Bible Commentaries

Matthew 12:38-40).

He then warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees

and Sadducees (Matthew 16:1-12). At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples

who people were saying that He was. When asked who they thought He was,

Peter confessed Him to be the Christ. Jesus commended Peter and spoke

of his role in His church, but then told the disciples to tell no one He

was the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20). Jesus then spoke of His death and resurrection,

the cost of discipleship, and coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:21-28).

POINTS TO PONDER

* The confession of Peter and Jesus' response

* The cost of discipleship

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?

- The hypocrisy and leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees - Mt

16:1-12

- Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ - Matthew 16:13-20

- Jesus predicts His death and resurrection, and the cost of

discipleship - Matthew 16:21-28

2) When asked for a sign, what sign did Jesus say would be given? (Matthew 16:1-4)

- The sign of the prophet Jonah (i.e., His death and resurrection)

3) When Jesus warned of leaven, what did He mean? (Matthew 16:5-12)

- The doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees

4) Who did Peter confess Jesus to be? (Matthew 16:16)

- "The Christ, the Son of the living God"

5) What did Jesus say He would build? Upon what would it be built? (Matthew 16:18)

- "I will build My church"

- "this rock" (possibly Peter as an apostle, cf. Ephesians 2:20, or the

truth of Peter's confession)

6) What did Jesus promise Peter? Was it limited to him? (Matthew 16:19; cf. Mt

18:18)

- The keys of the kingdom, to bind and loose; it was also granted to

the other apostles

7) What did Jesus begin to predict at that time? (Matthew 16:21)

- His suffering in Jerusalem, death, and resurrection on the third

day

8) What did Jesus demand of His disciples? How valuable is one's soul?

(Matthew 16:24; Matthew 16:26)

- To deny self, take up one's cross and follow Him; more than the

whole world

9) What promise did Jesus make regarding His kingdom? (Matthew 16:28)

- Some would not die before seeing the Son of Man coming in His

kingdom

Matthew 16:1-28

Matthew 16:1-28

THE PHARISEES ASK A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THE INFLUENCE OF THE PHARISEES PETER's CONFESSION OF CHRIST THE FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to show them a sign from heaven. (Matthew 16:1)

This indicates that Christ was at that time back on the west side of Lake Galilee, which was Pharisaical territory. The request of those enemies of Jesus for a sign from heaven was actually intended to cast a reflection on the mighty miracles Christ had performed, which, as interpreted by those hypocrites, were not "from heaven."

They were utterly wrong, of course. A sign in the skies, or from above, would have been no more convincing than raising the dead or walking on the sea. As a matter of fact, Satan's destruction of Job's sheep (Job 1:16) was explained by some as "The fire of God is fallen from heaven"; but it was no such thing; it was a lying miracle of Satan. Thus, the basis of their request for a sign from heaven was a prior falsehood in the theology of the Pharisees, classifying signs as "from heaven" or from earth. They were wrong on both counts. Origen said:

They erred in regard to both, in regard to signs upon earth as well as to signs from heaven, ... not knowing how to distinguish between the spirits that are working, which kind are from God, and which have revolted from him. Luke 23:12). Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:7); Tirhakah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:8), in spite of being enemies, made league against God's people. Again to quote Origen, "Those who hold the most divergent opinions appear to be of one mind that they may scoff at and attack Jesus Christ in the person of his disciples. Genesis 49:10). (4) Even a "sign from heaven" had already been given at the baptism of Christ when God spoke out of heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). (5) It had been revealed to Simeon that he should not die until he had seen the Lord's Christ; and it must be presumed that Simeon, by that time, was long since dead and buried. (6) All the world was expecting the coming of some Great One. (7) The Christ himself, "that Prophet like unto Moses," had appeared upon the banks of the Jordan and had been identified by John the Baptist as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world"! And John was the only authentic prophet Israel had had in half a millennium. Yes, it must be admitted that the Pharisees missed the signs of the times, however skilled they might have appeared as weather prophets!

Verse4
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.

For notes on the "sign of Jonah," see under Matthew 12:38-40. What is called the first announcement of the Lord's passion and resurrection is recorded later in this chapter, but it must be admitted that Christ's "sign of Jonah" is embryonically a statement of the same thing.

The relation between God and Israel had long been described as a marriage contract in which God was the husband and Israel the bride, hence a charge of adultery was a reflection upon Israel's fidelity to God. That unequal marriage God would shortly dissolve through his own death, in the person of Christ, upon the cross (Romans 7:4). It is also doubtless true that that generation was "adulterous" in the ordinary sense as well. Christ had already explained the sign of Jonah and did not repeat it on that occasion.

The impact of the word "desired" in Matthew 16:1 above (King James Version) reveals that the Pharisees had urgently pleaded with Christ to give them one final, decisive "sign from heaven" that he was the Christ. Jesus knew it would be useless, because he knew their hearts; and their request rose from a desire to tempt him (Matthew 16:1, King James Version), and not from any honest wish to know the truth. The addition of the words "O ye hypocrites" in Matthew 16:3 by some of the older versions was in line with the facts of the situation. The utter perversity of those blind, evil leaders in presuming that God would make them, in all their wickedness, the final arbiters and judges of the Messiahship of God's only Son, is amazing. Christ very properly refused to be placed upon examination by them.

Christ's statement that no sign would be given, except that of Jonah, did not mean that light would be withheld from them or that they were without light; but it meant that more than sufficient light was already theirs. The one cosmic exception to the "no sign" policy would be the resurrection of Christ, which would more than meet even their specifications as a "sign from heaven." To be sure, even that was of no avail because, instead of accepting it, they bribed witnesses to deny it! Christ fully knew the character of those evil men; and the sad words concluding Matthew 16:4 show the finality of Christ's judgment upon them. He never more worked any miracle or taught in that place again.

Verse5
And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread. And Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ and the apostles re-crossed Lake Galilee to the vicinity of Bethabara-Julius, where, in temporary safety from the Pharisees, he could continue to instruct the Twelve. Christ's warning of the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" was necessary. They had formed a powerful, socially prominent, politically dominating alliance against him and were advocating his rejection with every cunning and lying argument possible. They argued: (1) that Christ could not be the Messiah, because Elijah had not yet come; (2) that his signs were not "from heaven," but from earth; (3) that the demons he exorcised were, in truth, cast out by the power of the devil; (4) that he was a violator of sacred traditions; (5) that he profaned the sabbath; (6) that the Scriptures "proved" the Messiah could not come from Galilee, but from Bethlehem (John 7:41); (7) that none of the rulers of the people believed on him (John 7:48); (8) that they KNEW him to be a sinner (John 9:24); (9) that he was a glutton and a winebibber; (10) that he was a Samaritan; (11) that he was a friend of publicans and sinners; and (12) that he was a deceiver. (For more on this and for Scripture references on the Pharisees" charges, see under Matthew 11:18-19). Considering WHO THEY WERE, one must allow that they had indeed mounted a formidable attack against the Christ, so strong in fact that Christ saw fit in this instance to warn even the apostles against it.

"Leaven" in this case stands for something evil, the usual meaning in Scriptures, although an exception exists (Matthew 13:33). The Sadducees were materialists, denying any spiritual life, any possibility of a resurrection (Matthew 22:23), and the existence of angels. The Pharisees were hypocrites, dealing in falsehood. Both were secular, dominated by earthly considerations exclusively. They were full of snobbery and pride and made every possible appeal to selfishness, prejudice, and bias. They even tortured the Scriptures to invent arguments against him; and, finally, they relied upon force to achieve their ends. Even at that moment, they were plotting to kill Christ. No group of leaders in human history ever surpassed their right to be denominated as "the sons of the evil one."

Verse7
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, We took no bread. And Jesus perceiving it said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have no bread?

The need of Jesus" warning appeared in the fact that, even at that late hour, the apostles were far too literal in construing the words of Christ. The Saviour's warning against the Pharisees might have gone unheeded if Christ had not explained it. Far from catching the significance of his words, at first they thought that they were being scolded for forgetting to buy bread.

Just where the above conversation took place is a matter of different opinions. It might have been on board en route to Bethabara-Julius, or after they landed; what difference could it make? Like disciples of old, men can still find a lot to be concerned about, besides the point! Christ knew what was in the disciples" minds, no less than he knew what was in the Pharisees" minds. Only God has such power.

Verse9
Do ye not yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

Christ's mention of BOTH the miracles in which so many were fed is certain proof that there were in fact two miracles, however similar, and that these are not merely two accounts of the same wonder. Christ was amazed that after all the disciples had seen, they would still have considered their failure to provide bread a matter of sufficient importance that Christ would have rebuked them for it. "O ye of little faith!"

Verse11
How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then understood they that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Here is an extremely important example of how the word of Christ, or of the Scriptures, should be interpreted. Note that Christ did not change a syllable of what he had said, indicating that the misunderstanding of the Twelve did not arise from any fault in what Christ had said but in their application of it. Note that if he had meant "bread," he would have said "bread." The word he used was "leaven," and his use of it in connection with the Pharisees and Sadducees showed that a literal meaning of the term was not indicated, since a man does not have literal "leaven" in him.

In outlining the qualifications of elders and deacons, the Scriptures speak of "believing children"; to insist that that must invariably mean "baptized children" is to fall into the error of the apostles noted above. Does anyone suppose that the Holy Spirit did not know the term "baptized"? In all cases where the truth of God's word is sought, the strictest attention must be paid to the exact words that are used.

The true understanding by the apostles of what Christ meant was obtained, not by his repeating the admonition in different words, but by their more particular attention to what he had actually said. That proved that what Christ had said was intelligible to them on the basis of what they already knew, provided only that they had applied themselves to know it. The same truth holds today.

Verse13
Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?

Dummelow identified Caesarea Philippi as that built by Philip the Tetrarch, situated at the sources of the Jordan, near the foot of Mount Hermon (9 ,000 feet), in the midst of magnificent scenery. It was a Gentile city, often called Paneas (now Banias), because the god Pan was worshipped there. The other Caesarea on the sea coast, was called, for distinction, Caesarea Palestina. John 1:42; John 4:30); but Satan, in the manner of the parable, had come and stolen the truth out of their hearts. Satan had sufficiently eroded the image of the Lord that no popular opinion prevailed to the effect that he was the Christ.

Unbelievers still use that temporary advantage which Satan had gained, as noted in the perennial objection alleged by skeptics and infidels that the synoptics are in conflict with John's gospel. As Robertson stated it:

They hold that the other gospels here utterly conflict with John, who represents the first disciples as believing that Jesus was the Messiah. ... But it is easy to suppose that their early faith in his Messiahship was shaken by his continued failure to gather armies and set up the expected temporal kingdom. Acts 22:8). It is the question every man must ask, AND ANSWER CORRECTLY, before any such thing as salvation can be had. It is not enough to know the popular opinion of the Christ; the question demands, and will receive, a personal answer by every man coming into the world.

The progression from things general to things particular was a common procedure in Christ's method of teaching. It will be recalled that in the Sermon on the Mount he said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake," and followed a moment later with "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and persecute you ..." (Matthew 5:10-11). The same pattern is here. "Who do men say that the Son of man is," followed by "Who say ye that I am?"

Verse16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

This is called the Great Confession. It is no mere acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah of the Hebrews but also declares Jesus" unique filial relationship to God. Dummelow aptly pointed this out, saying,

Son of God, here, is no mere equivalent of "the Messiah." ... This is shown by the deep emotion with which the speaker makes, and Jesus receives, the confession; and the fact that the confession is perfectly satisfactory to Jesus, and is forthwith made the dogmatic foundation of Christianity ("Upon this rock I will build my church."). Matthew 10:32-33). Note the parallel: "Christ, Son of God" and "Peter, son of John" (that is the meaning of Bar-Jonah). Note also the attribution of divine initiative in providing Peter that information. The great truth that Jesus is God's Son is not taught by human wisdom but in that wisdom which is from above. To the contrary, human wisdom is ever active and diligent to blur and erase that truth from men's minds and hearts. A witness to Christ's divinity is also contained here. Who but Christ himself had taught Peter and the others this epic truth? Yet Christ flatly declared that God had taught it. This is a powerful, though incidental, corroboration of Peter's confession from the lips of Christ himself.

Verse18
And I also say, unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Some have made much of the fact that the word "Peter" means rock, and from this have affirmed that Christ built the church upon Peter. This text is inscribed in letters of gold four feet high inside the massive dome of the Basilica of St. Peters; and it is feared that many have been deceived by this false claim.

It is true, of course, that the word [@Petros] (Greek for Peter) means "stone" (John 1:42); but the Greek text itself dispels any possibility of Peter's having been the rock upon which Jesus built the church. In appealing to the Greek, this author does not defer to the opinions of learned men, nor, for that matter, profess any knowledge of Greek; but God's truth is not subject to the arcane and ambiguous dissertations of the learned. Even an ignorant man, in relative terms, can, with the aid of a Greek lexicon or a common device such as the Emphatic Diaglott, see for himself that Christ did not build the church upon Peter.

In Matthew 16:18, above, the rock upon which Christ proposed to build the church is not the same kind of "rock" that constitutes the name of Peter. There are several differences of the most marked and significant nature; and attention is called to the little diagram herewith which sets forth those differences, emphasizing the impossibility of their being under any conditions

IDENTICAL.

Jesus said, "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church."

The words "Peter" and "rock," as used above, are translated from two different Greek words:

[@Petros] and [@petra]

This word has six letters This word has five letters

This word is masculine This word is feminine gender gender

This word means PEBBLE This word means LEDGE

Yes, the words are similar, but what of it? Similarity of words does not even imply similarity of meaning, much less identical meaning. An old rancher requested his son to take one of his favorite horses and have him SHOD. A little while later he heard gunfire back of the corral and learned to his dismay that his son had shot the horse! The son said, "I"m sorry, Dad, I thought you said have him SHOT, and I thought I could do it as well as anyone else!" Certainly, there is more resemblance between the two key words in that mix-up than there ever was between the two Greek words noted above. Yet it is on the preposterous premise that those words are IDENTICAL that the whole fallacy of the church on Peter is made to depend.

Nor do we allow that the conscience of Rome is easy about this. The well known truth that the Greek text does not allow, and indeed refutes, their contention gives rise to all kinds of speculations and appeals to the so-called Aramaic Original (see introduction); however, it must be allowed by all that the Greek text of the New Testament is all that has come down from antiquity. Therefore, all arguments from the Aramaic should be rejected until it can be produced and authenticated. Certainly, it is evil to make an argument, upon so vital a point as this, from a version that does not exist except in theory, which has never been seen, and which, in all probability, if it were to appear, would doubtless confirm rather than deny the difference in those two words. All appeals to the Aramaic are, by implication, a repudiation of this text; and why repudiate it if, as some say, it makes Peter the rock on which Jesus built the church? He that has eyes to see, let him see!

What, then, is the rock upon which Christ proposed to build the church? It is the supreme fact of faith just confessed by Peter, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God.

A moment later Christ mentioned Peter, giving him (and later the others) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, thus making him, not the foundation, but the door-opener of the kingdom. To have made him both the foundation and the porter of the same building would have been a gross abuse of metaphor.

The gates of Hades, mentioned by Christ, is variously understood, as follows: (1) Some believe they refer to death and the fact that death would not prevent our Lord's carrying out the noble design announced on that occasion. (2) Others think they refer to the various sins by which men go to their spiritual doom. Thus, Origen made the gates of Hades to be such things as fornication, blasphemy, and other sins. (3) Another thinks they refer to Satanic opposition to the church throughout history, and that they contain a prophecy that Christ will triumph, not Satan. The meaning and import of the passage are so profound that there is more than enough room for all of these views without violence to the word of God. There may even be other meanings which men cannot know until the judgment.

Verse19
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.

This promise, emphatically delivered to Peter here, was also the property of the Twelve and not Peter's exclusively (see under Matthew 18:18). Origen, under the sub-title, "The promise given to Peter, not restricted to him, but applicable to all disciples like him," asked,

But if you suppose that upon one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the apostles? Acts 2:14 ff). (2) He unlocked the secret of the Davidic kingdom (Acts 2:31). (3) He unlocked the secret of HOW people enter the kingdom (Acts 2:38). (4) He unlocked the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1 ff). (5) He unlocked the door of return for backsliders (Acts 8:13; Acts 8:22). (6) He unlocked the mystery of the new name (1 Peter 4:16). (7) He expounded the mystery of the new birth (1 Peter 3:21). (8) He revealed the ultimate fate of the earth (2 Peter 3:11-13). These remarkable options exercised by Peter might be said to be his use of the keys, solving, unlocking, and revealing great mysteries of the kingdom of heaven in those important aspects. Surely such does constitute great honor and dignity conferred upon Peter by our Lord by reason of his having been the first to ascertain the holy truth of God in Christ, and then confess it; and the distinctions noted herewith are far more than enough to fulfill Jesus" words without resort to the monstrous notion that Peter was to be made, in any sense, the head of the church, which by its very nature can have only one head - CHRIST.

THE PRE-EMINENCE OF PETER

The Scriptures make it clear that, whatever preeminence was enjoyed by Peter, it was well within the framework of his stature as a fellow apostle, and not, as some affirm, as a president over the apostles. Thus: (1) There is not one throne in Christ's kingdom, but twelve thrones (Matthew 19:28). (2) The Holy City that comes down out of heaven does not have merely one foundation, engraved with Peter's name, but twelve foundations, engraved with the names of the Twelve (Revelation 21:14). (3) Peter himself included the rest of the apostles when he admonished men to heed the commandment of Christ, "through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2). (4) Even when Peter opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven on the day of Pentecost, he did so, not alone, but "standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14). (5) When the Jewish high priest moved against the church, he moved not against Peter only, but against the Twelve (Acts 5:17-19). (6) Peter's authority was actually equaled by that of Paul (Galatians 2:7-8). (7) Peter's dignity was, on occasion, made secondary to that of the Twelve, as when, for instance, he was "sent" by the Twelve as a messenger (Acts 8:14). (8) Peter's dignity was no greater than that of James (Galatians 2:9); and, in fact, James is mentioned first. All of the plain words and necessary inferences of the New Testament are at variance with any supposition that Peter's preeminence contained the slightest vestiges of any authority not conferred upon the other apostles also.

A SUCCESSOR TO PETER IS NOT SCRIPTURAL

Here is an appropriate place to view the doctrine of a successor to Peter. Note the following:

(1) Peter knew that he would have no legitimate successor and indicated it in 2 Peter 1:13-15 where he WROTE the word of God in order for it to be available, as he said, "after my decease"! If a successor had been contemplated, that would have been unnecessary.

(2) No mention whatever of a successor to Peter may be found anywhere in the New Testament, although the successor to Judas Iscariot is named. And, if it is supposed that the difference was due only to the fact that Peter's death is not recorded in the New Testament, then let it be further recognized that James" death is recorded, and that no successor was chosen for him. Why did only Judas receive a successor? Death did not and could not remove an apostle from office. It did not remove Judas, whose removal was not due to death, but to TRANSGRESSION (Acts 1:25, KJV). All of the apostles (except the one removed by transgression) are still reigning with Christ and discharging the office of their apostleship (Matthew 19:28).

(3) If there had been a successor to Peter, why was God's Revelation given through the apostle John and not through the successor, especially since the Revelation was written at a time long after the death of the apostle Peter?

(4) What could a successor to Peter do which has not already been done? The Lord guided the apostles into "all truth" (John 16:13). Peter himself said "all things that pertain to life and gods" had already been given (2 Peter 1:3).

(5) Christ taught that no earthly head of his spiritual body (the church) was possible, even though that earthly head was Christ himself "in the flesh." He said, "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you" (John 16:7). If it was expedient for the true head not to remain on earth in the flesh, and if the presence of the Christ himself, in the flesh, would thwart the residence of the Holy Spirit in his spiritual body, how could any successor fulfill a need impossible to be met even by Christ "in the flesh?"

(6) No person in subsequent ages could meet the qualifications of a true apostle. Apostles were primarily "witnesses"; and witnesses, by the very nature of things, cannot have successors (Acts 1:22). Moreover, that prime qualification was not waived, even for Judas" successor.

(7) Basic requirements of the apostolic office disqualify any claimant of Peter's office. For example, the apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to be able to "remember" and faithfully report the words of Christ. See John 16:13-15; John 14:26. What successor could possibly "remember" anything that Jesus said? As to the heresy that the Spirit would operate independently of the word of Christ, it was struck down by Jesus himself who said of the Holy Spirit, "He shall not speak of himself" (John 16:13). The English Revised Version (1885) has "He shall not speak FROM himself."

(8) Delegated authority is not transferable. In the very nature of plenary authority, it must originate in each new holder of it with the conveying authority. No ambassador ever named his successor. Overwhelming evidence to the effect that this principle was recognized as valid, even in the apostolic age, appears in the attempt of Simon the sorcerer to purchase the gift of God, not from Philip (who had it and was personally and more intimately known to Simon), but from Peter, one of the apostles who had conferred the gift on Philip.

(9) Historically, the whole idea of a successor to Peter is fantastic in its long progression through the ages, exhibiting two popes on the throne at once, another refusing the office, and with Italians holding a virtual monopoly, and providing practically the whole list upon whom this distinction was said to be conferred by God (!). What have we here, another chosen people?

Many other Scriptural refutations to the great heresy of Peter's successor might be pointed out, but these are sufficient to allow the truth to appear in honest hearts.

ENDNOTE:

Luke 12:50). The exceedingly narrow line that Jesus walked was marked on one side by the fact that all men, insomuch as was possible, should be instructed that he was the Messiah and Savior of the world; and, on the other side, by the danger that they would misunderstand his mission, which they were prone to do, and would crucify him for sedition. Only the wisdom of God could have enabled Jesus to negotiate that narrow road so successfully as he did.

The overriding consideration of Christ to reveal himself, and yet not so ostentatiously as to defeat his purpose, illuminates much of what is otherwise arcane in the gospel narratives. Thus, Jesus told the Samaritan woman plainly that he was the Messiah (her word, as a Samaritan, was not any good in court), but on other occasions instructed his followers to reveal the truth to no man (at that time).

The grand design of Christ's purpose called for him to die, not as a seeker of the secular throne, but as the Son of the living God. Since the Son of God is the rightful ruler of all men, it was hard to distinguish between them, especially in the environment provided by that generation. Christ succeeded so well in achieving his purpose that when the Sanhedrin finally condemned him, their charge of sedition, as alleged before Pilate, would not stand up; and they were compelled to admit at last that their real reason was not a suspicion of disloyalty to Caesar, but "because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7).

DIVISION V

THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF CHRIST REPEATEDLY FORETOLD THE SCHOOLING OF THE DISCIPLES FOR THE PASSION (Matthew 16:21-28; Matthew 17:1-27; Matthew 18:1-35; Matthew 19:1-30; Matthew 20:1-34)

In section four, the Messiah's kingdom was accepted by some, rejected by others. A summary of each class in that section is thus:

He was accepted by the disciples (Matthew 14:33), by the woman of Canaan (Matthew 15:22), by a great multitude (Matthew 15:30), by Peter (Matthew 16:16); he was rejected by the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:57), and by the Pharisees and their sympathizers (Matthew 15:12; Matthew 16:4).

In section five, the sufferings and death of Christ make up the burden of the message, especially the prophecies of his passion. There are three of these:

First announcement (Matthew 16:21); second announcement (Matthew 17:22-23); third announcement (Matthew 20:18).

Verse21
From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.

THE FIRST CLEAR PREDICTION OF HIS PASSION AND RESURRECTION

This marvelous prophecy of his own death and resurrection is without parallel in human history. Some have considered the Old Testament prophecies of the resurrection of Christ to be not as explicit as could have been wished, but believers find them adequate. It would be hard to imagine a more categorical prophecy of resurrection than that of Psalm 16:10, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol; neither shalt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." Now, pray tell, to whom could such a word apply, if not to Christ? And what is a resurrection unless it may be described as coming out of Sheol (the grave) before the body sees corruption?

But even the suspicion of ambiguity which evil men have alleged against the Old Testament prophecies of the resurrection of Christ was dispelled by Christ, who singled out the Old Testament prophecy of his resurrection, expanded it, embellished it with all kinds of pertinent details, and emphasized it beyond all other predictions concerning himself. Certainly that was an unheard-of thing for one to do if he had not known who he was and possessed absolute certainty of the fulfillment of those things in himself.

For Christ did not merely say, "I will rise from the dead." His graphic description of what would occur included these points:

His death would occur at Jerusalem.

The scribes, chief priests, and elders would have a part in it.

He would suffer "many things" at their hands.

He would not merely die, but "be killed," a far different thing.

He would rise from the dead.

The resurrection would occur "the third day."

Proof that this prophecy of Christ was known throughout Palestine before the events took place is manifest in the sealed tomb and posted watch to guard his body and prevent any rumors that such a glorious thing actually occurred. Such a procedure on the part of Christ's enemies stands absolutely alone and unique, throughout the records of history. Where is there another case like it? Oh yes, graves have been sealed and watches set, but not for the purpose of preventing any rumors of a resurrection (see Matthew 20:17-19).

Verse22
And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee.

Peter's intention in this case was commendable; nevertheless, his ignorance made him a tool of the devil, whose double purpose regarding Christ was either to cause the Master to commit sin, or to make his death such a horrible and detestable thing that Christ would reject it (see under Matthew 26:53); thus, by one means or the other, Satan would thwart God's purpose of redemption for men.

Peter's rejection of any thought of the death of the beloved Saviour was perfectly in line with Satan's purpose. Note too that in this case Peter assumed a new role, that of an instructor of his Lord. At that point, he appeared no longer as a disciple but as one to rebuke and contradict what Christ had just said. How easily do men slip into unbecoming postures! Nor did Peter easily shake that temptation to get out of line; he did it again and again. We shall note another case in the next chapter; and, in the book of Acts, one finds the words, "Not so, Lord!" attributed to Peter (Acts 10:14).

Verse23
But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

There was kindness (and a reprieve) for Peter in the Lord's reply. Instead of saying, "Get thee hence? as he said to Satan previously (Matthew 4:10), he said, "Get thee behind me!" Peter was commanded to forsake his role as instructor and resume that of a follower. Peter's place was behind Christ, as a devoted disciple, not in front of Christ, a position as assumed when he objected to Christ's words about his approaching death and resurrection. One may feel a certain pity for Peter. With all his God-given insight into the total identity of Christ as God's Son, he must yet awhile remain ignorant of how Christ's death was necessary and was the "sine qua non", without which no man ever born could have the forgiveness of his sins.

Peter was apparently thinking that, from the earthly viewpoint, Jesus surely did not deserve anything to happen to him which the Lord had just mentioned. From the earthly view, Peter was right; and Christ correctly diagnosed his mistake by saying that Peter was thinking of the things of men rather than of the things of God. The things of God would be clear to Peter much later, when he would write, "Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sin, might live unto righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24).

One lesson of stark and overwhelming power that flows out of this strange rebuke of Peter is that temptation does not always come through one's enemies, but may also come through the most faithful and intimate of earthly companions. Peter's sad role in this incident shows how easily the best of friends and the most intimate of loved ones may become the instruments of evil, however unintentionally. Jesus" firm words to Peter suggest that the temptation to himself in that case was sharp and persuasive, since it was founded in earthly logic, fortified with the natural repugnance to death in the mind of Christ, and rejected out of hand by his best disciples. The temptation, conveyed through Peter's words here, remained and was present in that bitter cup in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39).

Verse24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Christ had just commanded Peter to get behind him; and immediately, Christ made the cross a necessary condition of discipleship. Not Peter, nor any other man, nor even Christ himself (as a man) can avoid it. Cross-bearing is widely misunderstood. It is not old age, poverty, taxes, illness, or bad weather, or any other discomfiture of life that comes unavoidably into the lives of men. It is the acceptance, for the sake of the will of God, of some burden or burdens, otherwise avoidable, but which are undertaken out of a pure desire to fulfill the Master's purpose. The centrality of the cross in Christ's religion was here affirmed by Christ at the very moment when one of his most beloved apostles had spoken against it.

Verse25
For whosoever shall save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.

What emperor or general ever announced a proposition like that? These words forcibly imply, even demand, an understanding that Christ is God. Only God could make good on such a promise. Origen said:

If anyone, as being a lover of life, and thinking that the present life is good, tends carefully his own life with a view to living in the flesh, ... this man ... will lose it, placing it outside of the borders of blessedness. John 12:48), and (2) the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). No number of angels is indicated in this place, but "ten thousand" is the number given in Jude 1:14. Even that could be a perfect number signifying an infinitely greater number.

Verse28
Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark's account of this statement is, "Verily I say unto you, there are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1).

Both the Herald and Christ preached the kingdom as "at hand." The passage here supplemented that information by making it certain to appear during the lives of "some" of the apostles. Why not merely "during their lives?" that is, the lives of all of them? That was because both Judas and Christ would die before the kingdom came. Thus, the words are circumstantially accurate and precise.

Incidental to the assertion here, but inherent in it due to the terminology used, is the revelation that the kingdom would not be set up during the personal ministry of Christ, but afterwards. The kingdom did appear on the day of Pentecost, during the lives of "some" of them, just as Jesus had said. The reference to the kingdom in the passage here makes its establishment in the future; but after the day of Pentecost, all references to God's kingdom are in the present tense, speaking of it as a reality, or in the past tense, making it already in existence. See Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:9 for examples of this. Remember that the church and the kingdom are one.

This chapter brings us to the heart of Matthew's gospel. Christ's deity was recognized and confessed. Satan's effort to thwart the crucifixion was countermanded (even though suggested by Peter), and the cross of Jesus was made central in his holy religion. The outline of the passion and resurrection, as well as a revealing glimpse of the day of judgment, are given by Christ in this portion of his word. This chapter has been called the hub of the gospel of Matthew.

A full description of these two sects will be given at verse12. They were opposed to each other in various respects, but often forgot their differences and united in opposing Christ or his apostles. Their motive in coming to Jesus here was to tempt or test him. Had they been honestly seeking for evidence of the might and wisdom of the Lord he would have granted the request, but he never performed a miracle to gratify mere curiosity or to meet a challenge.

Jesus referred them to their own study of the heaven in which they professed to know how to figure out the future by the present indications.

The signs of the times were as clearly portrayed in the Scriptures as were the weather signs, yet they pretended there was nothing on record to indicate the work and purpose of Jesus. Since this was only a pretended necessity for additional evidence Jesus called them hypocrites.

This subject of the sign of Jonas is explained at chapter12:40.

The preceding verse says that Jesus departed from the multitude. He and his disciples had been in the vicinity of Magdala which is on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. They then crossed over the sea, and verses later in the chapter show that, they were to spend some time in an uninhabited territory where there would be no opportunity to purchase provisions. Jesus knew the disciples had forgotten to attend to that matter (Mark 8:14 says they had one loaf), and decided to use the fact as a basis for a test of their faith in him as one who could and would care for them.

Without mentioning bread directly, Jesus warned them against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad-ducees whom they knew to be two evil groups of Jews.

There is no logical connection between literal leaven and these sects as far as the disciples were considering it. But a guilty conscience sometimes interprets an unrelated statement as a rebuke and that is what they did about Christ's remark.

Jesus accused his disciples of small faith because they were disturbed over as trival a matter as a shortage of bread. Had there been no visible prospects for food at all for the present, their general knowledge of past experiences should have given them confidence that nothing serious would be allowed to happen to them.

It seems that man needs to have his faith renewed from time to time on account of his unreliable memory. Moses had seen all the mighty works of God in Egypt and the Red Sea, yet when he was told that nation was to be given an abundance of flesh to eat he wondered where the Lord would get it. (See Numbers 11:18-23.)

Jesus needed only to state that he was not considering bread when he used the term leaven, for the disciples then concluded rightly that he had used if figuratively.

The disciples made the correct interpretation of the comparison and applied it to the dootrine or teaching of those two sects. I shall give the description of these prominent groups of the Jews as may be learned from reliable works of reference. "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sad-ducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory [binding] which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers." Josephus, Antiquities, Book13 , Chapter10 , Section6.

"In addition to the books of the Old Testament, the Pharisees recognized in oral traditions a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by the observance of external rites and by the outward forms of piety, such as ablutions, fast-ings, prayers, and alms-giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. . . . A Sadducee, a member of the party of the Sadducees, who, distinguished for birth, wealth, and official position, and not averse to the favor of the Herod family and of the Romans, hated the common people, were the opponents of the Pharisees, and rejecting tradition acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament alone in matters pertaining to faith and morals; they denied not only the resurrection of the body, but also the immortality of the soul and future retribution, as well as the existence of angels and spirits." These last two quotations about the Pharisees and Sadducees are the historical remarks of Thayer in his Greek lexicon, the original words being PHARISAIOS and SADDOUKAIOS. Having given an extended account of these two sects for the information of the reader, I shall summarize it by saying that the false doctrine of the Pharisees was that the tradition of the fathers was of equal authority with the written Scriptures. That of the Sadducees was that there would be no resurrection of the body and consequently no future life.

Jesus and his disciples having landed on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee they journeyed northward until they came into the coasts or vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. This is to be distinguished from the Caesarea that was on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. The place got its name by the desire of Herod Philip who wished to honor Caesar and himself both by a twofold name. That was accomplished by the name which we have just read as the double name includes both Caesar and Philip. Jesus concluded it was time to introduce the most serious phase of his own authority and purposes. He opened the subject by inquiring about the current opinions concerning himself; not of his doings but of his identity. He had been out among the people long enough for them to have formed some kind of ideas as to his real standing as a public teacher. He could not have asked this question for information for he already knew what was in man (John 2:24-25). Hence it was asked to bring out the contrast that should be existing between the opinions of the common people and that of the men who had been chosen to be the apostles after .Jesus was ready to leave this world.

All of the persons named had died, hence the reference to them in connection with Jesus was on the theory of the transmigration of souls. See the explanation of that subject with the comments on chapter14:2.

Jesus then came out with the climax of the conversation. The answer to the question he was going to ask would be read by future generations. The apostles had been with him and seen his work and heard his teaching. It remained to be shown by the answer whether that association had made any better impression on them than was expressed by the common people. Jesus asked them (all of the apostles) for their estimate of him regarding his identity.

Jesus had addressed his question to all of the apostles, but it would not be expected that all of them would speak at once in answering the question. Peter was generally the spokseman for the others, and if what he said did not agree with them they would have made it known. The reply that Peter gave to the question embraced all that Jesus claimed to be. The word Christ means "anointed" and as it applied in this case it meant that Jesus was the one that God would recognize as a ruler in the kingdom. The Son is equivalent to the phrase "only begotten Son" in John 3:16. God has numerous sons from a spiritual standpoint, but Jesus is the only one who is the offspring of the person of God. The living God signifies that he is not the offspring of the idol gods for they are lifeless objects.

Bar-jona means son of Jona, and the full name is given to distinguish him from others who were named Simon. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it. Peter could not have received this information from any human source, hence it had to come from the Father in the way of divine inspiration.

I do not believe it is necessary to trouble ourselves about a grammatical basis for arguments that are frequently made over the original Greek words for Peter and rock. It is true that they are different from each other to some extent. But if we should consider them only in their literal meaning they are similar. But we know that Jesus did not mean to tell Peter that he was to be "the rock" on which the church would be built. It is also clear from other passages that Peter is in the foundation of the church but so are all the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Then we cannot single out this one apostle and say that he is the foundation rock as the Romanists teach. The rock on which Christ intended to build his church was his own divinity that was embodied in the confession that Peter had just made. Much questioning also is done as to the antecedent of it; but that, too, is needless for we know that Jesus meant everything that would be necessary to accomplish his purpose of building his church. Gate is from PULE and Thayer defines it, "access of entrance into any state." Hell is from HADES and means the state or place of the soul after death. Jesus knew he must die and that his soul would go through this entrance to Hades, but that those gates would not be able to retain him, for he would come out from within them into life again so that he could perfect his work of setting up his church.

Keys is from KLEIS which Thayer defines, "a key. Since the keeper of the keys has the power to open and to shut, the word is figura- tively used in the New Testament to denote power and authority of various kinds." There is -nothing significant about the plural form of the word, but it is a part of the same figure that Thayer uses in his definition. The man who has charge of a building carries a group of keys, hence the word is used in the plural form; literally there is but one key to the kingdom of heaven and that is obedience to the requirements of the Gospel. Jesus was speaking directly to Peter because he was the spokesmen for all the rest. We know it was not meant that Peter alone was to have the keys, for Jesus said virtually the same thing in John 20:21-23 and he was talking to all of the apostles. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc. This is Christ's own comment on the keys of the kingdom. He intended to send the Spirit upon the apostles to "guide them into all truth" (John 16:13), so that they would make no mistake in telling men what they must do to be saved. Being thus inspired, their teaching to men would be according to the will of heaven and hence it would be ratified there. Whatsoever thou shalt loose, etc., means the like thought on the negative side of the subject. No one has the right to bind any doctrine on men that was not required by the apostles. While on this verse it should be observed that in this conversation with the apostles, Jesus speaks of the church and the kingdom of heaven in the same sense, showing that no distinction is to be made today, for the kingdom is afterwards spoken of as being in existence (Matthew 26:29; Romans 14:17; Colossians 1:13; Colossians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:9).

A command similar to this one is in chapter17:9 , except that a certain time was set before which the disciples were not to make the specific announcement of the divinity of Christ. The crowning fact that was to prove that great claim of Jesus was to be his resurrection after three days. The public ministry for the general teaching about the kingdom that was at hand was drawing nearer to its close, and Jesus did not wish to release this fundamental truth unto the world prematurely.

See the remarks of the preceding paragraph about the progress of the ministry of Jesus. Since it was in that stage, it was time to begin preparing the minds of the apostles for the tragic events not far ahead, including the death and resurrection of their Lord with whom they had been so closely associated in the work.

The idea that Peter had in this impulsive speech was that something certainly would be done to prevent the thing Jesus had predicted. His own action recorded in John 18:10 indicated that he was willing to help prevent the tragedy.

The primary meaning of Satan is "adversary," and when Peter intimated that he would try to prevent the thing that Jesus declared would be done he became an adversary to him. Savourest means to be thinking about some subject of personal interest, and in this case it was the idea of an earthly kingdom that occupied the mind of Peter. He wanted such a kingdom to be set up because of what it would mean to him, and certainly such an event would require the living presence of the king. A part of Thayer's definition of the original for offence is, "an impediment placed in the way." Were Peter to have his wishes carried out in this matter it would have been an impediment to the great plan that Jesus had in view.

After is from OPISO and Thayer explains the word at this place to mean, "to follow any one as a guide, to be his disciple or follower." Deny is from APARNEOMAI which Thayer defines, "to deny," and explains the definition to mean in this passage, "to forget one's self, lose sight of one's self and one's own interests." Figures of speech are based upon some literal fact. Take up his cross is a reference to the rule of compelling a condemned man to carry his own cross to the place of execution. If the victim became unable to bear it alone, someone would be made to take up the rear part and help carry it, walking after the other to the place of execution. (See Luke 23:26.) The present verse means that a professed follower of Jesus must be willing to help bear the trials and self-denials that were practiced by him.

This verse is explained at chapter10:39.

World and soul are used in the same sense as the two kinds of life in the preceding verse. The thought is that the things of this world are altogether not as valuable as the soul of man, and that if one were to exchange his soul to gain this world it would be a transaction without profit.

It has been nineteen centuries since Jesus uttered the words of this verse, but he wished his disciples to have something to look for as a reward for their sacrificing everything necessary to save their soul and gain that which is worth more than all this world. They were expected to rely on the promise of Christ because of their faith in him, because the reward would not come in their lifetime.

The preceding verse gives the promise of reward for faithful work at the second coming of Christ. As a guarantee of the surety of that promise, Jesus told them that some of them in his presence would live to see the great event that was to prepare men for that last day of accounts. They were promised the honor of seeing the Son of man in another manner; he was to be seen spiritually in his kingdom. We incidentally may obtain an important truth by this statement. The kingdom was set up in the time of those apostles, and that disproves the heresy taught by some today that the kingdom is still in the future.