual, and finally, 3. a spiritual and bodily (geist-leibliches<\/em>) coming.The history of the world, the judgment of the world, but not the final judgment.The way of suffering, 1. Clearly foreseen by Jesus; 2. plainly pointed out to His disciples to be walked in; 3. for Him and His disciples issuing in glory.The requirement of self-denial for Jesus sake: 1. A difficult, 2. a necessary, 3. a wholesome, 4. a reasonable requirement.The Saviour in relation to His faithful disciples: 1. How much He requires; 2. how infinitely more He promises.<\/p>\n

Starke:Canstein:The truth is only one, but errors and lies are many.Brentius:That Christs kingdom is a kingdom of the cross must not be concealed, that no one may take offence thereat.True self-denial distinguishes the genuine Christian from every one else.It requires much to become a Christian, still more to remain one.So blind is our fleshly heart that it seeks life in that which brings it death.In religion nothing comes according to our plans, but all according to Gods.The justalionis<\/em> holds good with Christ in both directions.Nova Bibl. Tub.<\/em>:It is an unhappy dying when one tastes death before he has seen the kingdom of God.Salvation is certainly very often nearer to us than we think. Rom 13:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Heubner:The Christians independence of popular opinions.Gerlach:The bearing of the Cross is not something that is reserved for certain extraordinary occasions; whoever feels his own and the worlds sin deeply, bears it daily.J. Saurin:Discourse on the soul, drawn, 1. From the excellence of its nature; 2. from the infiniteness of its duration; 3. from the price of its redemption.Dietrich:Sermon on the day of St. Peter and St. Paul upon the partially parallel Gospel, Mat 16:13-20<\/span>.Tholuck:The daily crossbearing of the Christian: 1. In what it consists; 2. why to the very end of life it should be a daily one.<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[3]<\/span>Luk 9:10<\/span>.In view of the great diversity of readings in this passage, it seems to us that the reading of Tischendorf, which Meyer also has adopted, , has, especially on internal grounds, the greatest probability in its favor. Lectio difficilior prferenda<\/em>. must have occasioned difficulty, since what follows took place not in a city, but in a wilderness (comp. Luk 9:12<\/span>, and also Mar 6:31<\/span>). [Tischendorf, supported by B., L., X., ., Cod. Sin., has simply . Alford says: the text not appearing to meet the requirements of the narrative following, was amended from the parallels in Matthew and Mark.C. C. S.]<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span>[Luk 9:12<\/span>.More exactly: And the day began to wear away, and the twelve coming said to him, &c.C. C. S.]<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span>Luk 9:22<\/span>.According to the reading of Lachmann and Tischendorf instead of . [., A., C, D., 2 other uncials; ., Cod. Sin., B., R., ., al. longe. pl. approved by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, Alford.C. C. S.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(18) 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? (19) They answering, said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. (20) He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering, said, The Christ of God. (21) And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; (22) Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. (23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. (24) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. (25) For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (26) For whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. (27) But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We have the whole of what Luke relates in those verses, Mat 16:13<\/span> , etc. and Mar 8:27<\/span> . I refer the Reader to both.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

II<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

SEASON OF RETIREMENT PART II WHO IS JESUS OF NAZARETH AND WHAT IS HIS MISSION?<\/p>\n

<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Harmony, pages 89-92 and Mat 16:13-28<\/span><\/strong> ; Mar 8:27-9:1<\/span><\/strong> ; Luk 9:18-27<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The scene of this discussion is Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part of Palestine. The historians are Matthew (Mat 16:13-28<\/span> ); Mark (Mar 8:27-28<\/span> ; Mar 9:1<\/span> ); and Luke (Luk 9:18-27<\/span> ). These records, being presented in parallel columns, sections 64 (Mat 16:13-20<\/span> ; Mar 8:27-30<\/span> ; Luk 9:18-21<\/span> ) and 65 (Mat 16:21-28<\/span> ; Mar 8:31-38<\/span> ; Mar 9:1<\/span> ; Luk 9:22-27<\/span> ), 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.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

1. The great ministry in Galilee is ended forever.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

5. What men think of him and why.<\/p>\n

6. What the disciples believed as expressed in Peter’s confession.<\/p>\n

7. Our Lord’s wonderful response to this confession and the doctrines involved.<\/p>\n

8. Clearer teaching concerning his passion.<\/p>\n

9. Peter’s rebuke of Christ and Christ’s rebuke of Peter.<\/p>\n

10. Terms of discipleship and why so hard (Mar 8:34-37<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

11. A great danger and its antidote, the danger of being ashamed or afraid before the world, to confess Christ (Mar 8:38<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

“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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

We next cite Psa 118:22<\/span> : “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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ), 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<\/span> ): “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.”<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ; Deu 32:15<\/span> ; Deu 32:31<\/span> ; 1Sa 2:2<\/span> ; 2Sa 22:2<\/span> ; 2Sa 22:32<\/span> ; Psa 18:2<\/span> ; Psa 18:31<\/span> ; Psa 61:2<\/span> ; Psa 89:26<\/span> ; Psa 92:15<\/span> ; Psa 95:1<\/span> ; and Isa 17:10<\/span> ; 1Co 10:4<\/span> . 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ; Luk 2:34<\/span> ; Rom 9:33<\/span> ; 1Pe 2:8<\/span> ; Luk 20:18<\/span> , 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<\/span> and Rev 21:14<\/span> , 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<\/span> Mar 3:16<\/span> ; Luk 6:14<\/span> ; Act 1:13<\/span> ). He also leads the movement in filling the place of Judas (Act 1:15<\/span> ). He opens the door to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:14<\/span> ). And he is selected to open the door to the Gentiles (Act 10<\/span> ; Act 15:7<\/span> ). By noting carefully Heb 6:1-2<\/span> , 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<\/span> ), but all these secondary senses derive their significance from their connection with Christ, the primary and real foundation.<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ; Joh 21:15-17<\/span> ; Luk 22:31-32<\/span> 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<\/span> , 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<\/span> ; Rev 3:7<\/span> ; Job 12:14<\/span> ; Isa 9:6<\/span> ; 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.<\/p>\n

In the same way they derive the thought of jurisdiction from the shepherd argument, by construing it with 2Sa 5:2<\/span> ; Psa 78:71-72<\/span> ; Eze 34:1-23<\/span> ; Jer 3:15<\/span> ; Jer 3:23<\/span> ; Nah 3:18<\/span> ; Isa 40:11<\/span> ; Mic 7:14<\/span> ; Joh 10:1-18<\/span> ; 1Pe 2:25<\/span> ; 1Pe 5:4<\/span> ; Act 20:28<\/span> . 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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<\/span> , and Joh 21:15-17<\/span> .<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ). 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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ; Rev 21:14<\/span> ). (2) All the apostles had the same binding and loosing power (Joh 20:23<\/span> ; 3Jn 1:10<\/span> ). So also had Paul (1Co 5:3-5<\/span> ; 2Co 2:6-10<\/span> ; 2Co 13:2<\/span> ; 2Co 13:10<\/span> ). (3) So had every local church (Mat 18:18<\/span> ; 2Co 2:10<\/span> ). (4) For preserving unity and averting schism all the apostles and others were appointed and no human headship hinted at (1Co 12:25-30<\/span> ; Eph 4:11-16<\/span> ). (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<\/span> ). Indeed he seems to deny that he had given it to any one (Mar 9:38-39<\/span> ). If the Papist claim, that the office of Pope was established in Peter at Caesarea Philippi, as recorded in Mat 16<\/span> , is correct, this incident a short time after recorded in Mat 18<\/span> , 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<\/span> ; Mar 10:35-45<\/span> .)<\/p>\n

On a yet later occasion, up to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, we find the question still unsettled (Luk 22:24-40<\/span> ). 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.”<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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<\/span> . 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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

Again in the great consultation on a question of salvation, as recorded in Act 15<\/span> , 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<\/span> , 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<\/span> ; 2Co 10:8-15<\/span> ; 2Co 9:5-15<\/span> ; Gal 1:11-12<\/span> ; Gal 1:17<\/span> ; Gal 2:6-14<\/span> .<\/p>\n

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<\/span> ; 1Co 3:4-23<\/span> , 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<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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<\/span> , 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<\/span> ); 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.<\/p>\n

Again referring to the fallacy of the usual modern Romanist interpretation of Luk 22:31-32<\/span> , he cites his own “Observations,” from which we extract the following paragraph:<\/p>\n

Neither is there any more value as a proof of papal inerrancy in those words of Christ to Peter (Luk 22:31-32<\/span> ), 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.<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Yet again he says, with reference to the proposed declaration of infallibility:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

\n

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,<\/p>\n

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:<\/em> Major est calus orbis quam urbis.<\/em> [“It is better to save the world than the city.”] I have done.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

As I know of no English version of Quesnel’s book, I submit a reasonably accurate translation of the foregoing Latin propositions:<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

3. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX, issued ex-cathedra, the bull entitled <\/em> Ineffabilis Deus<\/em><\/strong> , <\/strong> 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<\/span> , 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: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

4. On December 8, 1864, Pope Pius IX, issued another encyclical letter, entitled Quanta Cura,<\/em><\/strong> and a Syllabus of Errors<\/em><\/strong> which he anathematized. It was this Syllabus that roused Mr. Gladstone to issue his pamphlet entitled “Vaticanism.”<\/p>\n

As an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI, in 1831, condemned the liberty of the press, so this encyclical letter, together with the Syllabus <\/em><\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. What was the scene and who are the historians of the great confession of Peter at Philippi?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

2. What three general observations on these accounts?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

3. Give the outline submitted for the whole of sections 64-65.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

4. What question arose in the minds of the people from Christ’ Galilean ministry?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

5. What were the various answers and how do you account for the divergent answers to this question? Illustrate each.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

6. What, probably, was our Lord’s prayer on this occasion, and what occasion, what Peter’s answer and what elements of his answer?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

7. What was our Lord’s question addressed to the disciples on the meaning of the terms used?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

8. What was Christ’s response to Peter’s answer and what is the inference to this effect?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

9. What does Christ’s answer to Peter reveal and what other pas sages show the same thing?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

10. Indicate the beginning and growth of the disciples’ faith in bin as the Messiah up to this time.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

11. What important questions arise from this passage?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

12. Who founded the church and when?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

13. Upon what did Christ found his church and what is the scriptural proof?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

14. What is the import of Deu 32:4<\/span> ; Deu 32:15<\/span> ; Deu 32:31<\/span> ; 1Sa 2:2<\/span> ; 2Sa 22:2<\/span> ; 2Sa 22:32<\/span> ; Psa 18:2<\/span> ; Psa 18:31<\/span> ; Psa 61:2<\/span> ; Psa 89:26<\/span> ; Psa 92:15<\/span> ; Psa 95:1<\/span> ; Isa 7:10<\/span> ; and 1Co 10:4<\/span> ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

15. How may faith in Christ be the foundation also? Proof.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

16. What do the majority of Protestant scholars regard as the “rock'” here and in what sense is it true?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

17. In what sense are the apostles the foundation and what is the scriptural proof?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

18. In what sense may the church be founded on Peter?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

19. What is the doctrinal foundation? Proof.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

20. What is the Roman Catholic position on this question and on what scriptures do they rely to prove it?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

21. What are the names of their various arguments? Explain each.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

22. What is the resultant jurisdiction of the Pope?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

23. What have the Romanist authorities cited here?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

24. What four propositions of the Vatican Council? Explain each.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

25. What proof is necessary to support these stupendous claims?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

26. What was the author’s reply to Cardinal Wiseman’s contention?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

27. Give a summary of Bishop Kenrick’s speech combating the papal argument.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

28. What was the nature of the pronunciamento of the Vatican Council in 1870?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

29. How does the author illustrate its awful significance?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

30. What is the sum total of such dogma?<\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18 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? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 18. As he was alone praying<\/strong> ] Examinationi preces praemittendae.<\/em> All our sacrifices should be salted with this salt. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18 26.<\/strong> ] CONFESSION OF PETER. FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION. Mat 16:13-28<\/span> . Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1<\/span> . The Lord had gone into the neighbourhood of Csarea Philippi: see notes on Matthew.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18-27<\/span> . The Christ and the cross<\/em> (Mat 16:13-28<\/span> , Mar 8:27<\/span> to Mar 9:1<\/span> ). At this point occurs a great gap in Lk.’s narrative as compared with those of Mt. and Mk., all between Mat 14:22<\/span> ; Mat 16:12<\/span> and between Mar 6:45<\/span> ; Mar 8:27<\/span> being omitted. Various explanations of the omission have been suggested: accident (Meyer, Godet), not in the copy of Mk. used by Lk. (Reuss), mistake of the eye, passing from the second feeding as if it were the first (Beyschlag). These and other explanations imply that the omission was unintentional. But against this hypothesis is the fact that the edges of the opposite sides of the gap are brought together in Lk.’s narrative at Luk 9:18<\/span> : Jesus alone praying<\/em> , as in Mat 14:23<\/span> , Mar 6:45-46<\/span> , yet the disciples are with Him though alone ( . ), and He proceeds to interrogate them. This raises the question as to the motives for intentional omission, which may have been such as these: avoidance of duplicates with no new lesson (second feeding), anti-Pharisaic matter much restricted throughout (ceremonial washing), Jewish particularism not suitable in a Gentile Gospel, not even the appearance of it (Syrophenician woman). , the scene remains unchanged in Lk. that of the feeding of the 5000. No trace in this Gospel of Caesarea Philippi, or indeed of the great northerly journey (or journeys) so prominently recognised in Mk., the aim of which was to get away from crowds, and obtain leisure for intercourse with the Twelve in view of the approaching fatal crisis. This omission can hardly be without intention. Whether Lk. knew Mk.’s Gospel or not, so careful and interested an inquirer can hardly have been ignorant of that northern excursion. He may have omitted it because it was not rich in incident, in favour of the Samaritan journey about which he had much to tell. But the very raison d’tre<\/em> of the journey was the hope that it might be a quiet one, giving leisure for intercourse with the Twelve. But this private fellowship of Jesus with His disciples with a view to their instruction is just one of the things to which justice is not done in this Gospel. Their need of instruction is not emphasised. From Lk.’s narrative one would never guess the critical importance of the conversation at Caesarea Philippi, as regards either Peter’s confession or the announcement by Jesus of the coming passion.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luke<\/p>\n

CHRIST’S CROSS AND OURS<\/p>\n

Luk 9:18 – Luk 9:27 <\/strong> .<\/p>\n

This passage falls into three distinct but closely connected parts: the disciples’ confession of Christ by Peters mouth, the revelation to them of Christ’s sufferings as necessarily involved in His Messiahship, and His extension to them of the law of suffering as necessarily involved in discipleship. Luke dwells much more lightly than Matthew on the first of these stages, omitting the eulogium and benediction on Simon Bar-Jona, and the great words about the rock on which the Church is built, but he retains the essentials, and emphasises the connection of the three parts by his very brevity in regard to the first.<\/p>\n

I. Luke has special interest in recording Christ’s prayers, and though he does not tell us where the great confession was made, he tells what Jesus did before it was made. <\/p>\n

<\/strong> We may well suppose that His solitary thoughts had been busied with the sufferings on which He was soon to enter, and that His resolve to impart the knowledge of these to His followers was felt by Him to be a sharp trial of their loyalty. The moment was a fateful one. How should fateful moments be prepared for but by communion with the Father? No doubt the feebleness of the disciples was remembered in His petitions.<\/p>\n

Jesus’ double question was intended, first, to make the disciples feel the gulf which separated them from the rest of the nation, and so to make them hold the faster by their unshared faith, and be ready to suffer for it, if needful, as probably it would be. It braces true men to know that they are but a little company in the midst of multitudes who laugh at their belief. That Jesus should have seen that it was safe to accentuate the disciples’ isolation indicates the reality which He discerned in their faith, imperfect as it was.<\/p>\n

‘Whom say ye that I am?’ Jesus brings them to articulate utterance of the thought that had been slowly gathering distinctness in their minds. We see our beliefs more clearly, and hold them more firmly, when we put them into definite words. The question acted like a chemical element dropped into a solution, which precipitates its solid matter. Nebulous opinions are gathered up into spheres of light by the process of speaking them. That question is all-important for us. Our conceptions of Christ’s nature and office determine our relation to Him and our whole cast of life. True, we may say that He is Lord, and not be His disciples, but we are not His disciples as He would have us unless His Messiahship stands out clear and axiomatic in our thoughts of Him. The conviction must pass into feeling, and thence into life, but it must underlie all real discipleship. Doctrine is not Christianity, but it is the foundation of Christianity. The Apostolic confession here is the ‘irreducible minimum’ of the Christian creed.<\/p>\n

It does not contain more than Nathanael had said at the beginning, but here it is spoken, not as Peter’s private belief, but he is the mouthpiece of all. ‘Whether it were I or they, so we’ believe. This confession summed up the previous development of the disciples, and so marked the end of one stage and the beginning of another. Christ would have them, as it were, take stock of their convictions, as preliminary to opening a new chapter of teaching.<\/p>\n

II. That new chapter follows at once. <\/p>\n

<\/strong> The belief in Him as Messiah is the first story of the building, and the second is next piled on it. The new lesson was a hard one for men whose hopes were coloured by Jewish dreams of a kingdom. They had to see all these vulgar visions melting away, and to face a stern, sad reality. The very fact that He was the Messiah necessarily drew after it the fact of suffering. Whence did the ‘must’ arise? From the divine purpose, from the necessities of the case, and the aim of His mission. These had shaped prophetic utterances, and hence there was yet another form of the ‘must,’ namely, the necessity for the Messiah’s fulfilling these predictions.<\/p>\n

No doubt our Lord led His saddened listeners to many a prophetic saying which current expositions had smoothed over, but which had for many years set before Him His destiny. What a scene that would be-the victim calmly pointing to the tragic words which flashed ominous new meanings to the silent hearers, stricken with awe and grief as the terrible truth entered their minds! What had become of their dreams? Gone, and in their place shame and death. They had fancied a throne; the vision melted into a cross.<\/p>\n

We note the minute particularity of Jesus’ delineation, and the absolute certainty in His plain declaration of the fact and time of the Resurrection. It is not wonderful that that declaration should have produced little effect. The disciples were too much absorbed and confounded by the dismal thought of His death to have ears for the assurance of His Resurrection. Comfort coming at the end of the announcement of calamities so great finds no entrance into, nor room in, the heart. We all let a black foreground hide from us a brighter distance.<\/p>\n

III. The Master’s feet mark the disciples’ path. <\/p>\n

<\/strong> If suffering was involved in Messiahship, it is no less involved in discipleship. The cross which is our hope is also our pattern. In a very real sense we have to be partakers of the sufferings of Christ, and no faith in these as substitutionary is vital unless it leads to being conformed to His death. The solemn verses at the close of this lesson draw out the law of Christian self-denial as being inseparable from true discipleship.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:23 lays down the condition of following Jesus as being the daily bearing, by each, of his own cross. Mark that self-denial is not prescribed for its own sake, but simply as the means of ‘following.’ False asceticism insists on it, as if it were an end; Christ treats it as a means. Mark, too, that it is ‘self’ which is to be denied-not this or that part of our nature, but the central ‘self.’ The will is the man, and it<\/em> is to be brought into captivity to Jesus, so that the true Christian says, ‘I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.’ That is much deeper, harder, wholesomer teaching than separate austerities or forsakings of this or that.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:24 grounds this great requirement on the broad principle that to make self the main object of life is the sure way to ruin oneself, and that to slay self is the road to true life. Note that it is he who ‘ would<\/em> save’ his life that loses it, because the desire is itself fatal, whether carried out or not; while it is he who does<\/em> ‘lose’ his life for Christ that preserves it, because even if the extreme evil has been suffered, the possession of our true lives is not imperilled thereby. No doubt the words refer primarily to literal death, and threaten the cowards who sacrifice their convictions for the sake of keeping a whole skin with the failure of their efforts, while they promise the martyr dying in the arena or at the stake a crown of life. But they go far beyond that. They carry the great truth that to hug self and to make its preservation our first aim is ruinous, and the corresponding one, that to slay self for Christ’s sake is to receive a better self. Self-preservation is suicide; self-immolation is not only self-preservation, but self-glorification with glory caught from Jesus. Give yourselves to Him, and He gives you back to yourselves, ennobled and transfigured.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:25 urges obedience to the precept, by an appeal to reasonable self-regard and common-sense. The abnegation enjoined does not require that we should be indifferent to our own well-being. It is right to consider what will ‘profit,’ and to act accordingly. The commercial view of life, if rightly taken, with regard to all a man’s nature through all the duration of it, will coincide accurately with the most exalted. It ‘pays’ to follow Christ. Christian morality has not the hypersensitive fear of appealing to self-interest which superfine moralists profess nowadays. And the question in verse 25 admits of only one answer, for what good is the whole world to a dead man? If our accounts are rightly kept, a world gained shows poorly on the one side, against the entry on the other of a soul lost.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:26 tells in what that losing oneself consists, and enforces the original exhortation by the declaration of a future appearance of the Son of man. He of whom Christ is then ashamed loses his own soul. To live without His smile is to die, to be disowned by Him is to be a wreck. To be ashamed of Jesus is equivalent to that base self-preservation which has been denounced as fatal. If a man disavows all connection with Him, He will disavow all connection with the disavower. A man separated from Jesus is dead while he lives, and hereafter will live a living death, and possess neither the world for which he sacrificed his own soul nor the soul for which he sacrificed it.<\/p>\n

We cannot but note the authoritative tone of our Lord in these verses. He claims the obedience and discipleship of all men. He demands that all shall yield themselves unreservedly to Him, and that, even if actual surrender of life is involved, it shall be gladly given. He puts our relation to Him as determining our whole present and future. He assumes to be our Judge, whose smile is life, whose averted face darkens the destiny of a man. Whom say ye that He who dared to speak thus conceived Himself to be? Whom say ye that He is?<\/p>\n

Luk 9:27 recalls us from the contemplation of that far-off appearance to something nearer. Remembering the previous announcement of our Lord’s sufferings, these words seem intended to cheer the disciples with the hope that the kingdom would still be revealed within the lifetime of some then present. Remembering the immediately preceding words, this saying seems to assure the disciples that the blessed recompense of the life of self-crucifying discipleship is not to be postponed to that future, but may be enjoyed on earth. Remembering Christ’s word, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,’ we doubt whether there is any reference here to the destruction of Jerusalem, as is commonly understood. Are not the words rather a declaration that they who are Christ’s true disciples shall even here enter into the possession of their true selves, and find the Messianic hopes more than fulfilled? The future indicated will then be no more remote than the completion of His work by His death and Resurrection, or, at the farthest, the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, by which the fuller life of renewed natures was bestowed on those who were following Jesus in daily self-surrender.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 9:18-22<\/p>\n

18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?” 19They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” 20And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” 21But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, 22saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.”<\/p>\n

Luk 9:18 “while He was praying alone” For a fuller discussion of this event see Mat 16:13 ff. Luke records Jesus praying before the major events of His ministry much more than any of the other Gospels. He was praying alone, possibly removed a distance from the disciples; the phrase may mean that only Jesus and His special inner circle of disciples (Peter, James, and John) were present.<\/p>\n

“Who do people say that I am” The same three guesses mentioned in Luk 9:8-9 are repeated here. It is important that Elijah is connected with the Messianic kingdom (cf. Mal 4:5). “One of the prophets of old” possibly refers to Moses’ statement in Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18 about “the Prophet.”<\/p>\n

Luk 9:20 “But who do you say that I am” The “you” (plural) is emphatic. This question was given to all the disciples.<\/p>\n

“The Christ of God” Peter, as a spokesman for the others, affirmed that Jesus was the promised Messiah (see Special Topic at Luk 2:11). Christ is the Greek translation of “the Anointed One.” However, their concept of what this meant was formed more by rabbinical Judaism than Jesus’ teachings (cf. Act 1:6). The Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting an empowered Jewish leader, like the Judges of the OT, to militarily free Israel from foreign domination and restore the Jews to a place of power and independence. In a sense this judgmental aspect is exactly what He will do when He returns. However, they had missed the Gen 3:15; Psalms 22; Isaiah 53; Ezekiel 9-14; Zechariah 9 aspect of a humble, suffering, and dying Savior.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:21 “But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone” These are two strong terms for a command, even an implied threat. There has been much discussion about this because it seems so unusual. Apparently the gospel was not yet complete and they had nothing to tell except their false Messianic views (cf. see full list of texts at Luk 8:56). We must remember that these Gospels were written decades after the events. The Evangelists knew the full account, but they (except John) wrote as if it was an unfolding truth to their readers.<\/p>\n

Luk 9:22 “The Son of Man” This was Jesus’ self-chosen designation. It had no rabbinical connotations. It is a phrase that means “human being” (cf. Psa 8:4; Eze 2:1). However, in Dan 7:13-14 it involves the idea of deity. See Special Topic at Luk 5:24.<\/p>\n

“must” This Greek word, dei means “necessity.” Jesus had to suffer (cf. Luk 9:44; Luk 12:50; Luk 13:33; Luk 17:25; Luk 18:31-33; Luk 22:37; Luk 24:7; Luk 24:26; Luk 24:46). What a shocking reflection on human sin (cf. Mar 10:45; 2Co 5:21)! In a sense this term should be translated with all the following phrases.<\/p>\n

“suffer many things” The great stumbling block to Jesus being the Messiah for the Jewish people was His suffering and death (cf. 1Co 1:23). The OT seems to depict one coming of the Messiah, in power and glory. The NT reveals that such passages as Gen 3:15; Psalms 22; Isaiah 53; Ezekiel 9-14; and Zechariah 9 describe the coming of the Messiah as a Suffering Servant, which the Jewish nationand for a long time, the Apostlesmisunderstood.<\/p>\n

“be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes” This may be an allusion to Psa 118:22 (cf. Luk 20:17). The term “rejected” is a legal term for the examination and rejecting of someone. This series of nouns reflects the deliberations of the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling court of the Jews in Jerusalem made up of seventy members that had limited authority under the Roman Empire.<\/p>\n

Jesus fully understood His mission and its cost (cf. Mar 10:45). See Special Topic below.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE SANHEDRIN <\/p>\n

“raised up on the third day” Jesus was in the grave somewhere around thirty hours, but in Jewish reckoning of time, it was three days (cf. 1Co 15:3-4). Each part of a day, twilight to twilight, was counted as a full day.<\/p>\n

1. died at 3 p.m., but buried before 6 p.m. on Friday (day one)<\/p>\n

2. in the tomb all of the high holy Sabbath of Passover Week (day two)<\/p>\n

3. arose sometime before dawn Sunday following the high holy Sabbath (day three)<\/p>\n

This phrase could refer to Hos 6:1-2. It is interpreted in a similar way in the Aramaic Targum on this verse. However, Jesus seems to be making an allusion to Jon 1:17 (cf. Mat 12:39; Mat 16:4). This type of predictive sign was exactly what the Pharisees were asking for in Luk 9:12 (cf. Mat 16:4). This type of prediction was the basis of defining a true prophet according to Deu 13:2-5; Deu 18:18-22. Jesus gave them sign after sign, but they could not comprehend. Luke used the phrase “three days” often (cf. Luk 9:22; Luk 13:32; Luk 18:33; Luk 24:7; Luk 24:21; Luk 24:46; Act 10:40) in connection with Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE RESURRECTION <\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

it came to pass. See note on Luk 2:1. <\/p>\n

as He was = in (Greek. en. App-104.) His praying. The fourth of seven such recorded occasions. <\/p>\n

praying, Peculiar to Luke, here. App-134. <\/p>\n

Whom = Who. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

18-26.] CONFESSION OF PETER. FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION. Mat 16:13-28. Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1. The Lord had gone into the neighbourhood of Csarea Philippi: see notes on Matthew.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18. [ , and it came to pass) A memorable point of termination (epoch or boundary of time), marked at once by Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Mat 16:13, Mar 8:27). They all, with a remarkable concert of statement, place here the commencement of the last departure of the Saviour to the northern borders (coasts) of the land of Israel. It is near Csarea-Philippi that He privately asks His disciples, Whom do men say that I am? And then He informs them as to His Passion. Then He so directs His route, as finally now to sow the good seed throughout the whole land of Israel. After the transfiguration He again returns to Capernaum, passing thence through the middle of Samaria and Galilee: further, in continuation, having crossed the Jordan, He proceeds to the land of Judea from that side; and having at length bid farewell to Bethabara and crossed the Jordan again, He came to Jericho and Bethany.-Harm., p. 367.]-, praying) Jesus had prayed the Father that He would reveal Himself to His disciples. For the subject of the prayers of Jesus may be inferred from His subsequent words and actions; ch. Luk 6:12-13 [His praying all night was preparatory to the election of the Twelve].<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luke 9:18-27<\/p>\n

23. JESUS FORETELLS HIS DEATH<\/p>\n

Luk 9:18-27<\/p>\n

18 And it came to pass,-Compare Mat 16:13-28 and Mar 8:27-31 with the record given here by Luke. Both Matthew and Mark give more details of this scene than Luke does, both locating it on the “coasts” or “towns” of Caesarea Philippi. There was a Caesarea on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, but Caesarea Philippi was on the extreme northern boundary of the ancient land of Israel, near the latitude of Tyre, and at the head of one of the principal tributaries of the Jordan. Jesus and his disciples had retired to this remote district of Galilee to evade and forestall the uprising of the people to “take him by force, to make him king.” (Joh 6:15.) He had just performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand and was very popular with the people at this time.<\/p>\n

19 And they answering said,-Jesus had asked his disciples “Who do the multitudes say that I am?” Jesus did not ask this question to gain information; he knew the minds of all; he did not ask his disciples to learn what they thought of him. He knew their mind. He asked the question that he might correct the views of his disciples and to strengthen their faith. The disciples answered that some of the people thought that he was John the Baptist, others that he was Elijah, and still others that he was “one of the old prophets.” Herod was one who believed that he was John the Baptist; in fact, Herod seems to have started this report. (Mat 14:2.) Some thought that he was Elijah, while others placed him among the old prophets. It is not clear whether they thought that an old prophet had arisen from the dead, or that Jesus as a prophet had the spirit of one of the old prophets. It seems strange that they did not in their various answers think that he was the Messiah. Probably they did not class him as the Messiah because he did not fulfill their preconceived notions of the earthly dignity and glory of their coming king.<\/p>\n

20 And he said unto them,-Jesus was not so much concerned about what the multitudes thought of him as he was about what his disciples thought of him. Hence he put the question directly to them and said: “But who say ye that I am?” So soon as they answered his first question, he asked a second personal and pointed question. This is an emphatic question; it means “hut ye, who do ye say?” It should not have mattered much to the disciples as to what the multitudes thought of Jesus, but it was a matter of great moment as to what they thought about Jesus. Peter answered for the group and declared, “The Christ of God.” Each writer records Peter’s confession differently. Matthew records him as confessing: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat 16:16.) Mark records the confession: “Thou art the Christ.” (Mar 8:29.) “Christ” is the Greek word for “anointed”; “Messiah” is the Hebrew word which means the same. “The Christ of God” would mean the anointed of God.<\/p>\n

21, 22 But he charged them,-The disciples were to be silent now about his Messianic nature; the time had not arrived for them to proclaim it. Perhaps they did not clearly understand it, and hence could not successfully proclaim it to others. There were some things which must befall him before they were to proclaim him as the Son of God. The things which he now enumerates, when they behold, will deepen their faith in him as “the Christ of God.” Jesus does not say here, but it is implied, that after he shall have suffered these things, they may then proclaim him as the Christ. Among the things which he mentions that he must suffer, are that he should “be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes,” “be killed,” and “be raised up” on the third day. The “elders” were the rulers of the people; “chief priests” were the heads of the twenty-four courses or classes of the priests. David had divided the priests into the twenty-four classes. “The scribes” were those who transcribed the law and were also teachers of the people since they transcribed the law, they were supposed to know it and teach it. All of these would reject Jesus; the verb for “rejected” in the original means to reject on scrutiny or trial, and therefore implies deliberate rejection. “The third day” means “after three days,” as Mark expresses it. (Mar 8:31.) “After three days” is just another way of saying “on the third day” and does not mean “on the fourth day.”<\/p>\n

23, 24 And he said unto all,-Jesus wanted all to understand the lesson of self-sacrifice; they could not yet understand the full meaning of the words of Jesus as applied to his approaching death of which he had been speaking. The shadow of the cross is already across the path of Jesus, but his disciples do not see it. Jesus said to his disciples if ye would continue to be followers of the Messiah that ye call me, you will need further denial of self. There are no high positions, no places of ease and honor, no wealth or power to gratify the earthly ambitions of men as you might expect in the company of an earthly king; but there are daily crosses, a life of hardship, obscurity, persecution, and dishonor in the world if you follow Jesus. (Rom 8:36; 1Co 15:31.) If his apostles shared in the delusions of the scribes in respect to the glorious temporal reign of the Messiah, this language of Jesus must have dazed and bewildered them.<\/p>\n

For whosoever would save his life-Here Jesus presents a remarkable paradox to impress and to fasten the truth upon all his disciples. In an attempt to save the present life, the body, one risks and often loses the true life, the soul. We gain the pleasure of time and lose the bliss of eternity. The natural life is doomed to death; we strive to save it, we lose it, and do not gain spiritual life in Christ. But losing this life in Christ we save it by having it transformed into a new life in him who is the life and light of the world.<\/p>\n

25 For what is a man profited,-Here Jesus puts the case in a very commonsense question of profit and loss. If a man gains the world, yet forfeits his own self, his true self, becoming a castaway in God’s great kingdom, what a sorrowful bargain! The loss is eternal. There can be no means of profit to the one who loses heaven, it matters not what he may gain on earth. Loss as a consequence of seeking the world and not following Jesus cannot recompense for gain of all of this world.<\/p>\n

26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me-Jesus identifies himself with his word; he said that those who were ashamed of him and his word that he would be ashamed of them. The cross, the trials, the persecutions, the loss of life itself are awful tests of Christian faith and fidelity. No wonder some stop and stagger in the face of such a thorny pathway to heaven. To turn aside, to waver is to be “ashamed” of Christ, and of such he will be ashamed in the day of his glorious appearance. Jesus endured the shame of the cross. (Heb 12:2.) The man at the feast who had to take a lower seat did it with shame. (Luk 14:9.) Paul declared that he was not ashamed of the gospel. (Rom 1:16.) Onesiphorus was not ashamed of Paul. (2Ti 1:16.) Jesus speaks of himself here as he often does “as the Son of man.” He is going to come again; at his next advent he will come “in his own glory.” His first advent was attended with humiliation and suffering, but the next time he will come in all of his glory with his angels. He will be accompanied with “the glory of the Father” and the glory of “the holy angels” when he comes the second time. This makes a threefold glory that shall attend Christ when he comes again.<\/p>\n

27 But I tell you of a truth,-Jesus speaks with the greatest emphasis when he says that he tells of a truth. He gives assurance that some who were standing in his presence at that time should not “taste of death” until they should see the kingdom of God; that is, the kingdom of God would come before some who were present would die. The word “taste” is used in the sense of “experience.” It is often used in this sense in classical Greek. It is used in the New Testament only with respect to Christ here and in the parallels, Mat 16:28; Mar 9:1; Heb 2:9. This shows that the kingdom of God had not at this time been established.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the True Use of Life <\/p>\n

Luk 9:18-27<\/p>\n

Here and also in Luk 9:28 reference is made to the Masters prayers. He was praying alone, before He broke to His friends the death which awaited Him and in which we may have some share; He was praying, too, when the cloud of glory overshadowed Him. Would it not be well to begin this new day with the resolve to pray more! If the Lord needed it, surely we do, whether for the Cross or the Transfiguration Mount.<\/p>\n

Into such prayer, petition and intercession must needs enter. But, ah, what prayer that is, which is neither of these, but the opening of our nature to the inflowing of the divine nature, which is Love, when the soul recognizes its oneness with God and the whole universe!<\/p>\n

Our Lord asked these questions that He might lead the Apostles to crystallize their own conceptions in Peters magnificent affirmation. But they who will follow His footsteps must expect His lot! First, the Cross is set up in our heart, and day by day our old self-nature is crucified there; then we have to endure for others the Cross of rejection, shame and death. But it is thus that we gain ourselves and come into possession of our own souls. If we dare take this path, neither here nor hereafter will Christ be ashamed of us.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Peter’s Confession And True Discipleship — Luk 9:18-26<\/p>\n

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. He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. And He straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; saying, The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. And He said to them all, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for My sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Fathers, and of the holy angels- Luk 9:18-26.<\/p>\n

We have two sections to the portion we are now to consider. The first is Peters confession, and then the price of discipleship. Once more we are reminded of the true humanity of our Lord Jesus which is emphasized in the Gospel of Luke. We notice that each of the Gospels presents Christ in a different aspect: Matthew presents Him as King; Mark as the Servant; John as the Son of God become flesh; and Luke as Man in all perfection. So in this Gospel, again and again we find our Lord in prayer. People have asked to whom the Lord prayed if He was God Himself. He was both God and Man, and as Man He took the place of dependence, and as the Son He enjoyed constant fellowship with His Father. As recorded in this Gospel, He makes no important move without going to God in prayer. He spent whole nights in prayer. On this occasion He was alone praying, and His disciples drew near to Him. He had led them to the far northern border, to the land looking out upon the great Gentile world, conscious of the fact that His own people, Israel, whom He had come to deliver, refused to recognize Him. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. It was with the blessing of the Gentile world in view that He asked the disciples, 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. Herod and others said that He was John the Baptist risen from the dead. They did not know of the incident when Jesus came and was baptized by John the Baptist. Others said He was Elias, as prophesied in Malachi 4. They were looking expectantly for the coming of Elias, and did not realize that John had come in his spirit and power. So some of them thought possibly Jesus was he. Others thought that He was one of the old prophets risen again. Jesus said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. After having walked with Him all these months, after having observed His ministry and mighty works, after having listened to the gracious words that proceeded out of His mouth, Peter was assured He was the Christ of God. He spoke for them all. The Christ is synonymous with the Messiah, and means the Anointed-the One promised by the prophets of old. In Matthews Gospel we read, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. It was a wonderful confession, because, so far as the record goes, Jesus had never said that this was the truth, but they had deduced it from what they had seen and heard. And He straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing. Why, you would have expected that He should have told them to spread the word around all over, and tell people everywhere just who He was! But it is too late for that. His ministry has been rejected. The hearts of the majority of the people are set upon their own way. They are not prepared to receive His testimony. Israel will receive Him as the Christ of God when He returns the second time. In the meantime they must reap the sad results of their unbelief. That was why He commanded the disciples not to say anything about it then, for He was going down to Jerusalem to die. He had to be who He is in order to do what He did. Many tell us He was the most wonderful prophet and teacher that the world has ever known; they say He knew more of God and manifested more divinity in humanity than anyone else has ever done, but yet they stop short of what Peter in this confession says, Thou art the Christ of God. Nothing less than that will ever satisfy the Father. He called upon the angels to worship Him. He said, Let all the angels of God worship Him. In heaven, every tongue confesses Him as the Christ of God. Jesus is God the Son, who came in grace into this world and assumed our humanity in order that He might go to the cross and give His life a ransom on our behalf. He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Every blessing for time and eternity is linked up with that confession of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

In Lukes account of this confession, nothing is said of what is recorded in Matthew as to the special blessing the Lord bestowed on Peter. He passes that over and immediately proceeds with the test of discipleship. Jesus tells them, The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. He was as truly Man as He was God; God and Man in one blessed and adorable Person. Nothing took Him by surprise; He knew all that was before Him. When He came from glory down to the manger in Bethlehem, He knew what was going to take place. He came to die. He said, The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many, in order that He might be the sacrifice for sinners. As a result of this sacrifice our sins are forever put away. He knew that He was to die and that on the third day He was to be raised again. Now in view of all this-the revelation of His Person and the revelation of the work He was to perform-He speaks to His disciples, as He does to us. He said to them, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. Let us be clear as to that of which He was speaking. He is not telling us how we may obtain forgiveness of our sins; we are told that elsewhere. He is not telling us here how we may obtain eternal life; He makes that clear elsewhere: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. What is it that He is speaking of here? It is the place that His disciples are to take in this world, the place of identification with Him in His rejection-they are to follow Him. But observe: no one was ever saved through following Jesus. If you and I could be saved by following Jesus, then salvation would be the result of human efforts. We cannot be saved by imitating our blessed Lord. We are not told that we are saved by taking up our cross. But after we know that our sins are forgiven and that we have eternal life, we are called upon to follow Him. If you profess to have believed in Him and trusted Him as your Saviour, you are called upon to follow in His steps. You are not left to choose your own path. He has marked out the way that you are to go. It is to such that He says, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. What does it mean to deny oneself? What did it mean for Peter to deny our Lord? They came to Peter and said, You are one of His disciples. Peter said, I am not! They said unto him again, Of a truth this fellow also was with Him: for he is a Galilean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. Challenged a third time, Peter, with an oath, denied that he was one of Jesus disciples. He refused to own Christ in any way. What does it mean when Jesus said, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me? You are to refuse to know yourself in order that He may have His way with you on this earth. I am no longer to seek my own interest, but I am to seek that which will glorify Him. I am to say, I know not this man, but I do know that Man, and for Him I will gladly surrender everything.<\/p>\n

If you had been living when this Gospel was written and you had seen a man bearing a cross as he walked along the road, you would have known that that man was going out to die. That was what it meant. Jesus, when He carried the cross, was going out to die. So to take up my cross and follow Jesus, means to take the place of death to self, and to be prepared to die for Him. The Apostle Paul said, I die daily. The consistent disciple says, I am ready to die to all carnal hopes and selfish interests. I am no longer to be dominated by fleshly desires, but I am to live unto God. Tested by words like these, how little most of us know of real discipleship! If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. Let him refuse to know himself and take the place of death. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for My sake, the same shall save it. What does He mean by that? All down through the centuries there have been those who have said that it costs too much to follow Christ and to yield oneself to His allegiance. It means the loss of the good opinion of loved ones, the loss of friends, and fame, and profit; sometimes it means leaving loved ones and friends and going to another country to preach the gospel. Listen, my dear friends, if the Lord is calling you to some particular path, you cannot afford not to hear and follow Him. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for My sake, the same shall save it.<\/p>\n

I have always been thankful for a little incident that might have seemed trivial at the time. It took place after I had been converted, when I was only a lad, at a Saturday-night meeting on the street-corner, in which I was participating. Along came some of my schoolmates, and they were dumbfounded at seeing me in this meeting, and they listened in amazement when I witnessed for Christ. On Monday when I came to school, they greeted me derisively, shouting Hallelujah. I said, Praise the Lord. Then they said, Praise the Lord. I replied, Amen. Some who were kind to me said, Harry, what do you mean by turning religious? You are throwing your life away. Why; that is just what I intended to do! And it came to me so clearly, and I am thanking God that He in His grace started me that way. I wouldnt exchange these fifty-three years of service for the Lord Jesus Christ for any career that the world might offer me. It may seem that you are losing grand opportunities for advancement if you deny yourself and follow Jesus, but He has said, Whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for My sake, the same shall save it. Think of the noble army of martyrs down through the ages. Think of those who have literally given their lives rather than deny the Lord Jesus. How thankful they are today that they counted all things but loss, even life itself, to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. Dont hesitate, young Christians, to make your decision, to dedicate yourself to the One who gave His life for you. Say from the heart:<\/p>\n

Jesus, I my cross have taken,<\/p>\n

All to leave and follow Thee;<\/p>\n

Destitute, despised, forsaken,<\/p>\n

Thou, from hence, my all shall be!<\/p>\n

Perish every fond ambition,<\/p>\n

All Ive sought, and hoped, and known;<\/p>\n

Yet how rich is my condition,<\/p>\n

God and heaven are still my own!<\/p>\n

In the verses that follow, the Lord has a message not only for His disciples, but for the world at large. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world and lose himself, or be cast away? What is a man advantaged if he gain all that the world has to offer, if he piles up a lot of wealth, if he be honored and recognized by his country and even by other countries, what advantage if at last he goes out into a lost eternity? What advantage is this? What advantage to gain the whole world if one be lost himself, or be a castaway eternally? Oh, that we might learn to put first things first, and be right with God before everything else. Trust in God first as your Saviour and then own Him as Lord of your life.<\/p>\n

Jesus added this challenge to His disciples, For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Fathers, and of the holy angels. Will you notice first the way in which our blessed Lord speaks of His coming to this earth? The order would be very strange indeed if He were anyone else than the One who Peter said He was. He came once before, but He is coming back again. The world has not seen the last of Jesus. When He returns He shall come in His own glory. What glory is that?-the glory of His Eternal Sonship – and in His Fathers, and the holy angels. If He had been any less than equal with the Father, He would have had to say, In His Fathers glory, then, in His own glory. But He was not wrong when, in speaking of His return, He put Himself first, then the Father. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One. Do you not want Him to own you then? Will you not want to be numbered among those who are His followers? Then listen, For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Fathers, and of the holy angels. If you have not confessed Him as Saviour and Lord, why not do so now?<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 56<\/p>\n

Peters Confession<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 of God.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Matthew gives a more complete record 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 (Mat 16:16). Peter confessed that the man Jesus is both the Christ of God and God the Son in our nature. He confessed 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?<\/p>\n

Alone Praying<\/p>\n

The first obvious lesson set before us is the fact that those who undertake great work for God must spend time alone with God in prayer. 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 (v.18)? Never was there a man who worked so feverishly as our Lord. Never was there a preacher who was so constantly engaged in ministering to the souls of men as our Saviour. Remember, this man was and is himself God. Yet, there was never a man so much engaged in private prayer to God. How frequently we read in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that our Lord Jesus Christ was alone, or alone with a few of his brethren, praying.<\/p>\n

The pioneer missionary, William Carey, once said, Expect great things from God. Attempt great things for God. Carey would not object to me adding this: if we would attempt great things for God and expect great things from God, we must spend time alone with God praying. In all spiritual endeavours prayer is the secret to usefulness. Let us follow our Masters example. Pray. Pray for grace to pray as we ought. Pray for one another. Pray for Gods guidance and his blessing upon our labours. Pray for the power and grace of God to attend the ministry of the Word.<\/p>\n

Religious Chatter<\/p>\n

Second, read Luk 9:19 and learn that talk and speculation about Christ, his gospel, and the things of God are snares by which Satan destroys multitudes. They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. Many a man attempts to cover his ignorance by endless chatter, speculation and debate, speaking when he ought to listen, attempting to teach when he needs to learn and offering dogmatic opinions about things of which he has no knowledge.<\/p>\n

During the days of our Lords earthly ministry, if you stopped any man or woman on the street and mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, you would be sure to hear that persons opinion about him. A multitude of opinions could be heard in any district. Some were dead sure John the Baptist had been raised from the dead. Others were equally certain that Elijah had come back to the earth. Others were absolutely positive that Jeremiah or one of the prophets had been reincarnated!<\/p>\n

One thing is obvious. All were agreed that our Lord was not at all like the other preachers and religious leaders around. No one ever mistook him for a scribe, a Pharisee, or a Sadducee! His doctrine distinguished him from all others. Read through the gospel narratives (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) again. You will find that the masses, religious and otherwise, never denied or even challenged our Lords miracles, his doctrine, or even his Divine authority. They did not refuse to acknowledge him as a Christ, (an anointed man), or a Saviour. That which disturbed men in our Lords day and disturbs men in this day was the exclusiveness of his message. Our Lord declared himself to be, and his apostles declared him and him alone to be the Christ, the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Door, the Saviour, the Good Shepherd, the King, the Redeemer, the Son of the Living God.<\/p>\n

We should never be surprised or at all confused by the fact that men and women everywhere have very strong, outspoken opinions about Christ and his gospel, opinions as foreign to holy scripture as hell is to heaven.<\/p>\n

The fact is Gods truth disturbs people. No one can sit under the ministry of the gospel and not be affected by it. If the gospel is plainly preached in unmistakable terms, it will cause people to think. If they refuse to bow to the Revelation of God, they will conjure up reasons for their rebellion and unbelief, invent doctrinal theories of their own, speculate about what they judge to be right and seek to persuade others.<\/p>\n

Multitudes spend their lives this way, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. I meet them everywhere I go. They are always anxious to hear some new thing. They get hold of it, whirl it around, and run everywhere with it, as excited as a child with a ten cent sparkler, until it fizzles out. Then they go find another sparkler.<\/p>\n

Multitudes know nothing more about the things of God than what they think they have learned by religious gossip. They content themselves with examining and criticizing everything they hear or read. Bro. Mahan is getting a little weak. Bro. Nibert is too strong. Bro. Bell is too emotional. Bro. Fortner is too dogmatic. Bro. Harding is beginning to compromise. They approve of this and disapprove of that. They say this man is sound, or that man is unsound.<\/p>\n

They cannot make up their own mind what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. So they run from one place to another in the name of truth, wreaking havoc wherever they go, never contributing anything anywhere but confusion. <\/p>\n

Year rolls after year, and they are in the same state, just as confused as ever and just as dogmatic; talking, criticizing, finding fault, speculating and tearing down, but never contributing. They hover like the moth around the things of God, but never settle down like the bee to feed upon them. They never lay hold on Christ. They never set their faces toward heaven. They never take up the cross. They never become followers of Christ. We will be wise to read and heed the warnings given in holy scripture about such people (1Ti 6:3-5; 1Ti 6:11-12; 1Ti 6:20-21; 2Ti 2:16-18; 2Ti 2:21-23; 2Ti 3:1-9; Tit 3:9).<\/p>\n

Gods salvation is personally experienced, personally embraced, personally felt, personally known, personally possessed and personally cherished. It is not something bantered about over coffee and doughnuts like politics. It is more, much more than speculation and theory. It is life everlasting in Christ. Our Lord said, If any man will do Gods will, he shall know the doctrine whether it be of God (Joh 7:17). Gods will is that we believe on his Son (1Jn 3:23); and believing Christ, we are taught and learn of God. God given faith then walks before God with confident, assured knowledge regarding the things of God, for we who believe have the mind of Christ.<\/p>\n

Faiths Confession<\/p>\n

Third, true, saving faith knows and confesses that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of God. He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Luk 9:20). Peter was, at times, erring and unstable, in some matters ignorant and unbelieving, far too proud and far too quick to action. But when all is said and done, Peter was a remarkable man. In the midst of unbelieving religionists, when the overwhelming tide of religious opinion was rushing the other way, Peter was confident, loyal, willing to stand alone and bold because he believed and loved his Saviour.<\/p>\n

When he declared that the man standing before him was The Christ of God, he was asserting plainly that that man was and is the Incarnate God, the womans Seed, Abrahams Seed, Davids Son and Davids Lord, the Saviour, that One of whom the scriptures speak.<\/p>\n

A Time For Silence<\/p>\n

Fourth, in Luk 9:21 we are taught that there is a time to be silent as well as a time to speak. And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing. Many imagine that they must buttonhole everyone they see, shove a tract into their hand, tell them they are going to hell, and in doing so content themselves with being clear of their blood. But there is a time to be quiet as well as a time to speak. May God give us wisdom and grace to know when to speak and when to be silent.<\/p>\n

And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing. For the present time our Lord was pleased to make himself known to a few and to conceal himself from the multitudes. Contrary to popular opinion, it is still his purpose to make himself known to some and to hide himself from others. He sends the gospel to some and refuses to send it to others. He calls some, but not others, exactly as it pleases him to do so.<\/p>\n

There is a lesson here for us all. There is a time for us to speak to men about the things of God and a time for us to be silent. As you endeavour to be faithful witnesses remember this. Ever be ready and willing to speak for Christ regardless of cost or consequence. But seek to be led of God. If he would have you speak a word for him, you will not have to force it. He will open the way and make it obvious. Let our words be words in season and fitly spoken.<\/p>\n

Determined To Die<\/p>\n

Fifth, we see our great Saviours loving determination to suffer and die under the wrath of God as our sin-atoning Substitute. The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day (Luk 9:22). I am sure there is much, much more in this verse than I have yet grasped. But these two things are both obvious and vital.<\/p>\n

Our Lord Jesus Christ died as a voluntary Surety. He died for us because he wanted to die, because he loved us. He died by his own free, voluntary will. He did not die as the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control, but by the determination of his own hearts love for us. The Son of God loved me and gave himself for me! Imagine that!<\/p>\n

There was a necessity for our Saviours death. He must die. The Old Testament scriptures must be fulfilled. The purpose of God must be accomplished. His covenant engagements must be finished. The justice of God must be satisfied. And the salvation of his people must be obtained. Therefore, our all-glorious Redeemer declared, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day!<\/p>\n

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

as: Luk 11:1, Luk 22:39-41, Mat 26:36 <\/p>\n

Whom: Mat 16:13, Mat 16:14, Mar 8:27-30 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Luk 9:28 – into<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

8<\/p>\n

See Mat 16:13 on why Jesus asked them this question.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

LET us notice in this passage, the variety of opinions about our Lord Jesus Christ, which prevailed during His earthly ministry. We are told that some said that He was John the Baptist;-some that He was Elias;-and some that one of the old prophets was risen again. One common remark applies to all these opinions. All were agreed that our Lord’s doctrine was not like that of the Scribes and Pharisees. All saw in Him a bold witness against the evil that was in the world.<\/p>\n

Let it never surprise us, to find the same variety of opinions about Christ and His Gospel in our own times. God’s truth disturbs the spiritual laziness of men. It obliges them to think. It makes them begin to talk, and reason, and speculate, and invent theories to account for its spread in some quarters, and its rejection in others. Thousands in every age of the Church spend their lives in this way, and never come to the point of drawing near to God. They satisfy themselves with a miserable round of gossip about this preacher’s sermons, or that writer’s opinions. They think “this man goes too far,” and “that man does not go far enough.” Some doctrines they approve, and others they disapprove. Some teachers they call “sound,” and others they call “unsound.” They cannot quite make up their own minds what is true, or what is right. Year rolls on after year, and finds them in the same state,-talking, criticizing, fault-finding, speculating, but never getting any further,-hovering like the moth round religion, but never settling down like the bee, to feed on its treasures. They never boldly lay hold of Christ. They never set themselves heartily to the great business of serving God. They never take up the cross and become thorough Christians. And at last, after all their talking, they die in their sins, unprepared to meet God.<\/p>\n

Let us not be content with a religion of this kind. It will not save us to talk and speculate, and bandy opinions about the Gospel. The Christianity that saves, is a thing personally grasped, personally experienced, personally felt, and personally possessed. There is not the slightest excuse for stopping short in talk, opinion, and speculation. The Jews of our Lord’s time might have found out, if they had been honest inquirers, that Jesus of Nazareth was neither John the Baptist, nor Elias, nor an old prophet, but the Christ of God. The speculative Christian of our own day, might easily satisfy himself on every point which is needful to salvation, if he would really, candidly, and humbly seek the teaching of the Spirit. The words of our Lord are weighty and solemn, “If any man will do God’s will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God.” (Joh 7:17.) Honest, practical obedience, is one of the keys of the gate of knowledge.<\/p>\n

Let us notice, secondly, in this passage, the singular knowledge and faith displayed by the Apostle Peter. We read, that when our Lord said to His disciples, “Whom say ye that I am? Peter answering, said, the Christ of God.”<\/p>\n

This was a noble confession, and one of which, in these days, we can hardly realize the full value. To estimate it aright we should place ourselves in the position of our Lord’s disciples. We should call to mind that the great, and wise, and learned of their own nation, saw no beauty in their Master, and would not receive Him as the Messiah. We should recollect that they saw no royal dignity about our Lord,-no crown,-no army,-no earthly dominion. They saw nothing but a poor man, who often had no place in which to lay his head. And yet it was at this time, and under these circumstances, that Peter boldly declares his belief that Jesus is the Christ of God. Truly, this was a great faith! It was mingled, no doubt, with much of ignorance and imperfection. But such as it was, it was a faith that stood alone. He that had it was a remarkable man, and far in advance of the age in which he lived.<\/p>\n

We should pray frequently that God would raise up more Christians of the stamp of the apostle Peter. Erring, and unstable, and ignorant of his own heart as he sometimes proved, that blessed apostle was in some respects one in ten thousand. He had faith, and zeal, and love to Christ’s cause, when almost all Israel was unbelieving and cold. We want more men of this sort. We want men who are not afraid to stand alone, and to cleave to Christ when the many are against Him. Such men, like Peter, may err sadly at times, but in the long run of life will do more good than any. Knowledge, no doubt, is an excellent thing; but knowledge without zeal and warmth will never do much for the world.<\/p>\n

Let us notice, thirdly, in this passage, our Lord’s prediction of His own coming death. We read that He said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” These words, as we read them now, sound simple and plain; but there lie beneath the surface of them two truths which ought to be carefully remembered. <\/p>\n

For one thing, our Lord’s prediction shows us that His death upon the cross was the voluntary act of His own free will. He was not delivered up to Pilate and crucified because He could not help it, and had no power to crush His enemies. His death was the result of the eternal counsels of the blessed Trinity. He had undertaken to suffer for man’s sin, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. He had engaged to bear our sins, as our Substitute and Surety, and He bore them willingly in His own person on the tree. He saw Calvary and the cross before Him all the days of His ministry. He went up to them willingly, knowingly, and with full consent, that He might pay our debts in His own blood. His death was not the death of a mere weak son of man, who could not escape; but the death of One who was very God of very God, and had undertaken to be punished in our stead.<\/p>\n

For another thing, our Lord’s prediction shows us the blinding effect of prejudice on men’s minds. Clear and plain as His words now seem to us, His disciples did not understand them. They heard as though they heard not. They could not understand that Messiah was to be “cut off.” They could not receive the doctrine that their own Master must needs die. And hence, when His death really took place, they were amazed and confounded. Often as He had told them of it, they had never realized it as a fact.<\/p>\n

Let us watch and pray against prejudice. Many a zealous man has been grievously misled by it, and has pierced himself through with many sorrows. Let us beware of allowing traditions, old preconceived notions, unsound interpretations, baseless theories in religion, to find root in our hearts. There is but one test of truth-“What saith the Scripture?” Before this let every prejudice go down.<\/p>\n

==================<\/p>\n

Notes-<\/p>\n

v18.-[He was alone praying.] Let us not forget to notice how frequently our Lord’s habit of private prayer is mentioned in the Gospels. He sets an example to all who work for God. Much private prayer is one secret of success.<\/p>\n

v19.-[John the Baptist…Elias…one of the old prophets.] Let it be remembered, that talk and speculation about Christ and His Gospel, are one of Satan’s great traps for ruining souls. Many a man cloaks his indolence and laziness about religion, under a pretence of the variety of opinions, and the difficulty of knowing who is right.<\/p>\n

v20.-[The Christ of God.] This expression, it should be noted, is tantamount to saying the Messiah of God, the predicted Saviour of whom Daniel spoke. (Dan 9:24-27.)<\/p>\n

v21.-[Tell no man.] There is a time to be silent as well as to speak. Our Lord knew that the public proclamation of His being Messiah, would cause Him to be cut off before His time.<\/p>\n

v22.-[Must suffer.] The Greek word translated “must” in this place, does not quite bear the sense of force and necessity, which our English word “must” conveys. It rather means, “it is becoming, it is suitable, it is necessary for certain great ends and purposes.” in Luk 24:26, the same expression is rendered, “ought not Christ to have suffered?”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18-27. THE CONFESSION OF PETER, etc. See on Mat 16:13-28; Mar 8:27-38. This account agrees closely with the others, although briefer.<\/p>\n

As he was praying alone (Luk 9:18). Peculiar to Luke. The prayer was a preparation for the revelation. The disciples joined Him, and in the way (Mark) the conversation took place.<\/p>\n

Unto all (Luk 9:23). See Mar 9:34.<\/p>\n

When he cometh, etc. (Luk 9:26). Lukes account is fullest in this clause. Meyer: The glory is threefold: (1.) His own, which He has of and for Himself as the exalted Messiah; (2.) the glory of God, which accompanies Him as coming down from Gods throne; (3.) the glory of the angels, who surround Him with their brightness.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

These verses relate to us a private conference which our Saviour had with his disciples, touching their own, and others’ opinion concerning himself. <\/p>\n

Where observe, 1. Our Saviour’s enquiry, what the generality of the people thought and said of him: Whom do men say that I am? Not as if Christ were ignorant, or did vain gloriously enquire after the opinion of the multitude; but his intention and design was to settle and more firmly establish his disciples in the belief of his being the true and promised Messiah. The disciples tell him, some took him to be John the Baptist: some, Elias; some one of the prophets. It is no new thing, it seems to find diversity of judgments and opinions concerning Christ and the affairs of his kingdom.<\/p>\n

Observe, 2. Peter, as the mouth of all the apostles, and in their names, makes a full and open profession of Christ, acknowledging him to be the true and promised Messiah: Thou art the Christ of God.<\/p>\n

Learn thence, that the veil of Christ’s human nature did not keep the eye of his disciples’ faith from discerning him to be truly and really God: Thou are the Christ of God.<\/p>\n

Observe, 3. The charge and special injunction given by Christ to tell no man of him: that is, not commonly to publish, and openly to declare him to be the Son of God, because being in his state of humiliation, the glory of his divinity was to be concealed until his resurrection; he was then declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom 1:4<\/p>\n

Observe lastly, the great wisdom of our Saviour in acquainting his disciples with the near approach of his death and sufferings: The Son of man must suffer many things, etc.<\/p>\n

This our Saviour did,<\/p>\n

1. To prevent that scandal and offence which otherwise they might have taken at his sufferings.<\/p>\n

2. The better to fit and prepare them to bear that great trial when it did come.<\/p>\n

3. To correct the error which they had entertained concerning the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, and that he was to be a great and mighty prince here upon earth; for these reasons did Christ frequently acquaint his disciples with his sufferings.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18-22. As he was alone praying Or rather apart from the multitude, for the word , here rendered alone, excludes not his disciples, but the multitude, now sent away when they were filled, as appears from Mar 4:10, where the same word is used; and where we read, when he was alone, (, apart from the multitude,) they that were about him, with the twelve, asked him of the parable, Or the expression here, , may be rendered, as he was praying alone, or by himself; his prayer being ended, his disciples came to him. He asked them When he had done praying, during which they probably stayed at a distance, Who say the people that I am, &c. See this paragraph explained on Mat 16:13-23; and Mar 8:27-33. He commanded them to tell no man, saying, The Son of man must suffer, &c. As if he had said, Ye must prepare for a scene far different from this.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3. First Announcement of the Passion: Luk 9:18-27.<\/p>\n

Up to the first multiplication of the loaves, it is impossible to make out any continuous synchronism between the synoptics, as the following table of the series of preceding incidents shows: <\/p>\n

Numbers might be thrown into a bag and taken out again hap-hazard thrice over, without obtaining an order apparently more capricious and varied. Yet of these three narratives one is supposed to be copied from the other, or to have emanated from the same written source! <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, towards the end a certain parallelism begins to show itself, first of all between Mark and Luke (Gadara, Jarus, Mission of the Twelve), then between Matthew and Mark (Nazareth, murder of John, desert and first multiplication). This convergence of the three narratives into one and the same line proceeds from this point, after a considerable omission in Luke, and becomes more decidedly marked, until it reaches Luk 9:50, as appears from the following table: <\/p>\n

How is the large omission to be explained which Luke’s narrative exhibits from the storm following the first multiplication to the last announcement of the Passion, corresponding to two whole chapters of Matthew (Mat 14:22 to Mat 16:12) and of Mark (Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26)? How is the tolerably exact synchronism which shows itself from this time between all three to be accounted for? Meyer gives up all attempts to explain the omission; it was due to an unknown chance. Reuss ( 189) thinks that the copy of Mark which Luke used presented an omission in this place. Bleek attributes the omission to the original Greek Gospel which Matthew and Luke made use of; Matthew, he supposes, filled it up by means of certain documents, and Mark copied Matthew. Holtzmann (p. 223) contents himself with saying that Luke here breaks the thread of A. (primitive Mark), in order to connect with his narrative the portion which follows; but he says nothing that might serve to explain this strange procedure.<\/p>\n

But the hypothesis upon which almost all these attempted solutions rest is that of a common original document, which, however, is continually contradicted by the numerous differences both in form and matter which a single glance of the eye discovers between Matthew and Mark. Then, with all this, the difficulty is only removed a step further back. For it becomes necessary to explain the omission in the original document. And whenever this is done satisfactorily, it will be found necessary to have recourse to the following idea, which, for our own part, we apply directly to Luke. In the original preaching of the gospel, particular incidents were naturally grouped together in certain cycles more or less fixed, determined sometimes by chronological connection (the call of Matthew, the feast and the subsequent conversations, the tempest, Gadara, and Jarus), sometimes by the similarity of the subjects (the Sabbatic scenes, Luk 6:1-11). These cycles were first of all put in writing, with considerable freedom and variety, sometimes by the preachers for their own use, and in other cases by their hearers, who were anxious to fix their recollection of them. The oldest writings of which Luke speaks (Luk 1:1) were probably collections more or less complete of these groups of narratives ( ). And what in this case can be more readily imagined than the omission of one or the other of these cycles in any of these collections? An accident of this kind is sufficient to explain the great omission which we meet with in Luke. The cycle wanting in the document he used extended a little further than the second multiplication of the loaves, whilst the following portions belong to a part of the Galilean ministry, which, from the beginning, had taken a more definite form in the preaching. This was natural; for the facts of which this subsequent series is composed are closely connected by a double tie, both chronological and moral. The subject is the approaching sufferings of Jesus. The announcement of them to the disciples is the aim of the following discourse; and to strengthen their faith in view of this overwhelming thought is evidently the design of the transfiguration. The cure of the lunatic child, which took place at the foot of the mountain, was associated with the transfiguration in the tradition; the second announcement of the Passion naturally followed the first, and all the more since it took place during the return from Caesarea to Capernaum; which was the case also with certain manifestations of pride and intolerance of which the apostles were then guilty, and the account of which terminates this part. In the tradition, this natural cycle formed the close of the Galilean ministry. And this explains how the series of facts has been preserved in almost identical order in the three narratives. <\/p>\n

The following conversation, reported also by Matthew (Mat 16:13 et seq.) and Mark (Mar 8:27 et seq.), refers to three points: 1 st. The Christ (Luk 9:18-20); 2 d. The suffering Christ (Luk 9:21-22); 3 d. The disciples of the suffering Christ (Luk 9:23-27). <\/p>\n

Jesus lost no time in returning to His project of seeking a season of retirement, a project which had been twice defeated, at Bethsada-Julias, by the eagerness of the multitude to follow Him, and again in Tyre and Sidon, where, notwithstanding His desire to remain hid (Mar 7:24), His presence had been discovered by the Canaanitish woman, and afterwards noised abroad through the miracle which took place. After that He had returned to the south, had visited a second time that Decapolis which he had previously been obliged to quit almost as soon as He entered it. Then He set out again for the north, this time directing His steps more eastward, towards the secluded valleys where the Jordan rises at the foot of Hermon. The city of Caesarea Philippi was situated there, inhabited by a people of whom the greater part were heathen (Josephus, Vita, 13). Jesus might expect to find in this secluded country the solitude which He had sought in vain in other parts of the Holy Land. He did not visit the city itself, but remained in the hamlets which surround it (Mark), or generally in those quarters (Matthew). <\/p>\n

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

LXX. <\/p>\n

THIRD WITHDRAWAL FROM HEROD’S TERRITORY. <\/p>\n

Subdivision B. <\/p>\n

THE GREAT CONFESSION MADE BY PETER. <\/p>\n

(Near Csarea Philippi, Summer, A. D. 29.) <\/p>\n

aMATT. XVI. 13-20; bMARK VIII. 27-30; cLUKE IX. 18-21. <\/p>\n

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.]<\/p>\n

[FFG 410-414]<\/p>\n

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CAESAREA-PHILIPPI<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 9:18-27. The Great Confession (Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1*, Mat 16:13-18*).The changes are inconsiderable. Lk. omits the locality, but represents Jesus as at prayer; cf. Luk 3:21, Luk 9:29, Luk 11:1, The reply of the disciples, one of the old prophets is risen again, reflects or perhaps is the source of the misunderstanding (of Mar 6:15) found in Luk 9:8. Peters confession in Lk. is The Messiah of God, cf. Luk 21:1*. The rebuke of Peter is omitted. Note Lk.s addition of daily in Luk 9:23; cross-bearing is not simply self-denial culminating in martyrdom, but a continuous discipline to be exhibited in ordinary and everyday life. In Luk 9:27 there is a kind of trinity of gloryin Mk. and Mt. the Messiah is to come in the glory of the Father, with the angels. Lk. has a fondness for angels; apart from the Infancy stories, cf. Luk 12:8 f., Luk 15:10, Luk 16:22, Luk 22:43, and Acts, e.g. Act 12:7, Act 27:23.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 18 <\/p>\n

Alone; away from the multitudes.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

9:18 {4} And it came to pass, as he was {f} alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?<\/p>\n

(4) Although the world be tossed up and down between different errors, yet we ought not to condemn the truth but be all the more desirous to know it, and be more steadfast to confess it.<\/p>\n

(f) Alone from the people.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

4. Peter’s confession of faith 9:18-27<\/span><\/p>\n

Luke’s account contains three parts: Jesus’ question and Peter’s reply, Jesus’ prediction of His passion, and Jesus’ explanation of the implications for the disciples.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus’ question and Peter’s reply 9:18-20 (cf. Matthew 16:13-16; Mark 8:27-29)<\/span><\/p>\n

Luke omitted several incidents here that the other evangelists included (Mat 14:22 to Mat 16:12; Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26; Joh 6:16-66). By doing so, he tied the questions of Herod and the multitude about Jesus’ identity with Peter’s answer to that question. This selection of material helps the reader see that the question of Jesus’ identity was very important to Luke. It should be to every evangelist.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The fact that this incident happened near Caesarea Philippi (Mat 16:13; Mar 8:27) was insignificant to Luke. He may have viewed it as a distracting detail even though the event transpired in Gentile territory.<\/p>\n

However, Luke alone mentioned that Jesus was praying. He may have done so to tie this incident to the feeding of the 5,000 when Jesus also prayed (Luk 9:16). Thus he presented the feeding and the revelation to Peter as coming in answer to prayer. Jesus’ exemplary dependence on His Father is one of Luke’s unique emphases (cf. Luk 3:21; Luk 6:12; Luk 11:1; et al.). He showed Jesus praying before many important events in His ministry. He was evidently praying privately, though the disciples were with Him (cf. Luk 11:1).<\/p>\n

Jesus focused attention on the crucial issue of His identity with His question. He wanted the disciples to tell Him who the crowds (Gr. ochloi<\/span>, the uncommitted masses) believed Him to be. He meant what role did the people believe He fulfilled. The disciples responded with the views that Luke had already revealed (cf. Luk 9:7-8).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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? 18 – 22. St Peter’s Confession. Christ prophesies His Death and Resurrection. 18. alone ] Rather, in private, as the context shews. the people ] Rather, the multitudes; … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 9:18”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}