Matthew 16
LenskiCHAPTER XVI
Matthew 16:1
1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees, having come forward tempting, asked him to show a sign from the heaven to them. It is overdrawing the picture to think that these opponents were watching for the boat of Jesus to arrive and then pounced upon him with their demand. They came forward when the news of his arrival had spread. They may have been waiting at Capernaum and, on getting word, hurried to Magadan. The fact that the Sadducees were joining the Pharisees in their hostility to Jesus plainly marks the rapid progress of this hostility. And Matthew keeps repeating and thus emphasizing this conjunction, v. 6, 11, 12. This prepares the reader for the revelation recorded in v. 21.
On the Pharisees and the Sadducees, here classed together by one Greek article, see 3:7. The former stood for stern holiness and by virtue of their numbers carried the common people with them; the Sadducees, skeptics and high livers, represented the aristocracy of the land, having at their head the high priest and his connection as a kind of priestly-political nobility that was at once rich and powerful. One of the wives of Herod the Great was Mariamne, the daughter of Simon, the high priest. The Sadducees must thus be classed as Herodians (Mark 3:6; 8:15) who naturally sought the favor and the support of the Herodian family. Local Pharisees of Galilee (9:3, 11; 12:2, 14, 24, 38), followed later by a delegation of Pharisees from the capital (15:1), had clashed sharply with Jesus; and now even a delegation of Sadducees unites with the Pharisees.
They put on a pleasing mien and pretend that they would be willing to accept Jesus if he would only present the necessary credentials. They imply that the signs he has hitherto wrought are insufficient, being only earthly, and they must require of him (ἐπηρώτησαν) something more adequate and convincing, namely “a sign out of heaven,” some visible heavenly display (ἐπιδεῖξαι). This repeats the demand recorded 12:38. And Matthew now adds the remark that it was renewed with an evil intent, “tempting him.” They felt sure that Jesus would not be able to furnish this kind of a sign and that they would thus be able completely to discredit him with the people. They hid their wicked purpose under a fair outward approach. These men made themselves the devil’s tools by suggesting to Jesus that he perform a deed for which his Father had not commissioned him, that he make himself a Messiah after the fashion of men, so as to gain their favor and their support by self-chosen means. We need not add that Jesus at once saw through the temptation and most vigorously repelled the cunning suggestion.
On the sign here again demanded see 12:38. A σημεῖον, whether it be a miracle or some other deed, always signifies something, points beyond itself by making a revelation, not by means of a word, but by means of a deed. Here the sign is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. The unbelief of these Pharisees and these Sadducees declares that only a sign “out of heaven” could suffice. There had been such signs: when Joshua made the sun and the moon stand still, when Elijah caused fire to fall from heaven, and when upon Samuel’s prayer thunder discomfited the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:9, etc.). The reasoning seems to be that, since the Messiah will be greater than all the prophets and greater even than Moses, he will, prove this by doing at least one sign which in outward grandeur will exceed all other signs that have ever been wrought.
But this conception is wrong, as wrong as the unbelief from which it springs. The value of a sign does not lie in the display it makes, nor in what may make it a τέρας, prodigy, or wonder, but in what it signifies: grace, mercy, deliverance, and salvation. In 15:32, etc., as in 14:15, etc., there was no display; the same was true with regard to a large number of Christ’s miracles, but, oh, how blessed is what they signify!
As far as unbelief is concerned, even the signs that Moses wrought did not affect Pharaoh’s obdurate heart. Though one arose from the dead and warned the five brothers of Dives, they would not believe. Voltaire casts off the mask when he declares: “Even if a miracle should be wrought in the open market place before a thousand sober witnesses, I would rather mistrust my senses than admit a miracle.”
Unbelief always finds a way to refuse to accept the truth, no matter with what credentials it is presented. As was the case here, another credential can always be demanded and those already furnished be discredited. What would prevent the Pharisees from attributing any “sign out of heaven” to the aid of Beelzebul? This applies to all modern unbelief which rejects the testimony of the divine records regarding the reality and even the possibility of miracles and the signs as well as all that they signify. Where the Word plus the signs awaken no faith, all that is left is what Jesus points out to his opponents.
Matthew 16:2
2 But he, answering, said to them: When evening has come, you say, Fair weather! for the heaven is fiery; and at morning, Storm today! for the lowering heaven is fiery. The expression of the heaven you know how to discern but the signs of the seasons you cannot. The decision regarding the question as to whether this part of Christ’s reply be-longs in the text or not we leave to textual criticism. The external textual evidence is against the genuineness of these words. It is certain that they have not been introduced from Luke 12:54–56, where showers and great heat are indicated by weather signs in the west and in the south, whereas here west and east, fair and foul weather, are contrasted. The internal testimony, as Zahn points out, is in favor of the genuineness of the words.
As regards the use of γινώσκειν where Zahn thinks Matthew would have used εἰδέναι, see below. The omission of these verses from so many texts may be due to an effort to bring Matthew’s record of the present incident into conformity with that of Mark (8:11–13).
The phenomena mentioned are those that occur in Palestine. When the sky is fiery red in the evening, the wind has driven the clouds and the vapors to the west, over the Mediterranean Sea; and this naturally indicates that the following day will be fair, as in that country rain and clouds come from the west where the sea is. With ὀψίας supply ὥρας in the genitive absolute: “a late hour having come”; and εὐδία is a nominative that needs no verb: “Fair weather!”
Matthew 16:3
3 The reverse is true when the fiery redness is seen in the morning, when the sun rises above the eastern horizon. Then the prediction is foul weather because during the night the wind has carried the vapors from the sea over the land. What applies to Palestine, does not, of course, apply to other lands where land and sea have other relative positions. Yet everywhere we have expert weather prophets who know all the signs even though they fail at times. “Storm,” χειμών, is again the nominative without a verb, and στυγνάζων, “lowering,” threatening and ugly, is the descriptive present participle.
The Jews had asked for “a sign out of the heaven”; for that reason Jesus uses this illustration about “the heaven” and its signs of weather. “Speaking about signs from heaven,” he says, “the only signs from heaven you can at all read are the signs regarding the weather.” There is a sad touch of irony in his words. The verb γινώσκετε seems to be in place here since it conveys something more than εἴδετε, namely: “you have sense enough to comprehend.” The use of this verb thus strengthens and does not weaken the internal evidence for the genuineness of this part of Jesus’ answer. On πρόσωπον Bengel remarks: “The expression of the heaven, not the face; the expression of a man alters, not his face.” “To discern” is to distinguish or discriminate, here between one and the same phenomenon: the fiery red glow of the heaven as it appears in the west at evening or in the east in the morning.
When Jesus adds: “but the signs of the seasons you cannot” (discern), he indicates that his illustration involves a metaphor. These Jews see only the physical and not the spiritual heaven (the kingdom of the heavens that has now come). Here is this other heaven that is just full of “the signs of the times,” and these men do not have sense enough (γινώσκειν) to read these infinitely more important signs. Καιρός is qualitative over against the quantitative χρόνος; it always signifies a section of time (a “season”) that is marked by what it contains. Here were these wonderful days that were marked by the most significant events, all kinds of “signs” and not merely miracles, for the term is wider. These days were marked by the coming and the message of the Baptist, by the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, by the appearance and the work of Jesus, and by all the effects these produced upon the people. All these were signs that were like the red sunset; they brought εὐδία, “fair weather,” grace and every Messianic blessing. But these Jews saw nothing.
There were also signs that were like the redness in the morning sky, that heralded σήμερονχειμών, “storm today.” For here were the blindness and the obduracy of the Jewish leaders and the unresponsiveness of the nation as such; here were the rankest hypocrisy and the most wilful resistance to every proffer of grace. It was the same sun, but it was shining from the other side, and it was the same redness, but it was “lowering,” threatening. For these signs of the times presaged the storm of the divine judgment about to descend.
We are expert in meteorology and weather forecasting, and the business outlook and the political changes are most carefully weighed. But what about the spiritual signs of the times? Thousands do not know that there are such signs, or they look at them and then see no meaning in them: the spread of the gospel over the world; the Bible being translated into language after language and being ready to every man’s hand; the renewal of true faith in unexpected quarters; the testimony of martyrs being repeated from time to time; the works of mercy and of Christian devotion. On the other hand, the rise of the infernal powers on the horizon: the increase of lawlessness; the spread of Christless altars; the open attacks on the Bible, on Christ, and on the gospel; the rise of antichrists; the defection of the churches under modernism, etc. Have men not sense enough to read these signs?
Matthew 16:4
4 With words that are quite identical with those found in 12:39 Jesus proceeds. A generation wicked and adulterous is out after a sign (i.e., is set on seeking one); and a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonah. Here we have a clear case where Jesus used the same words a second time on a different occasion; he did this repeatedly, and it is to no purpose to assume that he did not. See the exposition of 12:39. The sign of Jonah is the resurrection of Christ, the climax of the signs of grace for believers, but at the same time given also to these Pharisees and Sadducees and to all unbelievers as the final, fateful sign of their judgment and destruction. For the Christ whom his enemies crucified and recrucify will come as the risen Christ to be their judge and to send them to their doom (26:64).
Scorning to waste another word on these men, Matthew writes: and having left them, he went away. This, too, was a sign; for when Jesus leaves a man, this means that grace leaves him to judgment.
Matthew 16:5
5 And the disciples, having come to the other side, forgot to take bread. Because the disciples are not mentioned in 15:39, and Jesus is not mentioned in 16:5, the claim is made that in 15:39, Jesus sailed to the west shore alone and that the disciples now follow him (16:5) to that shore; and those who make this claim find these statements in contradiction with Mark 8:13. But a careful reading will show that Jesus alone is mentioned in 15:39, etc., because something pertaining especially to him is to be recorded; and in the same way the disciples are mentioned in 16:5, because something especially referring to them is to be told. Besides, it would be rather ridiculous for the disciples to forget bread when going to the western shore where the population was numerous and any amount of bread desired could be quickly obtained. Going to the eastern shore was a different matter. So Jesus and his disciples first cross to Magadan on the west, and he and they now cross again to the east or the northeast.
The two aorists express simultaneous action: ἐλθόντες and ἀπελάθοντο, both recording facts merely as such. When the disciples arrive at the other side, the discovery is made that they forgot ἄρτους, cakes of bread, having only a single cake in the boat (Mark 8:14).
Matthew 16:6
6 Now Jesus said to them, See to it and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees! But they considered within themselves, saying, We did not take bread. The reaction due to the encounter recorded in v. 1, etc., continues. Again the Pharisees and the Sadducees are mentioned by name and as constituting one class. In Mark 8:15 the mention of Herod refers to the Sadducees as being the supporters of Herod (see above on v. 1).
Matthew 16:7
7 The disciples fail completely to understand what Jesus has in mind when he mentions this leaven. They think it over in their minds and while they are doing so quietly say, “We did not take bread”—that is what he has in mind.
Matthew 16:8
8 Now, when Jesus knew it, he said: Why are you considering within yourselves, men of little faith, that you do not have bread? Do you not yet comprehend nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took; nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many baskets you took? How do you not comprehend that I spoke to you not concerning bread? But you beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!
Jesus knew by using his divine means of knowing. Both the question why they are thinking of nothing but bread and the address, “men of little faith,” indicate that Jesus is disappointed in his disciples and that he is moved to let them feel how much more he had expected from them.
Matthew 16:9
9 The next questions reveal just “why” they are thinking as they do, and just what makes them “men of little faith.” Even yet, at this advanced stage of their training, they do not comprehend, i.e., do not apply their νοῦς or mind to what Jesus has taught and shown them. One of the great weaknesses of faith is this slowness, dullness, ignorance of the mind. It tries the patience of Jesus and makes him speak with sharpness. As far as worry about forgetting to take bread along on this trip is concerned, do these disciples fail to remember the bread Jesus provided for the 5, 000, with twelve baskets full for the disciples? Do they suppose for a moment that Jesus will now starve them?
Matthew 16:10
10 Likewise, how he fed the 4, 000, with seven baskets full left over for the disciples? Jesus himself retains the distinction between κόφινοι and σπυρίδες, from which fact we conclude that they were not identical; see 15:37.
Matthew 16:11
11 These two miracles should have made it impossible for the disciples to think that Jesus was speaking about bread. The unmodified νοεῖτε of v. 9 now receives its object in the ὅτι clause, and the question introduced with πῶς brings out the denseness of the minds of these disciples and shames them for not using their minds.
The next statement is independent; it does not depend on the preceding ὅτι. Jesus merely repeats the warning given in v. 6, but now “leaven” is in contrast with “bread” (plural “breads”). Jesus declines to give a further explanation of what he means by this “leaven,” thereby he demands that now at last the disciples are to use their minds. He insists that we use our mind when he speaks to us.
Matthew 16:12
12 Then they understood that he did not say to beware of the leaven of the bread but of the teaching of the Pharisee and Sadducees. Mark 8:18, etc., brings out still more the sharpness with which Jesus rebuked the disciples. Finally it dawned on them what Jesus had in mind by the figure of the leaven, συνῆκαν from συνίημι, first aorist, reporting the fact that they finally understood. What contamination could the disciples receive from bread that was bought from bazars or bakeries belonging to Pharisees or Sadducees? Such ideas should have been impossible to them. Their failure to take bread along (save only one, Mark 8:14) had led them to think that Jesus intended to warn them never to buy bread from these opponents.
Now they saw that he was warning them against the διδαχή, “teaching” or doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. It is unwarranted to claim that here Matthew is mistaken, because in Luke 12:1, leaven is used with reference to hypocrisy. Luke speaks only of the leaven of the Pharisees and makes no reference to Sadducees. Again and again Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, and Luke 12:3, etc., follows that tone. There is no law that Jesus must always and in every connection use a figurative term in the same sense. Moreover, conduct and doctrine never lie far apart, for doctrine produces conduct and often is formulated so as to justify certain conduct. But here Jesus combines the distinctive teaching of both Pharisees and Sadducees and warns against it as being so much dangerous yeast, for these are the leaders of their people and promulgate their teaching among them.
Although they are diverse, the Pharisees teaching spurious legalism and formalism, whereas the Sadducees advocate skepticism and liberalism, both teachings have an appeal to the unwary and to all who are not grounded in the truth, including even the Twelve who, as we see, are still so slow to comprehend. The Pharisaic teaching appeals to the religious sense and leads men into a mere show of holiness (as legalism invariably does); that of the Sadducees appeals to the natural reason and leads men into empty rationalism and disbelief and thus into loose living. Both act like leaven which silently penetrates heart and mind when it is not recognized and expelled and thus antagonize the divine truth and ruin the soul.
XIII
Christ at Caesarea Philippi; Preparing the Disciples for His Death, Chapter 16:13–17:23
Matthew 16:13
13 Now Jesus, having come into the parts of Caesarea of Philip, was requesting his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said: Some, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. We are advancing to the critical point of the Galilean ministry. John 6:66 marks the great turning point in the case of the people of Galilee, and since the twelfth chapter Matthew has been sketching the opposition of the ruling classes in its growing intensity. The murder of the Baptist caused Jesus to withdraw to distant places, now to this, then to that corner of the land, and so now after sailing from Magadan (15:39) to the north shore of the lake where the Jordan enters it, he takes the Twelve up to the neighborhood of the Caesarea that Herod’s son Philip (who ruled this country as the tetrarch) had enlarged and beautified and had named after both Caesar and himself, “Caesarea of Philip,” built by Philip in honor of Caesar. Mark adds the detail (8:27) that Jesus was in the outlying villages and asked his questions while he and the disciples were walking along the road.
The verb ἐρωτᾶν is dignified and marks the solemnity of the questions. The imperfect tense is descriptive and holds our attention to see what the answer will be. The first question is plainly preliminary. Jesus is not asking for information for his own sake, for he knows the different opinions of men. What he desires is to have the disciples state the wrong opinions of men in order to set over against them their own right conviction. These foolish opinions he does not care even to discuss; the disciples themselves will brush them aside.
On “the Son of man,” so appropriate in this connection, see 8:20. The μέ in front of this title should be cancelled in the codices that have it, for Jesus always uses the title itself instead of the pronoun, and the addition of the pronoun to the title would lend a peculiar and inappropriate sense to the question, namely, “I, in so far as I am the Son of man.”
Matthew 16:14
14 Perhaps the answer the disciples gave was divided between several of them. The superstitious idea of Herod has been discussed in 14:1; being that of a king, it, no doubt, was seconded by others. Some referred to Mal. 4:5, and considered Jesus to be Elijah, the prophet returned to life and acting as a herald of the Messiah (but see 11:14). Others made this forerunner the prophet Jeremiah, most probably basing their idea on Jewish legends concerning Jeremiah. Or they made Jesus at least one of the old prophets (Luke 9:19). From Luke’s record we also learn that even the last of these opinions involved a resurrection from the dead. Judaism was so conversant with the resurrection that it made the Sadducees stand out as an unbelieving sect when they denied the possibility of the resurrection.
Matthew 16:15
15 He says to them, But you, who do you say I am? And Simon Peter, answering, said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of God the living. The emphasis is on ὑμεῖς over against οἱἄνθρωποι in v. 13. Jesus is asking for a confession on the part of his disciples. With λέγετε Jesus asks for a confession of the lips but, of course, only as a true expression of their heart’s conviction. Any other confession is a falsehood.
Jesus could see the heart, we cannot and must thus accept the confession of the lips. Our only aid is the conduct, the acts of the individual, the practice of a congregation or of a church body. This, too, is a confession and should harmonize fully with the confession of the lips. When it clashes with that, the confession by deeds is the real confession by which we must then judge. Deeds and practice always speak louder and are more weighty than words.
Matthew 16:16
16 It is natural for Peter, because of his readiness for action, to speak for the Twelve who undoubtedly indicated or voiced their assent. When Jesus said “you,” he had in mind the Twelve as a body, for presently he speaks of “my church.” Matthew uses the full name “Simon Peter” as though to mark the solemnity of the occasion: he is the one who spoke for all of them. In σὺεἷὁΧριστός, the pronoun “thou” has the emphasis, and this emphasis “passes on to the remainder of the sentence and contributes point and force to the whole,” R. 678. Since the predicate has the article, it is identical and interchangeable with the subject, R. 768. Just as “thou” denotes one person and only one, so “the Christ” is one and only one, and “thou” and “the Christ” are identical, and either may be used as the subject or as the predicate. These linguistic points are quite essential.
ὉΧριστός is appellative; the substantivized verbal adjective from the verb χρίω, which denotes ceremonial or sacred anointing, is made a title: the Messiah, the One Anointed, i.e., by God (3:16) for the great office for which God commissioned Jesus. The conviction that Jesus was the Messiah promised in all the Old Testament revelations (see 1:1) first drew the disciples to him, beginning with the Baptist’s testimony in John 1:32–34, and with the faith of the first disciples who attached themselves to Jesus in John 1:41, 45, 49. Over two years of constant intercourse with Jesus had deepened and fully established this conviction.
All those mentioned in v. 14, however highly they were willing to rate Jesus, refused to see in him the Christ, and it is over against this refusal that Peter sets his confession that he is the Christ. This confession is thus most emphatic, without qualification, brief, and decisive. Yet we cannot assume that only the Twelve believed in Jesus as the Christ. Others agreed with them. In v. 14 these are not introduced for the simple reason that a right confession can be listed together with several wrong confessions only in an abstract way. Among οἱἄνθρωποι who deny the Messiahship of Jesus any who accept it have no place.
They would belong in another class, namely in that of the Twelve. They are not mentioned now because Jesus is in a special manner dealing only with the Twelve; yet in v. 18 we see that Jesus has them in mind: “my church.”
Already Peter’s first designation is sufficient, but he places his meaning beyond all doubt when he adds the apposition, “the Son of God the living.” In 14:33, where the article is omitted (but see the comment), some may argue about the meaning of the expression, but certainly there is no room for argument here; compare what the disciples had learned from the Baptist in John 1:34, and what one of them confessed in John 1:49. Other believers may have thought of Jesus as a mere human Messiah when they gave him that great title; but Peter confesses Jesus to be the very Son of God. All that the disciples saw in the life, words, and deeds of Jesus revealed to them the Second Person of the Godhead in the man Jesus. Peter is not stating mere intellectual reflections and deductions but the conviction of his soul, which was wrought by the revelation under which his soul had lived. Nor is it fair to modify Peter’s confession by prying into his mind and by asking what conception he may have had of the Son of God as being present in Jesus. The fact stands that Jesus accepted his confession as being entirely adequate; and to this day the mystery of the Incarnation, with the exception of the tremendous fact of it, is beyond human comprehension.
When Peter adds τοῦζῶντος, the article with the participle (as with an adjective) makes the modifier prominent (R. 776). As “the living,” who has life and power in himself, God is the opposite of all other gods who are dead, lifeless, powerless idols. But here “the living” means more: he sent his Son and thus attests himself as living, and through his Son he is the one source and fountain of life (ζωή) for sinful man. The Son of God is “the living” like the Father whose mission he is performing.
Peter uses no extravagant language. He uses very few words, all of which are simple and direct and true in every respect. All believers of all future ages have joined him in his confession and have understood it in the same sense that he gave to it. We know that he did not always live up to his confession, but his inconsistency in this respect is only like our own and changes nothing of the substance or the truth he here confessed.
Matthew 16:17
17 And Jesus, answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon, son of John, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee but my Father in the heavens. Here, as so often, the participle ἀποκριθείς simply means that this is the response of Jesus. He acknowledges Peter’s confession, accepts it, and stamps it with his approval; he is, indeed, “the Christ, the Son of God the living.” The Unitarian and the rationalistic claim that Jesus never called himself the Son of God is squarely denied here as it is throughout the Gospels. Jesus speaks of what this confession means to Peter: “Blessed art thou,” μακόριος (exactly as in 5:3, etc., which see), filled with the divine spiritual blessing, the possession of the essential soul treasure which produces eternal happiness and joy. Truly to know, believe, and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God the living, makes a man “blessed” as Jesus understands that word. It ought not to be necessary to explain that this attribute in no special sense applies to Peter alone but equally to all of the Twelve for all of whom Peter speaks and to all others who join in Peter’s confession.
The name “Simon, son of John,” (Bar-Jonah, the Aramaic patronymic) significantly points to what Peter was by nature. Over against his natural powers and abilities Jesus intends to place his new spiritual gifts. The contrasting of the two names in v. 17, 18 is too marked to be viewed as being accidental and without import. Yet there is nothing to indicate that this is a play on the etymology of either “Simon” or “son of John.” In his natural state this disciple, like the others, would be inclined to follow only natural reason, “flesh and blood.” By the grace of God he was led to avoid this—hence his blessedness.
Jesus himself justifies the judgment he expresses by calling Simon “blessed”: “because (ὅτι), etc.” Peter’s confession is in no way the product of his own reason, his superior intellect, or of any meritorious quality or effort on his part. All of that is already shut out by his old name Simon, etc. The faith and the knowledge which uttered Peter’s confession were not in any way the product of “flesh and blood,” i.e., of fallible and mortal man. The Hebrew expression basar wadam is frequently found in Jewish literature and describes man in his mortal state of weakness and fallibility. Here Jesus has in mind Peter’s own flesh and blood. What is true of the inability of Peter’s flesh and blood is equally true of the inability of the flesh and the blood or the natural powers of all men.
To make a confession such as that which Peter made requires far more. In the verb “did reveal” Jesus declares the contents of Peter’s confession to be an impenetrable mystery as far as the powers of mere flesh and blood are concerned. Actually to realize in the man Jesus the presence of the Christ and Son of God requires more than sinful flesh and blood is able to muster. It remains so to this day.
This realization is produced by a revelation, one that is wrought by “my Father in the heavens,” who is thus infinitely exalted above “flesh and blood.” It lies on the surface that the revelation here referred to goes beyond mere intellectual knowledge and extends to spiritual conviction and apprehension. But we must not suppose that the Father exercised either an arbitrary or an irresistible will in regard to Peter. This revelation was not made to him without means. The Father revealed Jesus to Peter through Jesus himself, and he endeavors to do this in the case of all men by bringing Jesus into contact with them. Verses 13, 14 show how in that day men refused to receive the Father’s revelation and preferred their own foolish estimates of Jesus. This word of Jesus is proof for our own confession: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him.” Only those know Jesus whose souls have come into living touch with him through faith that is wrought by the Father’s revelation; others, even when they call him God’s Son, do not know what they are saying.
Matthew 16:18
18 Moreover, I, too, say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it. The copulative δέ adds something that is slightly different. Peter has made a mighty statement, Jesus now makes another that is allied to it but goes much farther. This is the force of καί with ἐγώ: “I, too, say to thee.” Peter has confessed Jesus, Jesus confesses Peter. All the pronouns are emphatic: “I, too, say to thee that thou art Peter,” etc. What Jesus here does regarding Peter he promises to do for all who confess him as Peter did, 10:32.
In John 1:42 Jesus promised Simon, “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” i.e., Peter, the rockman. Here Jesus now states that by his confession Simon has qualified for that name. It is essential to note that the masculine πέτρος denotes a detached rock or boulder, and that the feminine πέτρα signifies a rocky cliff. Liddell and Scott define the latter: “A ledge or shelf of rock, a rocky peak or ridge,” and add the statement: “There is no example in good authors of πέτρα being used in the sense of πέτρος, a stone, for even in Homer πέτραι are not loose stones but masses of living rock torn up and hurled by giants.” The distinction is beyond question although M.-M. sidestep the matter; and it is enhanced by the demonstrative “this rock,” ἐπὶταύτῃτῇπέτρᾳ.
Both the plain distinction and the evident correlation between these two terms should be noted. Πέτρος, the person of Peter, and αὕτηἡπέτρα, “this rock,” are not identical; the latter does not signify the Apostle Peter. This linguistic fact is supported by other considerations. If by “this rock” Jesus had Peter himself in mind, he could easily have said, ἐπίσου, “on thee” will I build my church; or, “on thee, Peter,” adding his name. But Jesus is already through with Peter, both as regards his old nature (Simon, son of John,) and as regards his new nature (Peter). In neither instance does he receive credit, for all belongs to the Father’s revelation. Eph. 2:20 makes all the apostles the “foundation” of the church (not, indeed, their persons or their faith but their inspired preaching and writing) and knows nothing of a prerogative in the case of Peter.
In Matt. 18:1, 4, and in Luke 22:24, the Twelve debate as to who is the greatest among them and evidently do not think that Jesus has assigned this position to Peter. Matt. 18:18; John 20:23 has no intimation of a supremacy of Peter. He is only one among the rest; sometimes, not always, however, primus inter pares. The highest authority bestowed upon his followers by Jesus is given to all alike and not to Peter alone, either in his capacity as the human head of the church or as the princeps apostolorum.
Yet Πέτρος and αὕτηἡπέτρα are an annominatio which has reference to the sense of the words and does not play merely with the similarity in sound, R. 1201. The feminine term indicates what made Peter a rock. That was, of course, not his confession but the divine revelation from which that confession sprang and to which Jesus refers so significantly in v. 17. But this revelation was not intended for Peter alone; all the disciples shared it, and, due to this revelation, all of them confessed Peter’s confession. To bar out the rest is unwarranted even when Peter’s confession is made the rock on which Jesus erects the church. Luther is right: “All Christians are Peters on account of the confession which Peter here makes, which is the rock on which Peter and all Peters are built”—understanding Luther to refer to the truth held and confessed by Peter and these Peters.
We decline to make “this rock” signify the rock nature of Peter. The church does not rest on a quality found in Peter and in others like him. The foundation of the church is not subjective but objective, namely God’s revelation. Nor does “this rock” signify Peter’s confession. The church is not built on the confession her members make, which would change the effect into the cause. By her confession the church shows on what she is built.
She rests on the reality which Peter confessed, namely on Jesus, “the Christ, the Son of God the living.” Some think of Peter’s (subjective) faith and tell us that he was the first to voice this faith—forgetting John 1:49–51. His faith is then called “the first foundation stone.” We also challenge the reference to the Aramaic in order to wipe out the distinction between πέτρος and πέτρα. We know too little about the Aramaic to assert that when Jesus spoke these words he used the same Aramaic term in both statements. We should like to know more about the Aramaic as it was spoken at the time of Jesus. Therefore this appeal to the Aramaic substitutes something unknown and hypothetical for what is fully known and insured as true on the basis of the inspired Greek of the holy writers themselves.
On the rock named in Peter’s confession Jesus says, “I will build my church,” the future tense being volitive, R. 889. We may take it that he refers to the day of Pentecost, or, if we wish to speak more exactly, that this building process has already begun and would continue in the future. Since Jesus speaks of himself as the builder, he does not call himself the foundation but makes the foundation “this rock” which Peter had just named. As the Lord of the church he says, “my church.” Only here and in 18:17 does Matthew employ ἐκκλησία, which really means the “assembly” called out to meet as a body. We do not think that the etymology of the term is altogether lost in New Testament usage (contra R. 174). To be sure, the ἐκκλησία is not always an assembled body called out for a meeting, but it certainly is the body of those who have by faith heard and accepted the gospel κλῆσις (καλεῖν), whether they are gathered together in a meeting or not.
The ἐκκλησία consists of κλητοί who are called out of the world into the kingdom as Christ’s own. Both by virtue of this effective call and as a building built on a foundation the church forms a unit body, the great Una Sancta of the Apostles’ Creed, stone laid against stone, fitly framed together, a living temple of souls joined to Christ, the Son of God. No Peter could bear this structure, nor could any personal faith or confession emanating from him.
When he speaks of the foundation on which he will build his church, Jesus is thinking of her mighty enemies. Although the articles are missing from πύλαιᾅδου, both nouns are definite. On “hades” see 11:23. “The unseen place” is here viewed as a mighty fortress, the opposite of the sacred Temple of Christ; and the πύλαι, or portals of hades, are a figure for the mighty warring hosts that issue from these portals. “Hades” does not mean “the realm of the dead,” the hypothetical place to which the souls of all dead men descend until the judgment day. How could “the gates” of such a place war against the church on earth? Here “hades” must mean hell, the abode of the devils, whose one object it is to destroy the church. The future tense οὐκατισχύσουσιν must be futuristic: “shall not prevail against,” be strong and mighty against, and not volitive as R. 875 suggests.
This is the prophetic future. The object is put into the genitive because this is a verb of ruling, R. 510. The implication is that hell’s gates shall pour out her hosts to assault the church of Christ, but the church shall not be overthrown (Rev. 20:8, 9). What makes her impregnable is her mighty foundation, Christ, the Son of the living God (1 Cor. 15:24b). As a curiosity in exegesis we mention the view that at the end of time the church will batter down the gates of the lower world in order to release the dead that are held there. This adds to Christ’s descent into hell a descent of the church of believers to the same place.
Matthew 16:19
19 And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. And whatever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be as having been bound in the heavens; and whatever thou shalt loose on the earth shall be as having been loosed in the heavens. These words become clear when we note that “the keys” belong to “the kingdom of the heavens,” and that this kingdom is not identical with “my church” in v. 18. The Ecclesia represents only the earthly side of the kingdom, while “the kingdom of the heavens” includes both the earthly and the heavenly sides. It thus includes the great King himself and all who reign with him. But we must not think of an organization as earthly kingdoms are arranged; for the divine kingdom is not patterned after any earthly realm but is superior to all of them.
This kingdom of the heavens is the entire domain in which Christ exercises his saving grace. Here on earth he does it by means of the gospel so that wherever that is preached his kingdom is present and operative; in heaven he exercises his grace by the bestowal of the heavenly glories so that also there his kingdom is in full sway. Compare 3:2.
The future tense “I will give” is important. The apostles were not at present ready for the gift; in v. 20 Jesus still has to restrain them from proclaiming him as the Messiah. Nor was Jesus himself quite ready to have them undertake this proclamation; for his redemptive work had not as yet been accomplished. The figure in the word “keys” suggests the ideas of binding and loosing. While the number of the keys is not specified, the two verbs used lead us to think of only two. It ought not to be difficult for us, as it certainly was not for Peter and for the Twelve, to understand that a key which binds is simply the power to shut out from the kingdom of the heavens, and a key that looses is the authority to admit to this kingdom.
Here is the place to follow the old hermeneutical rule: Scriptura ex Scriptura explicanda est. In 18:18 we find the same two verbs, but there they are applied to all the disciples and are to be understood in the very same sense, giving us Jesus’ own commentary on the keys: “What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” To this add John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” The fact that the order is reversed in this passage is certainly no reason to say that here Jesus does not refer to the keys.
The Scriptures themselves thus explain the neuter “whatever” (ὅ) as “what things soever” (ὅσα) in 18:18, and as “sins” in John 20:23. This neuter, then, does not refer to persons but to the acts of persons, and thus it accords with the universal principle of the Scriptures that all public judgment, even that of Christ at the last day, rests on a man’s works. By means of his omniscience God, of course, sees the heart with its faith or its lack of faith. Yet, wherever God’s judgment or that of his agents is to be justified in public before men and before angels, the works are invariably brought forward. So in binding and in loosing we are especially bound to deal only with the works of men, with what they confess by word and by deed, and dare never arrogate to ourselves the function of judging the heart as to whether faith be present there or not. Whatever our moral convictions may be regarding a man’s faith or lack of faith, this is not our business; we deal with his works alone.
The key that binds is the power and authority to retain sins; the key that looses is the power and authority to remit sins. The one shuts out of the kingdom, the other admits. The tense of δώσω thus refers to the time when Peter and the rest were sent out to preach the gospel to the world.
How the keys are to be used is shown with great clearness in 18:18. Always the power in them is Christ’s own for us to use only in accord with his will. Only repentant sinners are to be freed of their sins, only the impenitent are to be sent away unforgiven. The keys are stronger than we; they never work according to any man’s perverted will. Each fits its own lock, nor can you work the loosing key where the binding key alone fits, or vice versa. All true administration of the gospel is the exercise of the keys whether this occurs in public preaching, in church discipline, in the divine service of confession, or in other instances where single souls are dealt with.
All those who think that the keys were given to Peter alone foster the error of the papacy with its tyranny of souls. “Tell it unto the church” (18:18) is decisive on this point. The apostles and after them the pastors are only the ministers of the church. Through them the church speaks and acts. And when she does this in accord with Christ’s command, whatever is bound on earth “shall be as having been bound in the heavens”; and whatever is loosed on earth “shall be as having been loosed in the heavens,” i.e., both as having been done by Christ himself, he being the agent back of both the perfect passive participles. We prefer to regard the two ἔσται as copulas and the two participles as predicates; R. 361 and 907 makes these forms the periphrastic future perfect passive, “shall have been bound or loosed.” The difference is merely formal.
Lightfoot, who is followed by others, lets “bind” and “loose” mean forbid and allow, but this can be done only on the authority of the Talmud which uses ’asar and hittir (Aramaic ’asar and sherah) in this peculiar manner. Peter is thus made the οἰκονόμος of the house of the church, the supreme rabbi who decides what the members of the household may do or not do, what is forbidden, and what is allowed. With this idea goes the statement that 18:18 and John 20:23 have no connection with our passage; they would upset this Talmudic usage. But this is not interpreting Scripture by means of Scripture but by means of a late Jewish usage of terms. It leads to the conclusion that what this supreme rabbi Peter forbids as morally wrong and allows as morally right here on earth shall be equally forbidden or allowed in the heavens. The labored efforts of Zahn and of others to secure this sense of the words, that bind and loose mean forbid and allow, reveal how futile it is to bring in the Talmud and to disregard 18:18 and John 20:23.
Moreover, where did Peter exercise the function thus ascribed to him? In the Acts and in the Epistles we see the keys employed. In Acts 15, not Peter, but James is the chairman; and not Peter, but James formulates the decision which is then adopted by “the apostles and elders with the whole church.” The case of incest mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:11, 13 (2 Cor. 2:6–8) is another instance. Here Paul formulates the binding resolution which the Corinthian congregation was to adopt (see the author’s commentary on the passage) and also did adopt, and not until that time was the man expelled. Throughout we see that the church administers the keys and that the apostles and the elders (pastors) as the proper ministrants of the church lead in the work. Luther and the Reformation have gone so thoroughly into this portion of the Scriptures and have established once for all from the Scriptures themselves what the power of the keys is, in what sense Peter had it, and in what sense the church has it, that no Talmudic references can affect this true finding.
Matthew 16:20
20 Then he charged the disciples to say to no one that he was the Christ. The future tenses used in v. 18, 19 explain this charge to the disciples. Their great confession was not as yet to be made publicly, but in due course, after only a few months, the time would be propitious. The best authority reads διεστείλατο, other texts have ἐπετίμησεν, “he gave strict orders.” Either verb is strong, for Jesus intended to seal the lips of the disciples for the present; ἵνα is subfinal and is equal to an infinitive. The emphasis on αὐτός is due to v. 13, 14 and the notions of the people that, whoever Jesus might be, it was certain that he was not the Christ. Over against this stands the assertion “that he is the Christ” nevertheless; and the Greek retains the ἐστίν of the direct discourse which the English translates “was” after the past tense of a verb of saying.
The great reason why Jesus throughout his ministry did not proclaim himself as “the Christ” or Messiah was that the Jews connected the most extravagant political ideas with this title. That explains why they could not see “the Christ” in Jesus. He had nothing of that which they imagined “the Christ” should have. Thus they made him a lesser person. The course Jesus followed was simply to be “the Christ,” to do the work of the Messiah, and to let this produce the conviction, as it did in his disciples, that he, indeed, was “the Christ,” not the political and secular figure which filled the Jewish imagination but the Christ of God, promised in the Scriptures, the very Son of the living God, sent to redeem and save the souls of men. After his work had been completed on earth, the world was to ring with the confession that this Jesus was “the Christ,” Acts 3:13–26; 4:10–12; 5:30–32; etc.
Matthew 16:21
21 From then on Jesus began to show to his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and high priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised up. One great task had been accomplished: the disciples had been brought to the full realization of the divine person of Jesus as Peter voiced this conviction for the Twelve in his great confession (v. 16). Another task had to be finished: the disciples had to be made to understand the redemptive work Jesus was about to complete. Often enough he had in a veiled way spoken of this work; now he speaks of it in the plainest terms. Over two years ago, behind the temptation after the forty days of fasting, Jesus saw the shadow of the cross. When he cleansed the Temple the first time he spoke of the temple of his body which the Jews would destroy and he would raise up.
To Nicodemus he said, “The Son of man must be lifted up.” But now the time had come for plainer language. “From then on” marks the time and intimates that Jesus continued to speak of his Passion as he had not done heretofore. The aorist ἤρξατο indicates the point of beginning, and the present infinitive δεικνύειν what now followed. Jesus “shows” these things “to his disciples.” They are to draw no false conclusion from his divinity such as they were too much inclined to draw because of the vain Jewish hopes still lurking in their hearts. Although Jesus is God’s Son and the Messiah, no golden, glorious, refulgent earthly kingdom and grandeur lie ahead but the very opposite.
Matthew gives us a simple summary of what Jesus revealed to his disciples during these last few months. The ὅτι clause very likely reports just what Jesus said right after his reply to Peter’s confession. Later he repeated this statement with additions. All that awaits Jesus is a necessity; and while δεῖ is used to express all types of necessity, here it evidently expresses the gracious will and counsel of God in the mission of Jesus. These things “must” take place, and Jesus himself wills that they shall, for without them he could not redeem the world.
We have seen how Jesus withdrew himself from the populous center west of the lake, spending his time in distant parts, now near Tyre and Sidon, then in Decapolis, finally in the neighborhood of Cæsarea Philippi. Even in Galilee the opposition had grown so keen that Pharisees and Sadducees from Jerusalem had come up to interfere with him. But now Jesus tells the disciples that presently he himself will again go away to Jerusalem, to the very capital itself, where the real center of hostility against him had been formed. The Jews would not need to follow him, to arrest him in some distant locality, he himself would place himself into their hands. Jerusalem would be the place of his sacrifice, Luke 13:33. Here he is “to suffer many things,” πολλά still leaving the veil over the details.
Jesus knew what these “many things” were. The prophets had foretold them in all their terribleness, and Jesus knew even more fully just what they included. Despite their number their severity would in no way be softened. In the many things Jesus was to suffer we may well see the reflection of the many sins he bore, which in his great Passion hymn on the thorn-crowned head of Christ Paul Gerhardt likens to the grains of sand upon the seashore.
Jesus states positively who shall inflict the many things upon him, namely the Sanhedrin, the full designation for which is here used (in 2:3 we have an abbreviation). This was the highest judicial body of the Jewish nation, more representative than the high priest alone. “The elders” were the old, experienced men of the nation who had served as judges in the local courts and, due to their prominence, had risen to membership in the highest court. “The high priests and the scribes” are described in connection with 2:3. All three classes are combined into a unit by means of the one article. The naming of the Sanhedrin as the agent of Jesus’ suffering points to a trial and a formal condemnation; ἀπό, “at the hands of,” points to the source and thus to the agency, R. 579. The disciples also well knew that the chief enemies of their Master were the Sanhedrists who had already planned and plotted to destroy him. Thus far Jesus had frustrated their schemes but now he tells the disciples that the Sanhedrin will succeed.
Not only will he suffer many things but he shall actually “be killed.” Jesus omits the mockery, the scourging, the delivery into the hands of Pilate, for the disciples cannot now bear these details. Also the method of the killing is withheld and is not revealed until 20:19. But the fact of the killing is positively stated. The preceding mention of the Sanhedrin points to a judicial killing, but ἀποκτανθῆναι simply means “to be killed” in the sense of to be put out of the way, murdered, robbed of life. It suggests no thought of justice on the part of the Jewish tribunal but, in connection with the foregoing παθεῖν, the gravest kind of injustice: judicial murder.
Jesus is brief in this first formal announcement. He is like one who is breaking a piece of terrible news to his dearest friends. The shock cannot be avoided but is softened as much as possible. The very thought of seeing their beloved Master, whom they had just confessed as the Christ and Son of God, a bleeding, murdered victim of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem must have overwhelmed the hearts of the disciples—and not only because of their love, attachment, and high hopes, but also because of their conception of the Messiah which included the very opposite of suffering and being killed, namely earthly grandeur and triumph.
Yet glory and triumph, though of a far higher kind, are included, namely his resurrection on the third day after being killed. This, too, “must” occur; it is in accord with the same necessity that applies to what precedes. “On the third day” is so important because it foretells the exact time. Jesus would be raised up, not at some indefinite future time, but already on the third day. Jesus sees the future with a direct vision; for none of the prophets had foretold this third day; all that the Old Testament contains is the analogy of Jonah’s stay in the belly of the great fish (12:39, 40; 16:4). Jesus uses only the one word, ἐγερθῆναι, “shall be raised up,” and gives no further intimation concerning the glorification connected with this resurrection. A real conception of this stupendous act was at this time beyond the comprehension of the disciples.
It was enough for them to hear that Jesus would not remain in death but be brought back to life as the Messiah. Back of the passive verb stands God as the agent; in Mark 9:31 and in Luke 18:33 the active is used. Both are true: the Son of man was raised up, and the Son of God arose, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa.
Beyond relating Peter’s attempt to dissuade Jesus from his passion, Matthew tells us nothing about the effect of this startling announcement upon the disciples. Peter’s attempt proves that the disciples certainly understood what Jesus intended to tell them. And yet we see that Peter thinks only of the suffering and the being killed and thus reveals that in the minds of the disciples the climax of the Messiah’s career is entirely beclouded. This explains Mark 9:31 and Luke 18:34.
To this day unbelieving criticism denies both the prophecy Jesus here utters and the fulfillment recorded by all the evangelists and preached by all the apostles. These critics regard the death as historic but deny the glorious resurrection. Equally untenable is the supposition of other less radical interpreters who assume that Jesus did not speak as plainly as Matthew here records his statement, but that the evangelist wrote as he did on the basis of his later knowledge; this applies especially to the prophecy that Jesus would be raised from the dead. Only in this way, they think, the reluctance of the disciples to believe the news of the resurrection can be explained. But Peter’s act shows conclusively that the disciples centered on the suffering and the death of their Master and failed to heed what he added concerning his resurrection. The last discourses of Jesus, recorded by John in extenso, make this still plainer.
It is one thing to sit in a cool study and to rationalize regarding the actions of the disciples, and quite another thing to pass through the terrible experience of the disciples when their Master was crucified and then buried in the tomb. All the preceding assurances that he would rise again on the third day were lost in the night of the calamity that engulfed them.
Matthew 16:22
22 Peter again shows his impetuosity. And taking him to himself (the middle participle with πρός), Peter began to rebuke him, saying, Mercy on thee, Lord! In no way shall this be to thee! But he, having turned, said to Peter: Get behind me, Satan! A trap art thou of mine; because thou hast not in mind the things of God but the things of men. “And” sounds as though Peter’s action at once followed. Undoubtedly, he thought that he was again doing the right thing and was doing it for the Twelve.
The act of taking Jesus aside so that Peter has him by himself, was intended to make Jesus listen more readily to Peter’s expostulation. Inadvertently, however, this reproduced the situation that obtained when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Peter “began” to rebuke him just as a moment ago Jesus “began” to announce his passion and his glorification, but what Peter began was immediately squelched as one crushes a serpent that raises its ugly head. The verb ἐπιτιμᾶν is full of vehemence. It suggests a person who comes powerfully at another to show him that he is wrong. The elliptical ἵλεώςσοι includes God as the subject and the optative of wish εἴη as the copula: “Merciful (be God) to thee!” And the sense is that in his mercy God may ward off this calamity, B.-P. 585, etc.
The negative future οὐμὴἔσταισοιτοῦτο is, of course, volitive (R. 875), but it is the future of command as used in legal enactments, and οὐμή is the strongest form of negation with the future (as it is with subjunctives, all of which are also future): “Nevermore shall this happen to thee!” We at once see that Peter had caught only what Jesus said about his suffering and his death and did not grasp the word about his resurrection and properly combine the two.
The psychology here revealed is so true that we can substantiate it by a large number of examples in our own lives. But these experiences of ours are usually of lesser importance as when present pain or loss prove too much for us and blot out any joy or gain that may be achieved through them. Here in Jesus’ case the most terrible loss of life itself was involved, and to Peter this was a calamity so frightful as entirely to blot out anything glorious that might follow it. The mystery of the Baptist’s “Lamb of God” with its implication of bloody sacrifice was still hidden from Peter. What lay in the little word δεῖ, “must,” namely the necessity of the atoning, cleansing blood of the Messiah, Peter did not at all grasp. His mind brushed that aside and thought of the Messiah as God’s Son who needed only to stretch out the hand of his power in order to achieve his great rule and kingdom among men.
To this day, all who fail to see the damning power of sin are blind to the true necessity of the cross. They see in Christ crucified (since he was, indeed, crucified) nothing but a noble martyrdom, a sacrifice only in this sense and reject “the blood theology” of the gospel, the sacrifice which involves substitution, redemption by the blood of God’s Son, and the cleansing of the soul from guilt by faith in this sacrificial blood. Thus they need no essential Son in their theology, and his resurrection may be regarded as a myth. Like Peter, they would have a kingship without the Messianic priesthood. But the very thing for which Peter started to rebuke Jesus afterward became the kernel, yea, the Alpha and the Omega, of his apostolic preaching.
Matthew 16:23
23 Peter began but never finished. Jesus never paused for an instant to ask his urgent disciple, “Why?” or, “What makes thee think so?” Peter is not allowed to add that it would not behoove the Son of God to allow himself to be killed, or that he should not go to Jerusalem to place himself into the hands of the Sanhedrin. Jesus does not for one moment entertain the tempting thought or turn it over in his mind. Here is an example for us who frequently dally with the serpent and then find his poisonous fangs lodged in us.
Some think that Jesus “turned” his back on Peter in disgust because of his words; others, that he turned away from Peter and faced the other disciples. But to turn and to speak to a person—note that the two actions go together—means that Jesus faced Peter squarely. If Jesus had turned his back on Peter he would himself have placed Peter “behind” him, whereas he tells Peter, “Get thee behind me!” Compare Luke 9:55, where no commentator lets στραφείς mean, “having turned his back.”
So also, “get thee behind me,” means, “Get out of my sight!” With a Peter who speaks as he does Jesus will have nothing whatever to do. This peremptory word with the address, “Satan,” is identical with the one with which Jesus ordered the devil out of his sight after the third temptation (4:10). For this reason here, too, “Satan” is the archfiend. Unwittingly and though moved by the best intentions Peter had made himself an agent of Satan. What a warning to watch our love, our good intentions, our best acts, lest, perhaps after all, they agree with Satan and not with Christ.
Romanists are concerned to remove the name “Satan” from Peter and let it mean only “adversary,” or call it an address, not to Peter, but only to the devil. Others follow with the claim that in the East “Satan” is commonly used to designate any bold, powerful enemy. But there is no evidence for such common usage. What is decisive for us is the fact that we here have an exact repetition of 4:10, both commands come from Jesus’ lips, and both were spoken during temptations, yea, in the same kind of temptation. In both “Satan” has the same force, but in the second case the fiend is connected with Peter.
The contention that immediately after praising Peter as the rock Jesus could not have called him Satan or an agent of Satan overlooks the fact that Peter had the flesh as well as the spirit, ignorance as well as faith, weakness as well as strength. And we may ask, how Jesus could call him a rock when he knew that Peter would most shamefully deny him. The name pointed to what the grace of Christ would eventually make of Peter; as yet the work had only begun. The fact that the Scriptures tell us the faults of the apostles so openly and so truthfully proves their absolute reliability. These faults comfort us, not as excuses for our faults, but as assurances that Christ will not reject us on their account but will correct our faults as he did those of Peter.
On σκάνδαλον and the verb σκανδαλίζειν see 5:29. The word always means the crooked stick to which the bait in a trap is affixed. R. 174 has the correct explanation but he is mistaken when he adds the thought of “impediment” which leads to “stumbling block” (R. V.). Here it is important to retain the original meaning. One may fall over a stumbling block and yet may rise again. But this is not the case with a skandalon, for merely to touch the bait affixed to it would spring the trap, and Jesus would be caught in its death grip. Thus we translate the word “trap,” which conveys the idea of an enticement that, if it be entertained, means destruction. No wonder Jesus turned so sharply against Peter; he saw the satanic trap set for him in Peter’s words.
Jesus states why Peter’s effort is a trap for him (ὅτι): “because thou hast in mind,” etc. “The things of God” and “the things of men” are opposites; the former are the great, blessed, saving purposes, plans, and acts of God; the latter, the blind, erring, sinful purposes and ways of men. Peter had in mind only the latter, his thinking and his desires were set on these not on the former. “To the world the cross was offensive, to Christ whatever opposed the cross.” Bengel.
Peter must have been shocked at Jesus’ reply to his well-meant urging. At that time he could hardly have understood that by his attempt to dissuade Jesus from the cross he was placing arrows on the bow of Satan to be shot at his beloved Savior. The more reason why he should be instantly stopped. One thing, however, must have penetrated his mind, namely that all this regarding Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection was divine, “of God,” and therefore holy, blessed, saving; and that every contradictory thought and suggestion was evil, dangerous, satanic. Thus the very temptation Peter brought upon Jesus was by Jesus used to help him from the things of men to those of God. We are not told that the other disciples heard what was said, but the following indicates that this was most likely the case.
Matthew 16:24
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, If anyone wills to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and be following me. “Then” means immediately after Peter’s attempt, and this leads us to think that all the disciples witnessed this incident. They must also be set right, not Peter alone. But Jesus says nothing further regarding his own future course. This is fixed once for all. He speaks about the course of those who would be his disciples. His words involve all that precedes concerning himself, that he is the Christ, the Son of God the living, and must be killed and raised up again.
Whoever would belong to this Messiah must do what Jesus here says. In εἰθέλει we have the condition of reality, and θέλει points to the will as being engaged in a continuous volition, R. 878 (“would” in the R. V. is inadequate). “To come after or behind me” means, of course, to attach oneself to Jesus as a disciple; but here this idea is deepened: to follow this Son of God who is going into death and the following resurrection. “Christ does not pull his sheep by a rope; in his army there are none but volunteers.” E. Frommel. Jesus knows of no irresistible grace but only of the grace which draws the will and wins it for himself. And this grace excludes no one—τίς is like a blank space into which you are invited to write your name, no matter who you may be.
Whoever wills to come after Christ, “let him deny himself,” ἀπό plus ἀρνέομαι, which means to turn someone off, to refuse association and companionship with him, to disown him. The one to be denied is here ἑαυτός, SELF, self altogether and not merely some portion, some fault, some special habit or desire, some outward practice. The natural, sinful self is referred to as it centers in the things of men and has no desire for the things of God. As Peter later denied Jesus saying, “I know not the man!” so must you say regarding yourself, “I disown myself completely.” This is not self-denial in the current sense of the word but true conversion, the very first essential of the Christian life. The heart sees all the sin of self and the damnation and the death bound up in this sin and turns away from it in utter dismay, seeking rescue in Christ alone. Self is thus cast out, and Christ enters in; henceforth you live, not unto yourself, but unto Christ who died for you.
Moreover, you can deny only one whom you know, a friend, for instance, by breaking off relations with him. So here you are to deny your own old self and to enter into a new relation with Christ.
This will mean that “he take up his cross,” αἴρειν in the sense of λαμβάνειν in 10:38. On “his cross” see this passage. Jesus undoubtedly chose this figure because he himself was to be crucified. Although this was a Roman mode of execution, it was universally known. Jesus will bear his cross, one which he alone could bear. In regard to his disciples he says that each is to bear his cross, i.e., the particular one allotted to him. This word has grown too familiar because of constant use. It is a mistake to call all our suffering a cross. The wicked have many sorrows (Ps. 32:10) but no crosses. The cross is that suffering which results from our faithful connection with Christ. And Jesus here intimates that each disciple will have his share of such suffering.
The thought is overwhelming: Christ, carrying his cross, leads, and all his disciples, each bearing his cross, follow in one immense procession like men being led away to be crucified. Paul carries the figure farther: they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh (Gal. 5:24); and Paul himself is crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20). The earthly prospects of a disciple are not alluring. However heavy your cross may be, he helps you to bear it after him.
So Jesus says, “let him be following me.” He uses the word that is usually employed to express the attachment of faith and faithfulness, it has quite the same meaning as to come after Jesus. Let no one think of changing the course of Jesus which leads to the cross but only of following him with our cross. Godet says that when travelling three things are necessary; first, to say farewell (to self); secondly, to carry our baggage (the cross); thirdly, to proceed with the journey (follow me). The only question concerns our will to make this journey. The first two imperatives are properly aorists, for to deny self and to shoulder the cross are momentary acts; but the third is present, for to follow is a long and continuous course of action. This means that the first two acts are the preparation for the third.
We need not add that all three are impossible to us, for no human power is able to bring about conversion and the new life. Christ’s Word and grace alone bring about both.
Matthew 16:25
25 For whoever wills to save his life shall lose it; but whoever shall lose his life on my account shall find it. Here we have the reason for the previous gospel commands. It sounds like a warning, and its highly paradoxical form is sure to embed it in the memory. Once before, but in a different connection, Jesus used this paradox with only verbal changes. In 10:39 the two subjects are substantivized aorist participles: “the finder—the loser of his life”; now the subjects are relative clauses with a somewhat fuller meaning. See 10:39 for the meaning of ψυχή. “Whoever wills to save his life” again stresses the will (as in v. 24), for the decision is always made in this center of our personality.
The verb σώζειν means not only to save by rescuing but in addition to preserve in a safe state. This is the terrible folly of the man who would save his life, namely by not denying himself, taking up his cross, and following Jesus: by this very volition of his he shall lose his life. Though he enjoys every earthly delight, his ψυχή has really perished, for it is doomed.
On the other hand, Jesus does not again say, “Whoever wills to lose his life,” for this willing is understood. So he at once advances to the fact that this man “shall lose” his life, thinking of a case where the loss becomes actual (aorist subjunctive). This man may even become a martyr, losing not merely many earthly treasures and advantages but earthly existence itself. Does his case seem sad and deplorable? Far from it! In and by the very loss he shall find his ψυχή, i.e., safe and blessed with Christ and with God.
But note the significant phrase “on my account,” which explains “his cross” in v. 24. Compare 5:10, 11; 10:18; Mark 8:35; 10:29: “for my sake and the gospel’s.” On the one hand the gain is only temporal and a delusion, while the loss is irreparable; on the other hand the loss is only minor while the gain is immense and eternal. We cannot have both; only one of the alternatives can be ours. Hence the urging in v. 24 to choose the right one.
Matthew 16:26
26 A second γάρ elucidates the reason given for Jesus’ command. For what shall a man be benefited if he shall gain the whole world yet forfeit his life; or what shall a man give as exchange for his life? Here we see what underlies the paradox of v. 25. To save the ψυχή means to secure for it as much as this world affords; and thus to lose the ψυχή means to forego what the world affords. Jesus now supposes the absolute limit, that a man secure for himself “the whole world”—all the world’s wealth, power, pleasure, glory, the beauty of all the fair things that ever graced the world, the sweetness of all the delicacies that it ever offered, the grandeur of all the high things that ever towered aloft on it, all sensations, all enjoyments, all achievements, all satisfactions. Of course, such a thing is frankly impossible to any human being, and that is understood.
But granting the impossible and for the moment accepting it as actual, what is this man benefited if, though he have the whole world, he forfeit his ψυχή? The question answers itself. But again compare 10:39 on ψυχή, and note Luke 9:25 where ἑαυτός is made its equivalent, “his own self.” A man need not at once die to forfeit his ψυχή, for he forfeits or loses it when he fails to secure salvation.
The Jews are keen in regard to finance—well, here is the whole matter reduced to a simple question of profit and loss. Write on the credit side of the ledger “the whole world” and then on the debit side “the life,” the man himself, and the profit is nothing, yea, infinitely worse than nothing. Yet Satan needs no such price to buy men’s souls; all he needs is a little piece of this world.
Make the reckoning in another way. “What shall a man give as exchange for his life?” What equivalent in value or price could he offer, supposing even that he possessed the whole world, in order to release his life from forfeit and to place it into the safety of eternal salvation? No equivalent can be named; no man will even try to name one. The genitive used with ἀντάλλαγμα is objective: “exchange for his soul,” R. 501; like many passives, ζηυιωθῇ has the accusative. Only in one way can any man make his life safe and thus find it for time and for eternity, namely by following the directions given in v. 24. Christ is our only hope. The entire presentation is as clear as crystal and in most perfect accord with the psychological norms of the human will, so that only the height of unreason and wilful self-deceit is able to resist following the right course. Even the interrogative form employed in v. 26 is masterly, for it makes the hearer himself utter the inevitable answers.
Matthew 16:27
27 How vital all this is regarding the ψυχή is now stated prophetically. For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father in company with his angels, and then shall he duly give to each one according to his doing. Amen, I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall in no wise taste of death until they shall see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Divine judgment awaits every man, hence everything depends on whether we follow Christ irrespective of what we lose in the world, or disregard him and seek as much as possible of the world for our life. On “the Son of man” see 8:20. As the one who is man and yet more than man he will appear as the Judge.
Our Redeemer will be our Judge. Μέλλει with the present infinitive is a circumscription of the future tense and here states that Jesus’ coming to judgment is impending. He will come “in the glory of his Father,” in the full display of all the divine attributes. This refers to the human nature of Jesus, that nature according to which he would undergo suffering and death (v. 21), which, however, possessed the divine attributes by virtue of its union with the divine nature and person of the Son, and which would be rendered glorious and refulgent in his exaltation and heavenly enthronement. God’s “glory” is always the sum of his attributes or any number of them shining forth so that his creatures may see. Jesus shall appear in “his Father’s” glory, as possessing that glory equally with the Father. The angels of the Son of man (both αὐτοῦ refer to him) shall accompany him as his servants in the work of the great judgment.
When that day arrives, “then” Jesus shall “duly give (this the force of ἀπό in the verb) to each one according to his doing” πράξις, the sum of his actions in this life. Κατά states the norm. The final, public judgment shall be regarded as a just one by the entire universe; hence the Judge will pronounce sentence according to the works, namely those mentioned in v. 24, whether they are present in a man and characterize him or not. The entire dealing of Jesus with his disciples mentioned in v. 13–28 (the people were also present from v. 24 onward, as Mark 8:34 states) must have affected them most profoundly. One tremendous revelation follows another.
Matthew 16:28
28 The final statement is ushered in by the solemn formula of verity and authority which has been explained in 5:18. It assures those standing before Jesus that some of them shall live to see the beginning of this return of Jesus to judgment. The perfect of ἵστημι, here the participle ἑστηκότων, is always used in the present sense: those standing here. The relative clause introduced by οἵτινες has the futuristic subjunctive, R. 955. The expression “to taste of death” refers to its bitterness which remains even for the disciples because they are still sinners.
The promise here given refers to the destruction of Jerusalem with its definite transfer of the offer of the gospel from the obdurate Jews to the receptive Gentiles. The Parousia of Christ is here viewed in the wider sense and thus includes the divine judgment on the Jewish nation. The decisive points have been mentioned in connection with 10:23. Jesus does not say that the end of the world will come before some of his hearers have died; for 24:36 assures us that the time of the end is not known even to Jesus. Because v. 27 speaks of the judgment on the last day we are not compelled to make v. 28 do the same. It is an addition.
And it will have this effect: those who live to see the destruction of Jerusalem will have in this fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy the proof that his prophecy concerning the final judgment shall also be fulfilled. They shall see him coming “in his kingdom.” On the βασιλεία see 3:2. “The kingdom” is never a place but always the royal rule of the Messiah. This is the rule of his grace in the hearts of all his believers and the rule of his power in the world protecting his believers and bringing judgment upon the wicked. Ordinarily both are invisible; but in the judgment on the Jews this royal rule of Jesus would become visible. In this calamity some of the hearers were actually to “see” the Son of man coming in his βασιλεία, i.e., clothed with royal majesty as the King that he is.
“Jesus thus used the word concerning his coming once and again (10:23; 16:28) so as to combine the preparatory beginnings of the end (24:8, 32, etc.; Luke 21:28, 31), after the manner of prophetic speech, with the supreme point of the final events, his Parousia … To say that Jesus erred in this and prophesied falsely appears, in view of the more detailed prophecies separating more sharply the individual features of the picture of the future, to be just as foolish as if someone would call the Baptist a false prophet because the kingdom whose nearness he preached was not realized at once as completely as he pictured and described its coming.” Zahn, Evangelium des Matthaeus, 673.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.