Matthew 16:13

Mat_16:13; Mat_16:17

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

Confession and cross-bearing

I. The confession.

1. The substance of the confession.

2. The source of the confession (Mat_16:17).

3. The power of the confession (Mat_16:18-19).

4. The limitations of the confession (Mat_16:20).

II. The covenant of the christian church

1. The dignity of cross-bearing (Mat_16:21; Mat_16:23).

2. The necessity of crossbearing (Mat_16:24-26).

3. The rewards of cross-bearing (Mat_16:27-28). (Monday Club Sermons.)

The Son of man-the Son of God

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

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

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

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

II. The answer of the world.

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

Christ the universal man

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

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

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

Christ the centre of theology

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

Christ mentally conceived

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

Opinion sought by a question

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

The Christ of God

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

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

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

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

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

Peters faith

I. Peters faith.

II. The source of Peters faith.

III. What Peters faith qualified him to be.

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

Peters compression

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

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

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

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

Christs appeal to our individual faith

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

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

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

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

Right apprehensions of the character of Christ essential to salvation

I. That there are many opinions about Christ.

1. As regards His Person.

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

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

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

Whom do men say that I am?-

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

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

The personal affirmations of Christ

What did Christ teach concerning Himself?

1. He affirmed the divinity of His redemptive mission.

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

3. His pre-existence.

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

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

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

Public opinion concerning Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

Varied views of Christ

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

I saw One hanging on a tree

In agonies and blood,

Who fixed His languid eyes on me,

As near His cross I stood;

And never till my latest breath

Shall I forget that look,

It seemed to charge me with His death,

Though not a word He spoke.

James Allen saw Him like this:-

Sweet the moments, rich in blessing,

Which before the cross I spend,

Love and health and peace possessing,

From the sinners dying friend.

Here it is I find my heaven

While upon His cross I gaze,

Love I much? Ive more forgiven,

I am a miracle of grace.

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

The revelation of Christ often misinterpreted

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

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

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

The revelation of Christ perfected in heaven

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

Perverse views of Christ

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

Religious affections produce a conviction of reality

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

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

II. Indirectly.

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

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

III. Some conclusions.

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

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

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

St. Peter here confesses that our Lord is

I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

This truth was not revealed to Peter-

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

(2) Through mere carnal reasoning (1Co_2:11.);

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

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 16:13-16. When Jesus came, &c. — There was a large interval of time between what has been related already, and what follows. The passages that follow were but a short time before our Lord suffered: came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi — “This city, while in the possession of the Canaanites, was called Lesheim, Jos 19:47; and Laish, Jdg 18:27. But when the children of Dan took it, they named it after their progenitor. In latter times it was called Paneas, from the mountain beneath which it stood. The situation of Paneas pleased Philip the tetrarch so exceedingly, that he resolved to make it the seat of his court. For which purpose he enlarged and adorned it with many sumptuous buildings, and called it Cesarea in honour of the Roman emperor. The tetrarch’s own name, however, was commonly added, to distinguish it from the other Cesarea, so often mentioned in the Jewish history, and in the Acts of the Apostles, which was a fine port on the Mediterranean sea, and had been rebuilt by Herod the Great, and named in honour of Augustus Cæsar.” — Macknight. Josephus gives Philip so good a character, that some have thought our Lord retired into his territories for security from the insults of his enemies elsewhere. He asked his disciples, Who do men (Luke says, the people,) say that I, the Son of man, am — Who do they take me to be, who am really a man, born of a woman, and in outward appearance a mere man? Or, as some understand the expression, Who do men say that I am? the Son of man? Do they say that I am the Son of man, the Messiah? So Macknight, with some others, thinks the words ought to be placed and pointed, to make them agree with the question which Christ afterward proposed to his disciples, namely, But who say ye that I am? words which imply that he had not yet directly assumed the title of the Messiah, at least in their hearing. Dr. Lightfoot, however, conjectures that Christ here inquires, not barely whether the people thought him to be the Christ, but what kind of person they thought him to be: the Jews then doubting concerning the original of him who was to be the Messiah, and whether he was to come from the living or the dead. And it must be acknowledged, that the word τινα, whom, often relates to the quality of the person spoken of. So Joh 8:53, τινα, whom makest thou thyself? Christ made this inquiry, not because he was ignorant what the people thought and spoke of him, for their thoughts and words were perfectly known to him, but that he might have, from themselves, a declaration of their faith, and might therefrom take occasion of confirming and strengthening them in it. In answer to the question concerning the people, the disciples reply, Some say, thou art John the Baptist — Namely, risen from the dead, and with an additional power of working miracles; some, Elias — That thou art Elijah the prophet, come to prepare the way of the Messiah; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets — There was at that time a current tradition among the Jews, that either Jeremiah, or some other of the ancient prophets, would rise again before the Messiah came. Most part of the people took Jesus for a different person from what he was, because he had nothing of the outward pomp or grandeur in which they supposed the Messiah was to appear. Therefore, that he might give his disciples, who had long been witnesses of his miracles, and had attended on his ministry, an opportunity of declaring their opinion of him, he proceeded to ask, But who say ye that I am? And Peter, who was generally the most forward to speak, replied in the name of the rest, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God — That is, his son in a peculiar sense, and therefore a person of infinitely greater dignity than either John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremiah, or any other prophet.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 73. — THE ENDOWMENT OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE WITH THE KEYS, Mat_16:13-19.

Our Saviour’s ministry has now drawn to its zenith. He has exhibited his character and laid his lessons before his disciples. He has trained them so that while the rest of the world is in wonder and doubt about him, expressing its various conjectures, they will be ready to confess him clearly and solidly to be the Christ. He has so impressed upon their minds his history and doctrine, that when he shall leave them, under the aid of the pentecostal spirit they will be able to found his kingdom and Church on earth. He now proceeds after solemn prayer to assemble them together and in a formal manner to require the common profession of faith; to lay them as a foundation for his Church, of which himself was the ground; to promise them the victory over the powers of hell; and to give them the apostolic keys by which, endowed with power from on high, they should be able to open and shut the doors of the Church, in such a way as should be ratified in heaven. After that, he dares fully open before them the prospect of his death and sufferings.

This, the opening of the SIXTH PERIOD, must therefore be considered as a most important turning point in our Lord’s history. Thenceforward his is a Ministry of Sorrow. See Historical Synopsis.

13. When Jesus came — Jesus was now on the southeastern side of Lake Gennesaret. He moves, on the east side, northward, and at Bethsaida Julias cures a stammerer. (Mar_8:22-26.) Thence he moves up along the banks of the narrowing and rapid Jordan, toward its sources at the northeastern corner of the Holy Land. He passes Lake Merom, a scene of ancient battle, and arrives in the vicinity of Cesarea Philippi, the most northerly point, probably, at which he ever touched.

Cesarea Philippi stood upon the side of Mount Panium, from whose cliff the Jordan has its northeastern spring. The rock of this cliff was surmounted by a temple built in honour of Augustus Cesar. The ancient name of this city was Paneas, so called as being on or near ground sacred to the pagan deity Pan. It was not, as some say, identical with the ancient Laish, which, in fact, had its site four miles distant, and is now called El Kady. It was rebuilt by Herod Philip, and named Cesarea by him, in honour of the patron from whom he received his government, Tiberius Cesar. It was called Cesarea Philippi, or Philip’s Cesarea, to distinguish it from Cesarea Palestina, which stood upon the Mediterranean shore. It was afterward named Neronias in honour of the cruel emperor Nero; but in due time both these names were disused, and its old name, softened into Banias, remains to the present day.

Coasts — Territories. See note on Mat_2:16.

The region about Cesarea Philippi was then rich and populous, and is now celebrated by travellers for its surpassing beauty. Stanley thus describes his approach to the mountain on whose side the town was built: “Over a carpet of turf, through trees of every variety of foliage, through park-like verdure, which casts a strangely beautiful interest over this last recess of Palestine, the pathway winds, and the snowy top of the mountain itself is gradually shut out from view by its increasing nearness. There is the rush of waters through deep thickets; and the ruins of an ancient town, not Canaanite but Roman, rise on the hill side; in its situation, in its exuberance of water, its olive groves, and its view over the distant plain,” almost an Italian Tivoli in the recesses of Syria. Banias is now a Mohammedan town of some twenty huts, but the circuit of the ancient walls is easily distinguished.

It does not appear that our Lord really entered the city of Cesarea Philippi. That city was a favourite residence of Herod Philip; and that prince may at that time have been within it. Mark says that Jesus went into the towns of Cesarea Philippi; that is, its adjacent dependent villages.

Whom? — Our Lord now proceeds to lead forth the confession which is to form the basis of their apostolic character as the foundation of the new Church after his departure. There were in the apostolic history three stages. The first was that following their call, the second was after their trial mission, and the third after this inauguration. In the first stage they start with a simple faith in his Messiahship, without any very definite idea in what his Messiahship is to consist. In the second stage, they have, under the attacks of the enemies of Jesus, many a wavering doubt; and it is not until the present time that our Lord, who knows what is in man, perceives that they have a hardihood of faith that can stand the shock of his death, and maintain, firmly as so many rocks, when aided by the Pentecostal Spirit, the foundation of the Christian faith. As that time has now come, he proceeds to draw forth a full profession of that faith, and appoints them to be the apostolic rocks of the new dispensation.

Whom do men say — What is the result of my ministry? What saith the world, that has heard my words and seen my works, in regard to my nature?

Son of man — Our Lord’s usual designation of himself, and usual with none but him. The question could, therefore, be not much different from asking, Whom do men say that I, Jesus, am?

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_16:13. Coasts.—Parts (R.V.). I.e. neighbourhood. There were various inhabited places in the locality (see Mar_8:27). Cæsarea Philippi.—Probably on the site of the Old Testament Baalgad (Jos_11:17), at the foot of Hermon, built by Philip the tetrarch, and distinguished by his name from other Cæsareas (Macpherson’s Bible Dictionary). This conversation at Cæsarea Philippi is universally regarded as marking a new era in the life of Christ. His rejection by “His own” is now complete.… With the very small band He has gathered around Him He withdraws to the neighbourhood of the Gentile town of Cæsarea Philippi; not for seclusion only, but, as the event shows, to found an Ecclesia—His church (Gibson).

Mat_16:14. And they said.—Some, entertaining the opinion suggested by the fears of Herod, say, that Thou art John the Baptist; others, adopting the Jewish notion of the advent of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah, say that Thou art Elias; others, in accordance with the prevalent tradition that Jeremiah was to come and reveal the place where the sacred vessels were concealed (2Ma_2:1-7), say that Thou art Jeremias; and others, generally and Indefinitely, that Thou art a prophet, perhaps the herald of the Messiah (Gloag).

Mat_16:17. Bar-jona.—“Bar” is Aramaic for “son”; cf. Bar-abbas, Bar-tholomew, Bar-nabas. For flesh and blood, etc.—Not man, but God; “flesh and blood” was a common Hebrew expression in this contrast (Carr).

Mat_16:18. Thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this rock (petra), etc.—The only natural interpretation is that which refers the rock, on which Christ builds His church, to St. Peter himself. This is the opinion adopted not only by the Romanists, but by most recent critics and commentators. It is certainly the one most agreeable with the connection and the sense of the passage; and is assuredly not to be rejected, merely because it appears to militate against our preconceived opinions. There is in the passage an evident play upon words; a paranomasia which is not seen in our version; the πέτρος in the first clause refers to the πέτρα in the second; so that the words might be rendered: “I say unto thee that thou art indeed a rock (πέτρος), and upon this rock (πέτρα) will I build My church.” It is assuredly most natural to refer the emphatic pronoun this to the rock previously mentioned; that rock was St. Peter, being his name, and the rock afterwards mentioned is a manifest allusion to that name. The whole beauty and force of the allusion would be lost, and the meaning of the passage rendered obscure, if we did not adopt this interpretation. Similar allusions to names are common in the Old Testament. As when God said to Abraham, “Thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made thee” (Gen_17:5); and to Jacob, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men and hast prevailed” (Gen_32:28); so here, in precisely the same manner, it may be said: “Thy name shall be called Peter; for on this rock will I build My church.” The interpretation, then, most agreeable with the connection of the passage, the natural meaning of the verse, the force of the allusion to the name Peter, and the grammatical structure, is to refer the rock on which the church was built to St. Peter (Gloag). On these words mainly rest the enormous pretensions of the Roman pontiff. It is therefore important:

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

2. To take the words in reference:

(1) To other passages of Scripture. The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph_2:20), on Christ Himself (1Co_3:11).

(2) To history. Peter is not an infallible repository of truth. He is rebuked by Paul for Judaising. Nor does he hold a chief place among the Apostles afterwards. It is James, not Peter, who presides at the council at Jerusalem.

(3) To reason. For even if Peter had precedence over the other Apostles, and if he was Bishop of Rome, which is not historically certain, there is he proof that he had a right of conferring such precedence on his successors (Carr). The gates of hell (hades, R.V.) shall not prevail against it.—Death is the entrance into hades, and therefore the gates or entrance of hades denote death. The expression may accordingly denote that death will not destroy the church of Christ. The church will never become extinct (Gloag).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_16:13-19

A culminating point.—The Saviour is once more at the outskirts of the land. This time He has gone to the north of it, to the “parts of Cæsarea Philippi,” near the sources of Jordan. It can hardly be, however, that He should thus continue to absent Himself from the proper sphere of His work (Mat_15:24). Some day the dangers which threatened Him there would have to be faced, if only for the sake of that very work which had led Him to shun them for a time. How would it be, when He did face them, with regard to His disciples? Apparently His present object is to prepare them for this. Knowing so fully, as He presently shows that He does know (Mat_16:21), all that is to happen so soon to Himself, He would first establish them in their faith. And this He does, first, by eliciting from them what they have to say about Him; and then by informing them, secondly, of what He has to say about them.

I. What they have to say about Him.—This is brought out, on the one hand, in the way of report. They knew His usual name for Himself. He had called Himself constantly “the Son of man.” Who did men say that He was? (Mat_16:13). The answers given are one in substance, though they vary in form. Some identify Him with His predecessor, the Baptist. Some with the Baptist’s predecessor, Elias. Some with that prophet Jeremiah who is said to have been looked upon by the Jews as the greatest of the prophets. While others again only regarded Him as a conspicuous and undoubted revival of the old spirit of prophecy, without identifying Him with anyone in particular. All practically agree, therefore, in pronouncing Him equal to any before. There are no men like men of God in any age of the world. There are no men amongst such to whom Jesus had not been compared. That, in substance, is their report (Mat_16:14). The same is brought out, on the other hand, in the way of confession. This report of theirs, though striking enough so far as it went, did not yet go, for all that, so far as it ought. The Saviour, therefore, inquires further,—“But who say ye that I am?” (Mat_16:15). The answer is given by that one of their number who usually speaks out for the rest (Mat_16:16). He does so, to begin, in a way which marks the depth of their faith. It is not of that which they think or suppose—nor even of that merely which they hold or believe—but of that which they regard as undoubted, and which is, therefore, to them, in short, nothing less than a fact—that this witness proceeds to speak: “Thou art the Christ.” How brief, how emphatic, how unqualified, and, therefore, how undoubting this confession of faith! He answers next in a way that shows the clearness and definiteness—and that in two ways—of their faith. Their faith in the office of the “Saviour”:“Thou art the Christ”—the Anointed One—such as never any, therefore, so fully before. Their faith in His nature. Of all life the life of God Himself, is the intensest and highest. To that life no other stands in so intimate a relation as Jesus. “Thou art the Son of the living God” (Mat_16:16). Do all the creeds together say more than this, as a matter of fact?

II. What the Saviour has to say about them.—This we learn from what He says to that one of their number who had just spoken for all in answer to His question, “Who say ye that I am?” Taking him thus as a sample of all, He speaks, first, of the present. He declares with unusual fervour how great is the blessedness of being enabled to make such a confession as that. All that we have just seen in it the Lord sees in it too. It is indeed, in its way, the very summit of truth. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah”—blessed art thou, who soever thou art, who hast reached such a height. Never, as it were, had any father’s son a happier standing than this. The Saviour next, in a precisely similar spirit, proceeds to speak of the past. Not by any mere human power had that happy disciple been brought to that height. Not “flesh and blood,” but the wisdom which made them, had taught him these truths. He has acknowledged Christ as the Son of the Father. He has been taught to do so by the Father Himself. Finally, the Saviour addresses Peter with regard to the future. Having received so much, he was to give as much in His turn. First of all mankind, in this solemn way, to make this confession, he was to be first in other ways too. As his very name signified, e.g. he was to be the first “stone” in that edifice of the church which the Saviour was then intending to build (1Pe_2:4-8), which was to be also so emphatically His church (observe “My” in Mat_16:18) because built upon Him as its only foundation (1Co_3:11), and against which, therefore, all the powers of the unseen world, though often attacking, should never prevail (Mat_16:18). Also, as being such, this “Peter” was afterwards to be the first man authorised to proclaim to mankind, whether Gentiles or Jews, the terms of admission into that heavenly kingdom, and to lay down the requisites to be demanded of those who sought admission thereto (see Act_2:37-42; Acts 10; Act_15:7). The first so to do, but not the only one (Act_15:13-29); nor yet in all things the chief (1Co_15:10). First in order, in short, if not first in everything, because first to confess.

Certain things, therefore, even in this disputed passage, would appear, in conclusion, to be clear. One is that we see here, in the strictest sense, the first beginning of the church of Christ in the world. “The holy church throughout all the world doth acknowledge Thee.” The first beginning of that wide acknowledgement is what we read of in this place. Another is that none but those who make such a confession, as well in life as by the lips, really belong to that church. A third would seem to be that all those who really do make such a confession do belong to that church (Eph_6:24). A fourth certainly is that we can only make such a true confession by help from above (see above, also 1Co_12:3). And a last is that there shall never be wanting a true succession of such true confessors whatever the “times” that pass over the church, and whatever the powers that rise up against it. Here, in short, began a confession which is never to end.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_16:13-19. The Divine Christ confessed.—I. The preparation for the confession.—Our Lord is entering on a new era in His work, and desires to bring clearly into His followers’ consciousness the sum of His past self-revelation.

II. The contents of the confession.—It includes both the human and the Divine sides of Christ’s nature.

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

Mat_16:13-17. “What think ye of Christ?”—Our Lord’s Divine wisdom is seen as well in the questions He put as in the answers He gave.

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

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

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

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

Mat_16:13-16. What men say of Christ.—Christ did not ask this question:

1. For information.

2. Nor because He desired the applause of men.

3. Nor because He intended to form His course according to the reply.

4. But because He desired to ground His disciples in the deepest faith. It was a kind of catechising to photograph and engrave the fact upon their hearts. The answer to His question suggests the following things.

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

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

III. High as these opinions were they fell short of the reality.

IV. It is important that we should have this high estimate of Jesus Christ.—Thos. Jones.

Mat_16:13. Who is Christ?—I want to show that Christ in the gospel is the resting-place where the heart of man can find repose; not because we there at once learn all that we want to know, but the greatest questions are there set at rest; and there we may ultimately find the key to interpret all the problems that have so long and so painfully agitated the thoughtful mind. Two phrases, full of deep significance, Christ applied to Himself; Son of God and Son of man; and different as may be the precise meaning of the term “Son” in these two applications of it, the two phrases point in the same direction—viz., that Christ is the best and completest revelation of both God and man.

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

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

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

Mat_16:18. The church: its Builder and its safety.—

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

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

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

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

(2) Look next at the first course of stones in the building. You have them described in 1Co_6:9-11.

(3) Let us again glance at the building itself, as it rises before us. On this side I see a lot of Kingswood colliers, who could not open their mouths without blasphemy; but Christ touches them, and “blasphemies are changed to praise.” On that side I see a lot of Fijian cannibals, whose very name was a terror to those around them; but Christ touches them, and they “love one another with pure hearts fervently.” On the other side I see a lot of African Hottentots, who had sunk so low that our scientific men refused to own them as brethren; but Christ touches them, and they become sons of the living God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Yes, every stone in the building is a miracle of grace, and as we gaze upon it we can only say: “This is the Lord’s doing, and marvellous in our eyes.”

2. It is His to provide the labourers.—It has pleased God to save man by man, to make us co-workers with Himself, that the excellency of the power may be of God. There is a great variety of work to be done.

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

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

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

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

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

Mat_16:19. The keys.—

1. The kingdom of heaven does not mean heaven. Yet the failure to mark this obvious distinction has given prevalence to the foolish notion that St. Peter is porter at heaven’s gate, and admits souls to paradise.

2. The kingdom of heaven does not mean the church. Attention to this distinction would have made short work with the Papal claim to the power of the keys, and would have saved our Protestant divines a great deal of discussion regarding the power of the keys in the church and the hands in which that power is vested. But what is meant by the keys? The phrase is metaphorical, and the meaning is to be found by comparison of this and other Scriptures. It certainly indicates power.

I. Administrative.—The keys of a palace are entrusted to the major-domo. The key of the house of David is said in Isaiah to be laid on the shoulders of Eliakim, a trusty counsellor (Isa_22:20-22). The mention of keys suggests stewardship, not lordship. So a power of administration in the kingdom of heaven was assigned to Simon Peter, as the first of the Apostles. It is from this that divines have described the light to exercise church discipline as “the power of the keys,” distinguishing it from the jurisdiction of civil rulers, which is enforced by the power of the sword.

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

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

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

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

PART THIRD

Christ presents the future history of the Kingdom of Heaven, in opposition to the Ancient World and the Theocracy

Contents (from Mat_16:18 to Mat_20:16):—The period has now arrived for founding the Church of Christ, or ὲκκλησία, distinct and visible Community, in opposition to that ancient form of he Theocracy which was henceforth doomed to judgment. The open and full confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, formed, so to speak, the moment when the ἐκκλησία was born. From that hour Christ manifested and owned His Church as such, through the confession which the Church made of Him. This Church is here presented in its leading characteristics: 1. In its prophetic character as confessing Christ, from Mat_16:13 to Mat_17:27; Matthew 2. in its priestly capacity, from Mat_18:1 to Mat_19:26; & in Its kingly manifestation, from Mat_19:27 to Mat_20:16.

_____________

FIRST SECTION

THE CHURCH IN ITS PROPHETIC CHARACTER, AS CONFESSING CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, IN OPPOSITION TO THE LEGAL OPINIONS CONCERNING HIM, ENTERTAINED BY THE SYNAGOGUE

16:13–17:27

The Church of Christ in its prophetic character is here set before us, first, as confessing Christ, Mat_16:13-20; then as bearing the cross of Christ, in contrast to that worldly fear of the cross by which He was assailed, Mat_16:21-28; then, as in real fellowship with the spirits of the blessed, in opposition to the solitary tabernacles of spurious separation from the world, Mat_17:1-8.—Next, the Church is described as wholly unknown and hidden, Mat_16:9-13; yet as wonder-working, Mat_16:14-21; though still in human weakness, Mat_16:22-23; as free, but voluntarily subject and paying tribute to the old temple, Mat_16:24-27.

The historical succession of events was as follows:—In company with His disciples, the Lord passed along the left bank of the Jordan, toward the mountains. At Bethsaida Julias He performed the cure of a blind person (recorded in Mar_8:22), at the same time enjoining strict silence upon him. Thence they continued their journey to the immediate neighborhood of Cæsarea Philippi, touching (as it would seem from Mar_8:27) only the adjoining villages, but avoiding the town itself. It was in these coasts, or district, that the Lord evoked the confession of Peter, which was followed by the announcement of the foundation of His Church, ἐκκλησία. Immediately afterward, Jesus distinctly announced His impending sufferings, since these were connected with the foundation of His Church, as the latter was with the confession of His name. On this occasion Peter began to rebuke Him; and he who had lately been commended as confessing, was now reproved as tempting. The event just recorded led to the admonition, addressed to His disciples generally, on the subject of taking up the cross and following Him. A week later, the Lord called His three most intimate disciples to witness His transfiguration on the Mount. As they came down, Jesus explained to them the advent and mission of Elijah. At the foot of the mountain, the healing of the lunatic boy, possessed with a devil took place. From thence Jesus secretly passed through Galilee, probably for the purpose of acquainting His friends with those impending sufferings, for which He had already prepared His disciples. Refusing the solicitation of His brethren to join the caravan going up to the feast, He went secretly to Jerusalem, to the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated in autumn. Thus the history advances to the month of October of the year 782 (according to Wieseler, to the 12th October), Joh_7:1-10. In Jerusalem the events recorded in Joh_7:11, etc., took place, when Jesus pointed to the fulfilment of the Old Testament symbols in His life. The healing of the man blind from his birth (John 9), hastened the full and final determination of the Jewish authorities to put Him to death. But in all probability Jesus did not continue in Judea during the interval between the Feast of Tabernacles in October, and the festival of the Dedication of the Temple in December (according to Wieseler, the 27th December). During that period He appears to have paid a farewell visit to Galilee, and to have passed from Samaria to Perea, where He tarried till the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 1003). After His return to Galilee, Jesus again appeared in public, though probably, as in Jerusalem, only surrounded by a large number of His friends. For the last time Jesus now came to Capernaum, where He was asked for the payment of the temple tribute, Mat_17:24-27. Thus far our section.

A. The Church as confessing Christ, the Son of God. Mat_16:13-20

(The Gospel for the Festival of St. Peter and Paul—Parallels: Mar_8:27-30; Luk_9:18-21.)

13When Jesus came into the coasts [parts, τὰ μέρη] of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom [Who] do men say that I,10 the Son of man, am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias [Elijah]; and others, Jeremiah 15[Jeremiah], or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom [who] say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona [Bar Jonah, son of Jonah]11: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which [who] is in heaven [the heavens]. 18And I say also [And I also, κἀγὼ δέ, say] unto thee. That thou art Peter [ΙΙέτρος], and upon [on] this rock [πέτρα]12 I will build my Church [ἐκκλησία];13 and the gates of hell [hades]14 shall not prevail against it.15 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven [the heavens]: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven [the heavens]; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [the heavens].

20Then charged16 he his [the]17 disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ [he is the Christ].18

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_16:13. Into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi.—The cure of the blind person at the eastern Beth saida (Mar_13:22) had taken place before that. Cæsarea Philippi, formerly called Paneas (Plin. H.N. V. 15), from the mountain Panius, dedicated to Pan, in the immediate neighborhood. The town is supposed to have been the ancient Leshem, Jos_19:47; Laish, Jdg_18:7; and Dan—“from Dan to Beersheba.” It lay near the sources of Jordan, at the foot of Mount Lebanon, a day’s journey from Sidon, in Gaulonitis, and was partly inhabited by heathens. The town was enlarged and beautified by Philip the Tetrarch, who called it Cœsarea (Kingston) in honor of Cæsar Tiberius. The name Philippi was intended to distinguish it from Cæsarea Palestine (Robinson, Palest. ii. 439; also, vol. iii. sect 9.). Tradition reports that the woman with the issue of blood resided here. Her name is said to have been Berenice. Agrippa II. further embellished this city, and called it Neronias in honor of Nero. The modern village of Banias, and the ruins around it, mark the site of the ancient city.

Who [not whom] do men say that I am?—How do men explain the appearance of the Son of Man? Meyer: What do they understand by the designation, Son of Man? De Wette: I who am a humble, lowly man. But this completely misses the peculiar import of the expression, Son of Man.

Mat_16:14. Some say.—“The reply shows that, in general, He was not yet looked upon as the Messiah.” Meyer. But according to the representation of the evangelist, we must rather infer that Christ’s enemies had by their calumnies succeeded in lowering the popular estimate concerning Him.

John the Baptist,—See Mat_14:2. This, for a time, had been the opinion of the courtiers of Herod.—Elijah,—as the precursor of the Messiah. Such was the view professed by those whom fear of their superiors induced to deny His claims to the Messianic office, while, from a desire of not entirely surrendering the expectations which had been excited by His appearance, they still regarded Him as a prophet.—Jeremiah.—Of course, in the same sense as Elijah,—not in the sense of literally revisiting the earth, nor in that of implying the doctrine of the transmigration of souls [metempsychosis].19 The opinion of these persons concerning Jesus was evidently lower than that of those who regarded Him as Elijah (Mar_15:35; Joh_1:21). The one party referred especially to what might be designated as the reformation inaugurated by Jesus, while the other had regard to His denunciations of the corruptions of the times.—Or one of the prophets.—According to the lowest view, He was represented by discouraged friends as one of the old prophets. Three points are clearly brought out in this conversation: 1. That, to a certain extent, Jesus was still generally acknowledged by the people. 2. That the faith of the majority had been lowered and misled by the influence of their superiors, so that diverging opinions were now entertained regarding Him. 3. That this inconstancy and wavering led to a decreasing measure of homage.

Mat_16:15. But who say ye that I am?—This was the decisive moment in which the separation of the New Testament ἐκκλησία from the Old Testament theocracy was to be made. The hour had come for the utterance of a distinct Christian confession.

Mat_16:16. Simon Peter.—Peter answered not merely in his own name, but in that of all the disciples.20—Thou art the Christ,—i.e., the Messiah Himself. And this not in the sense in which carnal Jewish traditionalism held the doctrine of the Messiah, but in the true and spiritual import of the title—the Son of the living God—The latter expression must not be taken merely in a negative sense, as denoting the True God in opposition to false deities; it must also be viewed in a positive sense, as referring to Him whose manifestations in Israel were completed in and crowned by the appearance of His Son as the Messiah. This, however, implies Sonship not only in a moral or official, but also in the ontological sense. Thus the reply of Peter had all the characteristics of a genuine confession—being decided, solemn, and deep.

[The confession of Peter is the first and fundamental Christian confession of faith, and the germ of the Apostles’ Creed. It is a confession, not of mere human opinions, or views, or convictions, however firm, but of a divinely wrought faith, and not of faith only (I believe that Thou art), but of adoration and worship (Thou art). It is christological, i.e., a confession of Jesus Christ as the centre and heart of the whole Christian system, and the only and all-sufficient fountain of spiritual life. It is a confession of Jesus Christ as a true man (Thou, Jesus), as the promised Messiah (the Christ), and as the eternal Son of God (the Son—not a son—of the living God.), hence as the God-Man and Saviour of the world. It is thus a confession of the mystery of the Incarnation in the widest sense, the great central mystery of godliness, “God manifest in the flesh.”—Compare also the excellent remarks of Olshausen (in Kendrick’s Am. ed., vol. i p. 545 sq.) and Alford, who, following Olshausen, says in loc.: “The confession is not made in the terms of the other answer: it is not ‘we say,’ or “I say,’ but ‘Thou art’. It is the expression of an inward conviction wrought by God’s Spirit. The excellence of this confession is, that it brings out both the human and the divine nature of the Lord: δΧριδτός is the Messiah, the Son of David, the anointed King; δυἱὸς το ν͂Θεον͂τον ͂ζῶντος is the Eternal Son, begotten of the Eternal Father, as the last word most emphatically implies, not ‘Son of God’ in any inferior figurative sense, not one of the sons of God, of angelic nature, but the Son of the living God, having in Him the Sonship and the divine nature, in a sense in which they could be in none else. This was the view of the person of Christ quite distinct from the Jewish Messianic idea, which appears to have been (Justin Mart. Dial. p. 267) that he should be born from men, but selected by God for the office on account of his eminent virtues. This distinction accounts for the solemn blessing pronounced in the next verse. Ζῶντος must not for a moment be taken here, as it sometimes is used (e.g., Act_14:15), as merely distinguishing the true God from dead idols: it is here emphatic, and imparts force and precision to υἱός. That Peter, when he uttered the words, understood by them in detail all that we now understand, is not of course here asserted, but that they were his testimony to the true Humanity and true Divinity of the Lord, in that sense of deep truth and reliance, out of which springs the Christian life of the Church.” Meyer, indeed, takes τοῦ ζωντος simply as the solemn epithet of the true God in opposition to the dead idols of the heathen; but there was no reason here for contrasting the true God with heathen idols, and Peter must have meant to convey the idea, however imperfectly understood by him at the time, that the Godhead itself was truly revealed in, and reflected from, the human person of Christ in a sense and to a degree compared with which all former manifestations of God appeared to him like dead shadows. He echoed the declaration from heaven at Christ’s baptism: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” and recognized in Him the essential and eternal life of the great Jehovah.—P. S.]

Mat_16:17. Jesus answered.—Also a confession decided, solemn, and deep; being the divine confession of the Lord in favor of the Church, which had now confessed His name, and of her first witness.

Blessed art thou (comp. Rom_10:9), Simon, son of Jonah.21—Meyer denies in vain the antithesis between this address and the new title given to Peter. Different views have been taken in reference to this antithesis. 1. Paulus explains it: Simon, or obedient hearer,—son of Jonas, or son of oppression. 2. Olshausen: יוֹוה, dove, with reference to the Holy Spirit under the figure of a dove. Thou, Simon, art a child of the Spirit. 3. Lange (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 469): Thou, Simon, son of a dove (which makes its nest in the rock, a figure of the Church), shalt be called a rock (the rocklike dwelling-place of the dove, i.e., of the Church).22 With this antithesis the other in the same verse is connected. According to the flesh, thou art a natural son of Jonah; but according to this revelation of the Spirit, a child of the Father who is in heaven (referring to his regeneration, and consequent faith and confession). [Similarly Alford: The name “Simon Bar Jonas” is doubtless used as indicating his fleshly state and extraction, and forming the greater contrast to his spiritual state, name, and blessing, which follow. The name Σίμων ̓Ιωνᾶ, Simon, son of Jonas or Jonah, is uttered when he is reminded by the thrice-repeated inquiry, “Lovest thou me?” of his frailty, in his previous denial of his Lord, Joh_21:15-17.—P. S.]

Flesh and blood.—Various views have been taken of this expression. 1. Calvin, Beza, Neander, de Wette, refer it to our physical nature in opposition to the πνεῦμα. To this Meyer objects, that our physical nature is termed in Scripture only σάρξ, not σὰρξ καὶ αῖμα (in 1Co_15:50, “flesh and blood” should be literally understood). 2. According to Light foot and Meyer, it must be taken (with special reference to the fact, that the Rabbins use בָּשִׂר ורִם as a kind of paraphrase for Son of man, including the accessory idea of the weakness involved in our corporeal nature), as simply denoting weak man, equivalent to nemo mortalium (as in Gal_1:16). 3. We explain it: the natural, carnal descent, as contrasted with spiritual generation. Joh_1:13 : οἳοὐκ ἐξ αἰμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός κ. τ. λ. This appears still further from the connection between the expressions, “flesh and blood” and “son of Jonah,” and from the antithesis, “My Father who is in heaven.” Hence Gal_1:16 must mean: When I received a commission to preach to the Gentiles, I conferred not with my Jewish nationality; and Eph_6:12 : In reality, we wrestle not with beings of human kind, but with the powers of darkness, whose representatives and instruments they are; and 1Co_15:50 : The kind which is of this world (of the first man, who is of the earth) shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but we must enter it by a complete transformation into a second and new life which is from heaven. Accordingly, the antithesis in the text is between knowledge resulting from natural human development, or on the basis of natural birth, and knowledge proceeding from the revelation of the Father in heaven, or on the basis of regeneration.

Hath not revealed it,—but My Father.—A difficulty has been felt, how to reconcile this declaration with the fact, that the disciples had at a much earlier period recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Joh_1:42; Joh_1:46; Joh_1:50). 1. Olshausen holds that this confession of Peter indicates a much more advanced state of knowledge: δ υὶὸς τον͂ Θεον͂, τοῦ ζωντος. 2. Neander thinks that all earlier revelations had more or less proceeded from flesh and blood. 3. Meyer suggests that the text refers to that first acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, in consequence of which the disciples came and surrendered themselves, to Him.23 4. In our view, the new element in this confession lies, first of all, in its ethical form. It was no longer a mere knowledge (or recognition) of Christ. While the general knowledge of the Jews concerning the Messiah had retrograded, and degenerated into discordant and self contradictory opinions, the knowledge of the disciples had advanced, and was now summed up and concentrated into an act of spiritual faith in Peter’s confession, which, in view of the hostility of the Jewish rulers, may be characterized as a real martyrdom (μαρτυρία). Another new element lay in the view now expressed concerning the Messiah. On all the main points, the Jewish and traditional notions of the Messiah had evidently been thrown off, and a pure and spiritual faith attained from converse with the life of Jesus. In both these respects, it was a revelation of the Father in heaven, i.e., a heavenly and spiritual production. The new life was germinating in the hearts of the disciples.—De Wette regards this passage as incompatible with the earlier acknowledgments of the Messiah; while Fritzsche, Schneckenburger, and Strauss talk of a twofold period in Christ’s ministry: the first, when He was a disciple of John; the second, when He attained to consciousness of His Messianic dignity. But these critics have wholly misunderstood this narrative.

Mat_16:18. But I also say unto thee.—The expression shows in a striking manner the reciprocity existing between Christ and His disciples. Their confession solicits His confession.24

Thou art Peter, --ΙΙέτρος, in Aramaic כֵּרפָא the stone, or the rock (see Meyer). The Greek masculine noun arose from the translation of the name into Greek; the name itself had been given at an earlier period, Joh_1:42. It was now bestowed a second time to indicate the relationship subsisting between Peter and the Ecclesia, rather than to prove that Peter really was what his name implied (Meyer). From the first this name was intended to be symbolical; although its real meaning was only attained at a later period in the history of Peter. But at the same time the words of Jesus imply the acknowledgment that his character as Peter had just appeared in this confession. [It should be observed that in Joh_1:42 (in the Gr. text, 16:43) we read: “Thou shalt be called (κλπθήσπ) Cephas,” but here: “Thou art (εῖ) Peter.”—P. S.]

And on this rock.—For the various interpretations of this passage, see Wolf’s Curœ. We submit the following summary of them: 1. The term “rock” is referred to Christ Himself. Thus Jerome,25 Augustine,26 Chemnitz, Fabricius, and others.*—2. It is referred to Peter’s confession. Thus most of the Fathers, several Popes, Leo I.,27 Huss in the Tractat. de ecclesia, the Articuli Smalcald. in the Append., Luther,28 Febronius, and others,29—3. It is applied to Peter himself, (a) In the popish sense, by Baronius and Bellarmin, [Passaglia,] as implying that Peter was invested with a permanent primacy.30 (b) With reference to the special call and work of Peter as an Apostle. By thee, Peter, as the most prominent of My witnesses, shall the Church be founded and established: Acts 2, 10. So, many Roman Catholics, as Launoi, Dupin,—and later Protestant expositors, as Werenfels, Pfaff, Bengel, and Crusius. Heubner thinks that the antanaclasis, or the connecting of Peter with πέτρα , is in favor of this view. But he [as also nearly all other commentators who represent this view] combines with it the application of the term to the confession. 31—4. It is applied to Peter, inclusive of all the other Apostles, and, indeed, of all believers. Thus Origen on Mat_16:18 : “Every believer who is enlightened by the Father is also a rock.”—5. In our opinion, the Lord here generalizes, so to speak, the individual Peter into the general πέτρα, referring to what may be called the petrine characteristic of the Church—viz., faithfulness of confession,32—as first distinctly exhibited by Peter. Hence the words of Jesus only refer to Peter in so far as by this confession he identified himself with Christ, and was the first to upbuild the Church by his testimony. But in so far as the text alludes to an abiding foundation of the Church, the expression refers not to the Apostle as an individual, but to πέτρα. in the more general sense, or to faithfulness of confession. That Peter was here meant in his higher relation, and not in himself, appears from the change of terms, first πέ τ̣ ρος, then πέτρα; also from the contrast in Mat_16:22; while the fact that his distinction conferred no official primacy is evident from this, that the same rights and privileges were bestowed upon all the Apostles: Mat_18:18; Joh_20:23; Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14. That he himself claimed no preëminence appears from his First Epistle, in which he designates Christ as the corner-stone, and Christians as living stones, 1Pe_2:5-6 (as themselves Peters, or related to Peter). Lastly, that he knew of no successors in the sense of the Papacy, is proved by his exhortation to the presbyters not to be lords over God’s heritage (the κλπ͂ροι, 1Pe_5:3).

My Church.—Here the ὲκκλπσία of Christ appears for the first time in distinct contrast to the Jewish congregation, קָהִל. Hence the passage refers not simply to a community of believers, but to a definite organization of this community (compare what follows on the keys). Accordingly, the passage alludes to the Church as the organized and visible form of the βασιλεία των ον̓ρανων. The Church is not the kingdom of heaven itself, but a positive institution of Christ by which, on the one hand, the kingdom of heaven becomes directly manifest in the world by its worship, while, on the other hand, it spreads through the world by means of its missionary efforts. The Church bears the same relation to the kingdom of heaven as the Messianic state under the Old Testament to the theocracy, the two being certainly not identical.

The gates of hades (underworld).—De Wette: “Here, equivalent to the kingdom of Satan.” But this is not the scriptural conception of hades or sheol. Throughout the Bible hades means the kingdom of death; which is, indeed, connected with the kingdom of Satan, but has a more comprehensive meaning. Hades is described as having gates; it is figuratively represented as a castle with gates (Son_8:6; Job_38:17; lsa. 38:10; Psa_107:18). These gates serve a hostile purpose, since they opened, like a yawning abyss of death, to swallow up Christ, and then Peter, or the Apostles and the Church, in their martyrdom. For a long time it seemed as if the Church of Christ would become the prey of this destroying hades. But its gates shall not ultimately prevail—they shall be taken; and Christ will overcome and abolish the kingdom of death in His Church (see lsa. 25:8; Hos_13:14; 1Co_15:15; Eph_1:19-20). Of course, the passage also implies conflict with the kingdom of evil, and victory over it; but its leading thought is the triumph of life over death, of the kingdom of the resurrection over the usurped reign of the kingdom of hades.—Erasmus, Calvin, and others, refer it to the victory over Satan; Grotius, to that over death;33 Ewald, to that over all the monsters of hell, let loose through these open gates; Glöckler, to that over the machinations of the kingdom of darkness (the gate being the place of council in the East); Meyer, to the superiority of the Church over hades, without any allusion to an attack on the part of hades. The idea, that the Old Testament ἐκκλητία would fall before the gates of hades, is here evidently implied (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 887.)

Mat_16:19.The keys of the kingdom of heaven.—Luk_11:52; Rev_1:18; Rev_3:7; Rev_9:1; Rev_20:1. It is the prerogative of the Apostles, either to admit into the kingdom of heaven, or to exclude from it. Meyer: “The figure of the keys corresponds with the figurative expression οἱκοδομτ̀σω in Mat_16:18; since in Mat_16:18 the ὲκκλησία, which, at Christ’s second appearing, is destined to become the βασιλεία ταν οὐραναν—(as if this were not already its real, though not its open character, which at Christ’s second coming shall only become outwardly manifest!)—is represented as a building. But, in reference to Peter, the figure changes from that of a rock, or foundation, to that of an οἰκονόμος; or, in other words, from the position and character of Peter to his office and work.” But evidently the antithesis here presented is different from this view. Peter is designated the foundation-stone as being the first confessing member of the Church, though with an allusion to his calling; while in his official relation to the Church he is represented as guardian of the Holy City. Hence the expression, rock, refers to the nucleus of the Church as embodied in Peter; while the keys allude to the apostolic office and vocation in the Church.

[Alford: “Another personal promise to Peter, remarkably fulfilled in his being the first to admit both Jews and Gentiles into the Church; thus using the power of the keys to open the door of salvation?” Wordsworth applies the promise in a primary and personal sense to Peter, but in a secondary and general sense also to the Church, and especially the ministers who hold and profess the faith of Peter and are called to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to exercise discipline. Augustine: “Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit ecclesiœ.”—P. S.]

And whatsoever thou shalt bind.—A somewhat difficult antithesis, especially with reference to the preceding context. Bretschneider (Lexicon): “The expression ‘binding’ means to bind with the Church; and ‘loosing,’ to loose from the Church.” But this is to confound ideas which are very different. Olshausen understands it of the ancient custom of tying the doors. But the text speaks of a key. Stier regards it as in accordance with rabbinical phraseology, taken from the Old Testament; binding and loosing being equivalent to forbidding and permitting, and more especially to remitting and retaining sins. But these two ideas are quite different. Lightfoot, Schöttgen, and, after them, von Amnion, hold that the expression implied three things: 1. Authority to declare a thing unlawful or lawful. Thus Meyer regards δεειν and λν̇ελν as equivalent to the rabbinical אסר and התיר , to forbid, and to permit. 2. To pronounce an action, accordingly, as criminal or innocent. 3. Thereupon to pronounce a ban or to revoke it. But as the Lord here speaks of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, He can only have referred directly to the last-mentioned meaning of the expression, though it involved the first and second, as the sentence of the Apostles would always be according to truth. A comparison of the parallel passage in Mat_18:18 confirms this view. There Church discipline is enjoined on the disciples collectively, to whom precisely the same assurance is given which in the text is granted to Peter alone; while in Joh_20:23 the order is reversed: the expression, remitting sins, being equivalent for loosing, and retaining sins, for binding. The whole passage forms a contrast to the ecclesiastical discipline of the Pharisees, Matthew 23. From the evangelical character of the New Testament ministry, it seems to us impossible to interpret the expression as meaning to forbid and to permit, according to the analogy of rabbinical usage. To bind up sins, as in a bundle, implies coming judgment (Job_14:17; Hos_13:12); while, on the other hand, sins forgiven are described as loosed (LXX. Isa_40:2). Both figures are based on a deeper view of the case. When a person is refused admission into the Church, or excluded from it, all the guilt of his life is, so to speak, concentrated into one judgment; while its collective effect is removed, or loosed, when he is received into the Church, or absolved. The object of this binding and loosing is stated only in general terms. No doubt it combined all the three elements of the power of the keys, as the non remission or remission of sins (Chrysostom and many others,—viz.: 1. The principle of admission or non-admission into the Church, or the announcement of grace and of judgment (the kingdom of heaven is closed to unbelievers, opened to believers). 2. Personal decision as to the admission of catechumens (Acts 8.). 3. The exercise of discipline, or the administration of excommunication from the Church (in the narrower sense, i.e., without curse or interdict attaching thereto). In the antithesis between earth and heaven, the former expression refers to the order and organization of the visible Church; the latter, to the kingdom of heaven itself. These two elements then—the actual and the ideal Church—were to coincide in the pure administration of the Apostles. But this promise is limited by certain conditions. It was granted to Peter in his capacity as a witness, and as confessing the revelation of the Father (Acts 5.), but not to Peter as wavering or declining from the truth (Mat_16:23; Galatians 2.).

Mat_16:20. That they should tell no man.—Since the people would not give up their carnal notions of a worldly millennium. The Christian acknowledgment of the Messiah was not to be mixed up with Jewish expectations. Christ’s Messianic life had to be actually completed before His disciples were to testify of Him as the Christ Nay, the Lord Himself was to be the first publicly to announce it to the people, in the hour of His martyrdom (Mat_26:64).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. At first sight it may seem an accident that the first announcement of the Church as distinct from, and in contrast to, the State—while the ancient theocratic community combined both Church and State—should have been made in the district of Cæsarea, which owned the sway of so mild a monarch as Philip. At any rate, the event was one of universal historical importance, and may be regarded as the preparation for the feast of Pentecost

2. In what passed between our Lord and His disciples we are led to observe,—(1) The contrast between human opinions of religion and a confession of faith prompted and evoked by the grace of God:—in the former case, fear, dejection, uncertainty, and discordance; in the latter, courage, frankness, certainty, and unity. (2) The indissoluble connection between true confession and a life of revelation and in the Spirit, or regeneration; (3) between a common confession and the formation of the visible Church; (4) between the confession of the Church to Christ and Christ’s confession to the Church; (5) between the character of the first believing confessor and his official calling.

3. In the text, Peter is presented to us in a twofold relationship: (1) As Peter; (2) as receiving the keys. The former designation applied to him as the first believing confessor, the first member of the ἐκκλησία, to which others were afterward to be joined. Hence it referred to his practical life as a Christian bearing witness to Jesus, rather than to his official position in the Church. This spiritual character formed the basis of his office in the narrower sense, the main purport of which was to arrange individual believers into a community, and, by organizing a visible Church, to separate between the world and the kingdom of heaven. As being the first witness to Jesus, Peter, so to speak, laid the foundation of the Church: (1) By his confession on this occasion; (2) by his testimony, Acts 2; (3) by his admission of the Gentiles into the Church, Acts 10; (4) by being the means of communicating to the Church the distinguishing feature of his character fidelity of confession.

4. On the fact that the Church indelibly bears not only the characteristic of Peter, but of all the Apostles; or that all the apostolic offices are unchangeably perpetuated in it, comp. Com. on Matthew 10. (against Irvingism), and Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, § 129, p. 516 sqq.

5. In its apostolic nucleus, its apostolic beginning, and its apostolic depth and completeness, the Church is so thoroughly identified with the kingdom of heaven itself, that its social determinations should in all these respects coincide with the declaration of God’s Spirit. But this applies only in so far as Peter was really Peter—and hence one with Christ, or as Christ is in the Church. That there is a difference between the Church and the kingdom of heaven, which may even amount to a partial opposition, is implied in the antithesis: “on earth”—“in heaven.”

6. The present occasion must be regarded as the initial foundation, not as the regular and solemn institution, of the Church. The promises given to Peter still relate to the future. For the strong faith which prompted his confession was rather a prophetic flash of inspiration (the blossom), than a permanent state of mind (the fruit). This appears from the following section.

7. In this passage Peter is represented as the foundation-stone, and Christ as the builder; while in 1Co_3:11, Christ is designated the foundation, and the Apostles the builders. “The latter figure evidently alludes to the relation between the changing and temporary laborers in the Church, and her eternal and essential character, more especially her eternal foundation; while the figurative language of Jesus applies to the relation between the starting-point and commencement of the Church in time, her outward and temporal manifestation, and her eternal Builder.” (From the author’s Leben Jesu. ii. 2, p. 886). Richter (Erklärte Hausbibel, 1:157): “The Church opens the way into the kingdom of heaven. Christ built on Peter and the Apostles, not His kingdom, but His Church, which is one, though not the only, form in which Christianity manifests itself.” Hence Olshausen is mistaken in regarding the ἐκκλησία as simply tantamount to the βασιλεία τον͂ Θεοῦ.

[Wordsworth observes on the words: they shall not prevail: “That these words contain no promise of infallibility to St. Peter, is evident from the fact that the Holy Spirit, speaking by St. Paul in Canonical Scripture, says that he erred (Gal_2:11-13).34 And that they do not contain any promise of infallibility to the bishop of Rome is clear, among other proofs, from the circumstance that Pope Liberius (as Athanasius relates, Historia Arian., 41, p. 291) lapsed into Arianism, and Honorius was anathematized of old by Roman pontiffs as an heretic.”—P. S.]

8. For special treatises on the supposed primacy of Peter, see Heubner, p. 236; Danz, Universal wörterbuch, article Primat; Bretschneider, Systematische Entwicklung, p. 786, etc

9. On the power of the keys, see Heubner, p. 240; The Author’s Positive Dogmatik, p. 1182,—the literature belonging to it, p. 1196; Berl. Kirchl. Vierteljahrsschrift, 2:1845, Nr. 1; Rothe, Ethik, 4:1066. [Compare also Wordsworth, Alford, Brown, and the American commentators, Barnes, Alexander, Owen, Jacobus, Whedon, Nast, on Mat_16:19.—P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The Church of Christ founded under the sentence of expulsion pronounced on Christ and His Apostles both by the Jewish Church and the State: 1. Its preparatory announcement, Mat_16:2. its complete and real foundation (Golgotha); 3. its solemn institution and manifestation, Acts 2; comp. Matthew 3, 4 and Heb_13:13.—The decisive question, “Who do men say that the Son of Man” is?—Difference between opinions about Christ and the confession of Christ.—The first New Testament confession of Christ, viewed both as the fruit and as the seed of the kingdom of heaven: 1. The fruit of the painful labor and sowing of Christ; 2. the germ and seed of every future confession of Christ.—The confession of Peter an evidence of his spiritual life: 1. In its freedom and cheerful self-surrender; 2. in its decidedness; 3. in its infinite fulness; 4. in its general suitableness for all disciples.—Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God: 1. In His nature; 2. in His mission; 3. in His work.—The joy of the Lord at the first fruits of His mission.—The confession of the Lord to His Congregation: 1. How it will continue to become more abundant even to the day of judgment. (“Whosoever shall confess Me,” etc.) 2. What it imports. (The blessedness of Simon in his character as Peter.)—The Son of the living God acknowledging those who are begotten of the Father as His own relatives and brethren.—The life of faith of Christians ever a revelation of the Father in heaven.—Genuine confession a fruit of regeneration.—The rock on which Christ has founded His Church, or Peter in a spiritual sense, is faithfulness of confession (Bekenntniss treue).—Fidelity of confession the first characteristic mark of the Church.—Relation between Christ, the Rock of the kingdom of heaven, the corner-stone of the everlasting Church, and the rock-foundation on which His visible Church on earth is reared: 1. In the one case, the Apostles are the builders, and Christ the rock and corner-stone; 2. in the other case, the Apostles are the foundation, and Christ the builder.—Only when resting on that rock which is Christ will His people become partakers of the same nature.—How the Church of Christ will endure forever, in spite of the gates of Hades.—The old, legal, and typical Church, and the new Church of the living Saviour, in their relation to the kingdom of death 1. The former is overcome by the kingdom of death; 2. the latter overcomes the kingdom of death.—Complete victory of Christ’s kingdom of life over the kingdom of death.—First Peter, then the keys; c., first the Christian, then the office.—The power of the keys as a spiritual office: 1. Its infinite importance: announcement of the statutes of the kingdom of heaven; decision respecting the admission and continuance [of members]; or, in its threefold bearing—(a) on the hearers of the word generally, (b) on catechumens, and (c) on communicants. 2. The conditions of its exercise: a living confession, of which Christ is the essence; readiness to bind as well as to loose, and vice versâ, the ratification of the kingdom of heaven.—The keys of the prisons of the Inquisition, and of the coffers of Indulgences,35 as compared with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, the difference between the golden and the iron keys.—The confession of faith kept as a secret from the enemies of Christ.—The preparatory festival of the New Covenant.

Starke:—It is useful, and even necessary, for preachers to be aware of the erroneous fancies which are in vogue among their hearers on the subject of religion.—Cramer: Every man should be able to give an account of his faith, Joh_17:8.—The discordant thoughts respecting the person of Christ.—Majus: The just must live by his own faith.—Osiander: Be not vacillating, but assured in your own minds.—Jerome: Quemadmodum os loquitor pro toto corpore, sic Petrus lingua erat Apostolorum et pro omnibus ipse respondit.—The other two confessions of Peter, Mat_14:33; Joh_6:68.—If we acknowledge Christ aright in our heart, we shall also freely confess Him with our mouth, Rom_10:10.—The divine and human natures combined in the person of Christ.—Blessedness of faith.—To know Christ is to be saved, Joh_17:3.—Quesnel: True blessedness: 1. It consists not in the advantages of birth, nor in natural gifts, nor in riches, nor in reputation and dignity; but, 2. in the possession of the gifts of grace through Christ.—Hedinger: All true faith is the gift of God.—Osiander: If the truth of God is mixed up with human fancies, it does more harm than good.—Let no one hastily talk of the good which he has received, but let him first make experiment of its reality, Ecc_5:1.

Gerlach:—The Christian Church possesses this power of the keys, not in its outward capacity or organization, but in so far as the Spirit rules in it. Hence, whenever it is exercised as a merely outward law, without the Spirit, the Lord in His providence disowns these false pretensions of the visible Church.

Heubner:—In order to be decided, and to become our own faith, we must publicly profess it.—How little value attaches to the opinions of the age on great men!36—The independence of Christians of prevalent opinions.—Peter’s confession not his faith only, but that of all disciples, Joh_6:68.—Peter’s confession the collective confession of the Apostles.—See what value Christ sets on this faith.—It is impossible for any man, even though he were an apostle, to impart faith to another. This is God’s prerogative.

Footnotes:

[10] Mat_16:13.—The pers. pron. μέ in Cod. C. after λέγουτι, fin the text. rec. before the verb], Is wanting in Cod. B. [and in Cod. Sinaiticus] and in several versions, and is omitted by Tischendorf [and Tregelles and Alford]; Lachmann retains it, but in brackets. The insertion is more easily explained than the omission.—[If we omit μέ, we must translate, with Campbell and Conant: Who do men say that the Son of Man is ? Or with Alford, who retains the grammatical anomaly, if not blunder, of the Author. Vera.: Whom (τινα) do men say that the Son of Man is? Τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is equivalent to I in the corresponding sentence below, Mat_16:15. Some who retain μέ in the text (Beza, Clerious, etc.) translate: Who do men say that I am? the Son of Man? i.e., Do they believe me to be the Messiah? But this does not suit the form of the answer, and would require either an affirmative Yea, or a negative No. In the received text τὸνυί ὸντοῦ θεοῦ must be regarded as in apposition to μέ, and is so rendered in the E. V.—P. S.

[11] Mat_16:17.—[Bur (־=) is the Aramaic or Chaldaic word used by Daniel in the prophetic passage, 7:13 (“ I saw... and one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven,” etc.), for the Hebrew ben (בֵּן), son. In the Authorized E. V. it is retained as the patronymic of Peter, as Matthew retained it in Greek: Βὰρ ̓Ι ωνᾶ; Jerome In Latin: Bar-Jona; Bengel, de Wette, and Ewald in their German Versions: Bar-jona; while Tyndale. Cranmer’s, and the Geneva Bibles, also Luther and Lange translate it into the corresponding vernacular. Compare similar compound names: (Bar-Abbas, Bar-Jesus, Bar-Nabas, Bar-Sabas, Bar-Timœus, Bar-Tholomæus. The translation depends on whether the name is here simply the patronymic, or whether it has an allegorical meaning, as Olshausen and Lange contend. In the latter case it must be translated: son of Jonah, or Jonas. See Lange’s Exeg. Note, and my protesting footnote, on Mat_16:17. —P. S.

[12] Mat_16:18.—[Σὺεἰ ΙΙ έτρος, καἰ ἐπὶ ταύτη τῆ πέτρᾳ—one of the profoundest and most far-reaching prophetical, but, at the same time, one of the most controverted sayings of the Saviour, the exegetical rock on which the Papacy rests its gigantic claims (but not by direct proof, but by inference and with the help of undemonstrable intervening assumptions, as the transferability of Peter’s primacy, his presence in Rome, and his actual transfer of the primacy upon the bishop of Rome), under the united protest of the whole Greek Catholic and Protestant Evangelical Churches, who con tend that Christ says not a word about successors. Leaving the fuller exposition to the Exegetical Notes, we have to do here simply with the verbal rendering. In our Engl. Vers., as also in the German, the emphasis is lost, since rock and Fels are never used as proper names. We might literally translate: “Thou art Peter and upon this petress;” or: “Thos art Stone, Rockman, Man of rock (Felsenmann), and upon this rock;” but neither of them would sound idiomatic and natural. It is perhaps remarkable that the languages of the two most Protestant nations cannot render the sentence in any way favorable to the popish identification of the rock of the church with the person of Peter; while the Latin Vulgate simply retained the Greek Petrus and petra, and the French translation: “Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre,” even obliterates the distinction of the gender. The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word בֵיפָא(hence the Greek Κηφᾶς applied to Simon. Joh_1:42; comp. 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5; 1Co_15:6; Gal_2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N. T. renders the passage in question thus: “Anath-her kipha, v’ all hode kipha.” The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. Yet it should not be overlooked that Matthew in rendering the word into Greek, no doubt under the influence of the Holy Spirit, deliberately changed the gender, using the masculine in the one case and the feminine in the other. He had, of course, to use Πετρος in addressing a man (as Maldonatus in loc. correctly remarks: Petrus, quia vir erat, non petra fœmineo, sed Petrus masculino nomine vocandus erat); but he might with perfect propriety have continued: ἐπὶ τον́ τψτψ͂ ΙΙ έτρψ, instead of ἐπὶταύ τῆ τῆ πέτρᾳ (which change Maldonatus less satisfactorily accounts for simply on the philological reason that the masculine πέτρας et Atticum et rarum est). The masculine πέτρος in Greek (in Homer and elsewhere) means generally only a piece of rock, or a stone (like the corresponding prose word λιθος), and very rarely a rock. (Meyer, howover, quotes for the latter signification a passage from Plato: Σισύφου πετρος, one from Sophocles, and one from Pindar); but the feminine πέτρα always signifies rock, whether it be used literally or metaphorically (as a symbol of firmness, but also of hardheartedness). I would not press this distinction, in view of the Syriac כֵיפָא, and in opposition to such eminent commentators as Bengel and Meyer, who, like the Rom. Cath. commentators, admit no difference of the terms in this case. (Bengel: hæc duo, πέτρα et πέτρος stant pro uno nomine, sicut unum utrinque nomen Kepha legitur in Syriaco.”) But it is certainly possible, and to my mind almost certain, that Matthew expressed by the slight change of word in Greek, what the Saviour intended in using, necessarily, the same word in Syriac, viz., that the petra on which the Church is built by Christ, the Divine architect and Lord of this spiritual temple, is not the person of Peter as such, but something more deep and comprehensive; in other words, that it is Peter and his confession of the central mystery of Christianity, or Peter as the conjessor of Christ, Peter in Christ, and Peter, moreover, as representing all the other apostles in like relation to Christ (comp. Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14). Nor should we explain Mat_16:18 independently of Mat_16:23. It is very significant that, while the believing and confessing Peter here is called rock, the disobedient and dissuading Peter immediately afterward ( Mat_16:23), with surprising severity, is called for the time being Satan, the enemy of Christ. If the papacy has any claim to the rocklike nature of Peter, it has certainly also fallen at times under the condemnation of the satanic anti-christian, and denying Peter. Let us hope that it may imitate Peter also in his sincere repentance after the denial. Bengel: Videat Petra romana, ne cadat sub censuram versus 23.—Comp. the Exeg. Notes below, and my History of the Apostolic Church, § 89, p. 351 sqq. —P. S.]

[13] Mat_16:18.—[All the English versions before Queen Elizabeth, except that of Wiclif (which reads chirche), translate ἐκκλησία by the corresponding English word congregation; but the Bishops’ Bible substituted for it church, and this, by express direction of King James, was retained not only here, but in all other passages of the N. T. in the revised and authorized version of 1611. Among German translators and commentators, the Roman Catholics (van Ess, Arnoldi, Allioli) render ἐκκλησία by the term Kirche (church); while the Protestant translators and commentators (Luther. John Friedr. von Meyer, Stier, de Wette, Ewald, H. A. W. Meyer, and Lange) render: Gemeinde (congregation). The Greek ἐκκλησία, from ἐκκαλέω, to call out, to summon, occurs 114 times in the N. T. (twice in the Gospel of Matthew, but in no other Gospel, 24 times in the Acts, 68 times in the Epistles, 20 times in Revelation), and corresponds to the Hebrewקָחָל . It is not to be confounded with the more spiritual and comprehensive term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven. so often used by our Saviour. It means generally any popular convocation, congregation, assembly, and in a Christian sense the congregation of believers called out of the world and consecrated to the service of Christ. It is used in the N. T. (1) in a general sense, of the whole body of Christian believers, or the church universal, Mat_16:18; 1Co_12:28; Gal_1:13; Eph_1:22 (and in all the passages where the church is called the body of Christ); 1Ti_3:15; Heb_12:23, etc.; (2) more frequently in a particular sense, of a local congregation, as in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Ephesus, in Corinth, in Rome, in Galatia, in Asia Minor, etc.; hence, also, it is often used in the plural, e.g., αἱ ἐκκλησἰαι τῆς ’Ασίας, 1Co_16:19; αἱ ἐκκλησίαι των ἐθνῶν, Rom_16:4; the seven churches, Rev_1:4; Rev_1:11; Rev_1:20, etc. The Saviour Himself makes use of the word only twice, viz.: in our passage, where it evidently means the church universal, which alone is indestructible, and in Mat_18:17, where it can be understood only of a local church or congregation (tell it to the church). John never uses the term except in his third epistle. The word church is properly no translation of ἐκκλητία at all, but has etymologically a different meaning, being derived from the Greek κυριακόν, i.e., belonging to the Lord, through the medium of the Gothic, whence also the cognate terms in the Tentonic and Slavonic languages, the German Kirche, the Scotch kirk, the Swedish kyrka, the Danish kyrke, the Russian serkow, the Polish cerkiew, the Bohemian zyrkew. (Leo, Ferienschriften, Halle, 1847, derives the word from the Celtic cyrch or cylch, i.e., centre, meeting place; but this would not explain the introduction of the word into the Slavonic nations, who received Christianity from the Greek church.) The word church is now used both in the general and in the particular sense, like ἐκκλησία, and in addition to this also in a third sense, viz., of a building, or house of worship (Eusebius, Hist. Ecc_9:10, calls the meeting houses of the Christians κυριακὰ οἰκεῖα). As regards the English translation of ἐκκλησία, a number of modern commentators advocate a return to the term congregation throughout the whole N. T. But it is neither possible nor desirable to expel the term church from the English Bible, which has long since become the full equivalent of the Greek ἐκκλησία. We might use church, where the word signifies the whole body of believers, and congregation, where a particular or local assembly of Christians is intended. But even this is unnecessary. The Geneva Bible also employed the term church in a few passages, though not in ours, where It seems to me to be more appropriate than congregation.—P. S.]

[14] Mat_16:18.—[ΙΙ ύ̓λαι ᾴ̓δου, in Hebrew שׁעֲרֵי שְׁאוֹל, shaäre sheol, an alliteration, Isa_38:10. On hades, as distinct from hell, compare the Exeg. Notes below, and also the Crit. Notes on 11. 23, p. 210.—P. S.]

[15] Mat_16:18.—[Οὐ μὴ κατισχύ σουσιναν̓ τῆς, from κατισχύειν τινος, prævalere adversus aliquem, comp. Jer_15:20, Sept. Tyndale, the Bishops’. King James’, and the Douay Bibles agree in translating: shall not prevai against it; the Lat. Vulgate: non prœvalebunt adversus sam; Luther, de Wette, Ewald, Lange: überwaltigen. Meyer: die Obermachi haben (behalten). I prefer the prevail of the Authorized Vers. to overcome (Geneva Bible), at expressing better the idea of long-continued resistance on the part of hades. The term must be explained in conformity to the architectural figure which runs through this whole passage:—gates, build, keys. Hades is represented as a hostile fortress which stands over against the apparently defenceless, yet immovable temple of the Christian Church, to which our Lord here promises indestructible life. (Ecclesia non potest deficere.) The gates of hades, or the realm of death, by virtue of the universal dominion of sin, admit and confine all men, and (like the gates in Dante’s Inferno with tie famous terrific inscription) were barred against all return until the Saviour overcame death and “him that hath the power of death” (Heb_2:14), and came forth unharmed and triumphant from the empire of death as conqueror and Prince of life. Hades could not retain Him (Act_2:27; Act_2:31). The same power of life He imparts to His people, who often, especially during the ages of persecution and martyrdom, seemed to he doomed to destruction, but always rose to new life and vigor, and shall reign with Christ forever. Comp. Rev_1:18 : “I am alive forevermore, and have the keys of death and hides;” and 1Co_15:26 : “The last enemy that shall be destroyed, is death.” This interpretation of the figure appears to me much more appropriate than the usual one, which takes hades here in the sense of hill, and assumes an active assault of the infernal armies, ru hing, as it were, through these gates and storming the fortress of Christ’s Church. To this interpretation I object: (1) That gates are not an active and aggressive, but a passive and confining power; (2) that hades, although closely related to gehenna or hell and including it, is yet a wider conception, and means here, as elsewhere, the realm of death (das Reich der Todten), which swallows up all mortals and confines forever those who have no part in the victory of Christ over death, hell, and damnation.—P. S.]

[16] Mat_16:20.—Lect. rec.: διεστείλατο [prœcepit, imperavit]. Codd. B., D.: ἐπετίμησεν [comminatus est], probably from Mar_8:30; Luk_9:21.

[17] Mat_16:20.—[The oldest MSS., including Cod. Sinait, read simply: τοῖς μαθηταῖς without αὐτοῦ. Meyer and Lange overlook this difference of reading. See Tregelles and Alford.—P. S.]

[18] Mat_16:20.—̓Ι ησοῦς is wanting in important MSS. [The correct reading of all critical editions, sustained by the oldest MSS., including Cod. Sinait., the ancient versions, and patristic quotations, is simply: δτιαὐτός ἐστιν δΧριστός, that he is the Christ (the promised Messiah). The insertion of Jesus in later MSS. was a blunder of some mechanical copyist, who paid no attention to the connection, and added the personal to the official appellation, according to the usual designation of our Lord. Everybody knew and admitted the personal name of our Saviour, and it would have been useless to deny or to affirm that He was Jesus.—P. S.]

[19][Some, however, no doubt believed in a bodily resurrection of Elijah or Jeremiah. The latter was accounted by the Jews as the first in the prophetic canon. See Lightfoot on Mat_27:9.—P. S.]

[20][This is the correct view, already maintained by the fathers, e.g., Chrysostom, who, in Hom. 54, calls Peter in this connection the mouth of the apostles, τὸ στόμα των ἀποστσ́λων, by Jerome: Petrus ex persona omnium apostolorum profitetur, and by Thomas Aquinas; Ipse respondes et pro se et pro aliis. Some Rom. Cath. commentators, as Passaglia and Arnoldi, for obvious reasons, maintain that Peter spoke only in his own name. But the Saviour addressed His question to all the disciples, and they certainly must have assented to Peter’s confession of faith, which they had from the time of their calling, and without which they could not have been apostles. Comp. Joh_1:42; Joh_1:46; Joh_1:50, also the remarks of Dr. Schegg, a Rom. Cath. Coal., in loc. (vol. ii p. 349).—P. S.]

[21][According to Lange’s version. Comp. my critical note above.—P. S.]

[22][I confess that this allegorical exposition of the term appears to me as far-fetched and as improbable as that of Olshausen. Bar-Jona has nothing to do with a dove, but is a contraction for Bar-Joanna (Chaldaic), i.e., Son of John, as is evident from Joh_21:15-17, where Christ addresses Peter: Σίμων Ἰωαννον. But there may be in this use of the patronymic an allusion to the title Son of man is Mat_16:13, which would give additional emphasis to the counter confession, in this sense: That I, the Son of Man, am at the same time the Messiah and the eternal Son of God, is a true as that thou, Simon, art the son of Jona; and as thou hast thus confessed Me as the Messiah, I will now confess thee as Peter. etc. If the Saviour spoke in Aramaic or Chaldaic, as He undoubtedly did on ordinary occasions and with His disciples. He used the term Bar in Mat_16:17, with reference to Dan_7:13, the prophetic passage from which the Messianic appellation Son of Man was derived, so that Bar-enahsh (Son of Man) and Bar-Jona would correspond,—P. S.]

[23][Not exactly. In the fourth edition of his Com. on Matt., p. 320. Meyer assumes that Peter, although long since convinced, with the rest of the disciples, of the Messiahship of Jesus, was on this occasion favored with a special divine revelation on the subject, and spoke from a state of inspiration. “Daher,” he says, “ιετ απεκάλψε nicht aufsine schon beim ersten Anschliessen an Jesum erhaltene Offenbarung, welche den Jüngern geworden. zu beziehen, sondern auf Petrus und eine ihn auszeichnende besondere απυκάλυψις zu beschrünken.” But Peter confessed in the name of all the other apostles, see p. 294.—P. S.]

[24][Maldonatus: “Et ego. Elegans antithesis, Græce etiam efficat[illegible]ior: κᾳλὼ δέ, sed et ego dico tibi; quasi dicat: tu qui homo es, Filium Dei vivi me esse dixisti, (ego vero, qui Filius Dei vivi sum, dico te esse Petrum, id est vicarium meum [?], quem Filium Dei esse confessus es. Nam. Ecclesiam meam, quœ super te œdificata est, super te etiam, tanquam super secundarium quoddam fundamentum œdificabo."—P. S.]

[25][This needs modification. Jerome, in his Comment. on Mat_16:18 (Opera, ed. Vallars., tom. 7. p. 124). explains the passage thus: “Sicut ipse lumen Apostolis donavit, ut lumen mundi appellarentur, cœteroque ex Domino so: titi sunt vocabula: ita et Simoni, qui credebat in petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen. Ac secundum metaphoram petrœ, recte dicitur ei: Ædificabo fcclesiam meam super te.” The last words (super te) show that he referred the petra not only to Christ, but in a derivative sense also to Peter as the confessor. So in another passage (Ep. ad Damas. papam, Ep. 15, ed. Vall., i. 37 sq.) he says of Peter: “super illam petram œdificatam ecclesiam [illegible]io.” Jerome also regards the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, but advocated elsewhere the equal rights of bishops, so that he can be quoted only in favor of a Roman primacy of honor, not of a supremacy of jurisdiction. Comp. on Jerome’s views concerning the papacy the second vol. of my General Church History, now preparing for the press, § 61, p. 304 sq.—P. S.]

[26]i.e. Augustine in his later years; for at first he referred the petra to the person of Peter. He says in his Retractations, i. cap. 21, at the close of his life: “I have somewhere said of St Peter that the church is built upon him as rock. .. . But I have since frequently said that the word of the Lord: ‘Thou art Petrus. and on this petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of Him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God; and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: ‘Thou art a rock’ (petra) but, ‘Thou art Peter’ (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name of Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable.” In the same strain he says, in another place: “Peter, in virtue of the primacy of his apostolate, stands, by a figuratlve generalization, for the church. ... When it was said to him, ‘I will give un to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ &c., he represented the whole church, which in this world is assailed by various temptations, as if by floods and storms, yet does not fall, because it is founded upon a rock from which Peter received his name. For the rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a petro petra, sed Petrus a petra). even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church.’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’ On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he. I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is ‘aid, which is Jesus Christ. Thus the church, which [illegible]s ouilt upon Christ, has received from Him, in the person of Peter, the keys of heaven: that is, the power of binding and loosing sins.” (Aug. Tract. in Evang. Joannis, 124. §5.) Ambrose, too, at one time refers the petra to Christ, as when he says in Luk_9:20 : “Petra est Christus,” etc, but at other times to the person of Peter, as in the famous morning hymn quoted by Augustin. (Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiœ Canente, culpam diluit), and again to his confession, or father to Peter and his confession. Comp. my Church History, vol ii. p. 304. A similar apparent lnconsiste cy we find in other fathers. The reference of the rock to Christ was also advocated by Theodoret, ad 1Co_3:11, the venerable Bede in Marc, 3 “Petra erat Christus (1Co_10:4). Nam Simoni qui credebat in Petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen:” and even by pope Gregory VII. in the inscription to the crown he sent to the German rival emperor Rudolph: Petra (i.e., Christ) dedit Petro (Peter), Petrus (the pope) diadema Rudolpho.”—P. S.]

[27][This reference to the fathers is too indefinite, and hardly correct as far as Leo and the popes are concerned. The majority of the fathers. Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine Leo I., Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, etc., vary in their interpretation, referring the petra sometimes to the person of Peter, sometimes to his faith or confession, and sometimes (as Jerome and Augustine) to Christ Himself. (Comp. Maldonatus, Comment in quatuor Evangelistas, ed. Martin tom. 1. p. 219 sq.. and my History of the Christian Church, vol. ii. §§ 61 and 63, pp. 302 sqq. and 314 sqq., where the principle passages are quoted.) But this inconsistency is more apparent than real, since Peter and his faith in Christ cannot be separated in this passage. Peter (representing the other apostles) as believing and confessing Christ (but in no other capacity) is the petra ecclesiæ. This is the true interpretation, noticed by Lange sub number 3. b). Comp. my Critical Note, 3, p. 293. But the confession or faith alone cannot be meant. for two reasons: first, because this construction assumes an abrupt transition from the person to a thing and destroys the significance of the demonstrative and emphatic τέτρα which evidently refers to the nearest antecedent Petros; and secondly, because the church is not built upon abstract doctrines and confessions, but upon living persons believing and confessing the truth (Eph_2:20; 1Pe_2:4-6; Gal_2:9; Rev_21:14). Dr. Jos. A. Alexander, however, is too severe on this Interpretation in calling it as forced and unnatural as the Roman Catholic. It undoubtedly implies an element of truth, since Peter in this passage is addressed as the bold and fearless confessor of Christ.—P. S.]

[28][In Luther’s Randglosse, but so as to combine this explanation with the fourth mentioned above (of Origen): “Alle Christen sind Petri um der Bekenntniss willen, die hier Petrus thut, welche ist der Fels, darauf Petrus und alle Petri gebauet sind.”—P. S.]

[29][Among modern commentators Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 272, who understands, however, by πέτρα not so much the confession, as the faith itself which precedes it—P. S.]

[30][The Romish interpretation is liable to the following objections: (1) It obliterates the distinction between petros and petra; (1) it is inconsistent with the true nature of the architectural figure: the foundation of a building is one and abiding, and not constantly renewed and changed; (3) it confounds priority of time with permanent superiority of rank; (4) it confounds the apostolate, which, strictly speaking, is not transferable but confined to the original personal disciples of Christ and inspired organs of the Holy Spirit, with the post-apostolic episcopate; (5) it involves an injustice to the other apostles, who, as a body, are expressly called the foundation, or foundation stones of the church; (6) it contradicts the whole spirit of Peter’s epistles, which is strongly antihierarchical, and disclaims any superiority over his “fellow-presbyters,” (7) finally, it rests on gratuitous assumptions which can never be proven either exegetically or historically, viz.. the transferability of Peter’s primacy, and its actual transfer upon the bishop, not of Jerusalem nor of Antioch (where Peter certainly was). but of Rome exclusively. Comp. also the long note to §94 in my History of the Apostolic Church, p. 374 sqq.—P. S.]

[31][So also Olshausen: “Peter, in his new spiritual character, appears as the supporter of Christ’s great work; Jesus Himself is the creator of the whole, Peter, the first stone of the building;” De Wette: “ἐπὶ ταύτη τν͂ πετπα, on thee as this firm confessor;” Meyer: “on no other but this (ταὺτπ) rock, i.e., Peter, so called for his firm and strong faith in Christ;” Alford: “Peter was the first of these foundation-stones (Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14) on which the living temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation;” D. Brown: “not on the man Bar-jona; but on him as the heaven taught Confessor of such a faith;” and more or less clearly, Grotius (“petrus a me nominatus es, quia eris quasi petra”), Le Clerc, Whitby, Doddridge. Clarke, Bloomfield. Barnes, Eadie, Owen, Crosby (who. however, wrongly omits the reference to the confession, Whedon, Nast. I can see no material difference between this interpretation and Lange’s own sub No. 5, which is only a modification or expansion of it. I have already remarked In a former note that this is the true exposition which the majority of the fathers intended, though with some Inclination to the subsequent Romish application of the promise to a supposed successor.—P. S.]

[32][Die petrinische Bekenntnisstreue.—P. S.]

[33][Grotius has a long and learned note on the passage, and says: “Nusquam reperis αδου vocem neque apud Hellenistas neque apud novi fœderis scriptores in alia significatione quam aut mortis, aut sepulchri, aut status post mortem, quæ om nia sunt inter se affinix,” etc—P. S.]

[34][But this was only an error of conduct, not of doctrine; and hence proves nothing against the inspiration of the apostles nor the pretended infallibility of their successors.—P. S.]

[35][In German: Die Inquisitionskerkerschlüssel und Ablasskaster schlüssel. The Edinb. transl. mixes these two distinct ideas into one by rendering: “The keys of the prison and indulgences of the Inquisition.” The coffers of the indulgences, according to the scholastic doctrine, are filled with the treasures of the so called supererogatory works and merits of canonized saints from which the popes can dispense extraordinary indulgences or remissions or sins. It was this trade in papal indulgences carried on by a monkish quack or humbug, Tetzel, which gave rise (as the external occasion, but not as the cause which lay far deeper) to the Lutheran Reformation.—P. S.]

[36][Not: How much great men are influenced by the opinions of the age, as the Edb. trsl., misled by the German wie viel (which must be understood ironically), reverses the meaning of the original, thus making Heubner contradict himself in the next sentence. Heubner alludes to the confused and contradictory opinions of the Jews concerning Christ, Mat_16:15, and then contrasts with them the firm conviction of faith in Peter, Mat_16:16. Great men, during their lifetime, meet with the very opposite judgments at the bar of ever-changing popular opinion, and they are not truly great unless they can rise above it and quietly pursue the path of duty, leaving the Small matter of their own fame in the hands of a just God and of an appreciating posterity which will judge them by the fruits of their labor.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CAESAREA-PHILIPPI

Mat 16:13-16; Mar 8:27-29; Luk 9:18-20. This is the northern terminus of our Savior’s ministry, two days’ journey on horseback from the Sea of Galilee up the Jordan Valley to the foot of Mt. Hermon, where a great spring is one of the principal sources of the Jordan. This city is just over the border of Galilee in Iturea, at the time of our Savior under the tetrarchy of Philip. M.: “And Jesus having come into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, asked His disciples, saying, Whom do the people say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or One of the prophets. He says to them, But whom do you say that I am? And Simon Peter, responding, said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus responding, said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon, the son of Jonah; because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but My Father who is in the heavens.” About twenty-eight months have rolled away since our Lord entered upon His ministry, meanwhile He has flooded Galilee with His miracles; visited, in person or by the Twelve, nearly all the cities and villages in Israel. Despite all efforts, John the Baptist sending his disciples, with the avowed purpose of bringing Him out into an unequivocal proclamation of His Christhood, — He simply sent them back, to tell John about the mighty works which they had seen.

a. Doubtless our Lord felt that it was better for His works to proclaim His Christhood than that He should publicly avow it. Here was the trouble: the prophets had wrought miracles, especially Elijah and Elisha, even raising quite a number from the dead. Consequently some, and among them King Herod, thought He was John the Baptist risen from the dead. As Elijah had wrought such stupendous miracles, bringing fire from heaven and raising the dead, on the very ground traversed by Jesus, many thought that He was some one of the old prophets who had risen from the dead. During these twenty-eight months, while the whole country has been flooded with miracles so stupendous as at once to beggar all cavil, the people have had an opportunity, by the irresistible fact of His mighty works, corroborated by His inimitable preaching, to settle down in the conclusion of His Christhood without an open proclamation.

b. The simple fact is that the Jews, having endured the galling yoke of a foreign despotism thirty-two years, and all settled in the prophetical revelation that the Christ is to be King of the Jews, are eager to crown Him the very moment that matter is settled, while the Roman soldiers were holding the gates of every city, ready to kill any man who would claim to be king, without having received the crown from the hands of Caesar. This was the very accusation written over His bead on His cross when He was crucified) “This is the King of the Jews.” Hence the necessity of postponing the open avowal of His Messiahship to the latest practical date.

c. I trow, this was the reason for His going away off to Caesarea-Philippi, out of the circle of His old audiences, and away from the multitude, who had crowded after Him, professing discipleship. When I visited Caesarea- Philippi, I went up on one of the peaks of Mt. Hermon, hanging over the city, where there is a great military citadel, about two thousand feet long and three hundred wide, built of solid masonry, though in ruins, the walls mainly yet intact, which had been occupied during the ages of Roman, Saracen, Crusade, and French rule, within which there is an old temple, said to have been built by Herod the Great. Tradition says that in this temple, when Jesus preached to the people, He proclaimed His Christhood, propounding the above questions to Peter, the apostolic senior, and in this, as well as other cases, the representative and speaker of the Twelve.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 4. (Mat 16:13-28; Mat 17:1-21.)

"The Kingdom and patience" in man’s world and day.

We come now to what furnishes the ground of Peter’s two epistles, - what John speaks of as "the Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9); set up in a world of which Satan is still the prince, through the lusts by which he holds men captive. Thus the world is that which knew not Christ when He came into it, and of which the cross is the characteristic sign. The cross for the Master means, therefore, the cross for the disciple, as He declares here, if indeed we will be true to Him. The light for the path is a glory outside the world, and which is in His face whom the world has rejected and cast out. Thus we are "called," as Peter says, (2Pe 1:3) "by glory and virtue" - the last being the soldier’s virtue, "courage," the virtue of the Church militant; and as in Colossians (Col 1:11), "strengthened with all might, according to the power of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness."

We have in connection with this the first plain announcement of Christ’s assembly, not as Paul long afterwards was given to declare it, as Christ’s "body" or "bride," but rather as the house of God, "a spiritual house" of "living stones," as Peter preaches from this very text (1Pe 2:5). Moreover the administration of the Kingdom is committed to Peter, as representative of the assembly, no doubt (comp. Mat 18:17-18). We have already seen its history. (Mat 13:1-58), and that the opposition of the world which is the necessary consequence of moral oppositeness, comes to be introduced within the Christian profession itself, so as to entail the need of overcoming in this way also: of which the epistles give us everywhere abundant proof, if indeed the experience of any true disciple permitted him to doubt it.

(1) It is in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi - stamped thus doubly with the assertion of the power of the world rulers, the Caesars and the Herods, there where Israel should have been sole possessor of the land, upholding and upheld by the name of her God, - that this revelation of the Divine purpose in the assembly is made. Israel is but as a wanderer among the nations now. Her doom is upon her, although not as yet fully carried into effect; and the world which is uniting with her in the rejection of the one hope of deliverance must still be left for Caesar and Herod to divide between them. Out of it God is going to separate a people for Himself, and in the over abounding of divine grace to give them an inheritance in heaven. But this they are to reach by His own pathway of suffering in the world, the fellowship of His sufferings being the fit training for fellowship upon the throne and in the glory.

The first point here is in the apprehension of Himself; and so He asks His disciples now. "Who do men say that I, the Son of man; am?" He uses the term by which we find Him, in the synoptic Gospels, most commonly speaking of Himself, the term so perfect in its lowliness, so tender in its intimacy, so unique in its very generality: for, just because all were "sons of men," the claim to be the Son of man would by itself be suited to awaken attention. If Daniel, and, still more, Ezekiel were addressed by the Lord as "son of man," this of course was a thing quite different. Whatever else it signified, the reminder of essential difference between the glorious Speaker and the frail instrument by whom He pleased to speak to men; was obviously in place. But, just on that very account, no prophet of them all, in speaking to other men, could have called himself the "Son of man." On the other hand, Daniel had spoken of "One like unto a son of man" coming in the clouds of heaven to receive universal dominion (Dan 7:13-14), a passage to us abundantly clear, but which does not in fact give Messiah this title, as is plain, and by the Jews in general it does not seem to have been even applied to him.* The question put by them afterwards would apparently indicate this: "We have heard out of the Law, that Christ abideth for ever; and Thou sayest, the Son of man shall be lifted up: who is this Son of man? (Joh 12:34). As a title indeed, to those whose expectations of the Messiah were so different, its lowliness would not commend it to such use as the Lord constantly made of it. The form of it in Daniel (Bar Enahsh) is the very lowliest, "a son of frail, or mortal, man," so that we are naturally reminded of the "likeness of sinful flesh" (it could only be "likeness" here of which the apostle speaks, Rom 8:3). Little fit would they be to understand the tenderness of the adoption of such an epithet as "Son of man."**

{* Edersheim in his "Life and Times of Jesus," so often referred to, in a list of Old Testament passages so applied, says of this one only: "Dan 7:13 is curiously explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 a) where it is said that, if Israel behaved worthily, the Messiah would come in the clouds of heaven; if otherwise, humble, and riding upon an ass." In the "Book of Enoch" also, the Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven as a son of man," amid the angels of the divine judgment-seat; and in the Sibylline Oracles there are allusions.

** Not, however, the equivalent of Bar Enahsh, but of Ben Adam, ho huios tou anthropou, "of man" generically.}

What did they make of One who came after this manner: not emblazoning His name upon the skies, but writing it upon the hearts of those relieved by divine mercy through Him? of One who, instead of skimming over the surface of the sore of humanity, probed it to the bottom, though but to heal it effectually? "Who do men say that I, the Son of man; am?"

The answer only takes the judgment of friends into account, and this is various: "some say, John the Baptist; some Elias; some, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." But this various judgment is, in fact, but one: no one really knows; among the crowds around, and recognizing too, the best that could be said for them, the desire to do Him honor, there is yet, so to speak, no true faith. No matter as to the difference between these thoughts, compared with their amazing unanimity. Well might He say, "I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nought and in vain." Israel is surely not now to be gathered, though there is still an election of grace. He turns to the disciples with the same question: "But ye, who do ye say that I am?" And Peter breaks out with his answer for the rest: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Here, then, while Israel remains in unbelief, is the faith of the Church. It is founded on Scripture, but along with this on the knowledge of Christ Himself, - on the revelation of Christ by the Father to him, as the Lord immediately declares. The Spirit and the Word act together, and so constantly: the Shepherd comes in by the door, and the porter opens to Him; He speaks, and the sheep hear His voice.

That the Christ would be the Son of God, Scripture had again and again declared. The second psalm expressly represents Him as rejected by men; yet owned of God as His Son by nature, yet in manhood, and to be (in spite of all opposition) King at last on Zion. And this is the Scripture which with one accord the disciples quote, after the first appearance of the apostles before the rulers of the Jews, when dismissed, they go to their own company (Act 4:25-28).

Similarly, according to Isaiah, the virgin’s Son would be Immanuel, and this no mere or hyperbolical name: the Child born, the Son given; upon whose shoulder was to be the government in Israel, would be "the mighty God, the Father of eternity, the Prince of peace" (Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6).

His deity, though born in Bethlehem, but dose goings forth had been of old, from everlasting, Micah had borne witness to, in those words which the scribes and chief priests, so unavailingly for either, could quote to Herod.

Other scriptures there were to shame Israel’s unbelief in God’s marvelous grace to her, and her great glory. But Peter, taught of God, expresses his faith in a way that shows it to be personal, not traditional nor mere orthodoxy, but a divine energy within his soul. It is the Eternal Life that He has seen in Christ - that indeed was in Him "the Light of men" (Joh 1:4). Thus he calls Him not simply the Son of God, but "the Son of the living God." Living power it is that he has realized in Him, the manifested Life, the incarnate, creative Word, and in the sense of this he bears witness to Him.

Striking it is, too, that John; His most intimate disciple, speaks of Life so much. And with Peter, if we look at his first epistle, we shall find that "living" is a characteristic word. A "living hope," the living word," "living stones" built up upon the "Living Stone," living unto righteousness, living according to God: all these harmonize with his confession of righteousness, here; while some of them carry us right back to the confession itself or to the Lord’s words in response to it. They combine to assure us of the Presence in which he had lived and walked, and of its power over him.

The Lord answers immediately: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my assembly; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it."

Peter’s faith is thus a divinely given faith, the fruit of a divine revelation to his soul, and thus he is a true "bar-jona," (son of a dove,) born of the Spirit of God; and, Israel having rejected Christ, he must have a new place provided for him, and for those of like faith. Thus he becomes Peter, a stone in a new spiritual building which will be Christ’s assembly. It is not yet said that this is the house of God, which in Israel, as we know, had been always a material building. Relationship to God is not yet opened up, but rather to Himself as the Builder of it. It is to be His assembly, a people "called out," as the word indicates,* to Himself and Peter himself explains it to us as consisting of living stones," who "coming to" Him, the "Living Stone," "are built up a spiritual house" (in opposition to Israel’s material one). He thus very simply settles the old controversy which Rome has raised upon the Lord’s words to him, - none more competent to settle it surely than the one to whom the words were spoken; and, moreover, Rome’s own chosen interpreter, whom for very shame they cannot refuse, and by refusing whom they still destroy their own interpretation: so has God doubly guarded the truth against their perversion. Peter assures us that the "Rock" upon which the assembly is founded is not Peter but Christ Himself. The Petra is not the Petros, near as these may be together: for indeed the "stone" derives all its rock-like qualities from the "rock," - is, so to speak, quarried out of the rock upon which it is founded.

{* Ecclesia from ekkaleo, to "call out."}

There is no question here, then; to raise or to settle: the "prophetic scriptures" have settled it for us in anticipation, before it was raised. The assembly called out to Christ, is built upon Christ, and every way His assembly: relationship to Himself is now the whole question. And He being the Son of the living God, the gates of hades - of death - cannot prevail against it. Death has prevailed over the whole human race, but in the Son of God become Son of man, a new and eternal life has come into humanity, annulling, for those who believe in Him, him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. For these death is abolished, and life and incorruption are brought to light through the gospel.

Here, then; the assembly stands, upon the rock of resurrection; though resurrection has not yet been mentioned in connection with it. But Christ, says the apostle, is marked out Son of God by resurrection of the dead (Rom 1:4). Life is thus not in Him simply, but in Him meets the power of death and vanquishes it: the assembly (though in the meanwhile on earth) belongs to the other side of death, yea, to heaven: the gates of hades open in vain for it.

This is not, therefore, as Rome again alleges, an affirmation of the infallibility of the Church, but rather of its continuance; and it does continue until at the coming of Christ it is removed to heaven. Of the saints of the Old Testament the apostle could speak as "the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb 12:23); and if by the latter expression he intimates, as he surely does, their resin, section, that still shows that, as a body, they had been removed by death. But the Church of Christ could never be spoken of in such a manner: spite of all that it has come through - all the opposition of men and Satan through which it has come, - the yawning jaws of the grave have never engulfed it. Though in its character an exotic, and not of earth, the power of the Spirit has maintained it here without interruption; a witness even in her failure and suffering to her absent Lord.

But under all this, and shining through it, there is a higher truth, as has been already said: the Church is that in which, first of all, the power of life over death, death itself made to minister to it and sustain it, comes out in its full character. The eternal life has come in Christ in its perfection; but in Him as a corn of wheat which, falling into the ground and dying, brings forth fruit in which it is perpetuated and multiplied. This is, of course, John’s doctrine, or that of his Gospel rather, and Paul also must come in to give it full utterance; but it is wrapped up here in the Lord’s first announcement of the Church to Peter.

He is going to build it. His words are as yet but prophecy, not a declaration of what He has done, or is doing, but of what He is going to do. Between that and the present lies for Him, as He begins now to declare explicitly, that awful valley of the shadow of death through which a deeper death darkens, - an uttermost woe which He alone can bear, a depth in which no foot but His could find standing. Then the "light of life" will have come, the weight be removed from off man’s heart, the cloud from his path, but more, - the veil rent which covers the sanctuary, he will draw near to God, distance done away for ever, to where the full glory of God in a Human Face shall greet and bless and glorify him with its radiance. This is what Christianity means for us even here; and oh that one could tell it out, but it is impossible. Christ must be for Himself the Speaker, and every one must hear from His own lips, find in His own face, drink in from His own love, that else ineffable reality.

From the announcement of the assembly (or, as it is commonly called the Church*) and of Peter’s place in it, the Lord goes on to speak of the Kingdom and his place in it: two things which are surely connected together, while they are different, and of which it is important to see both the connection and the difference. Here also there has been on both sides as much confusion of thought as in the former case, and far more widely spread. We shall do well therefore to examine with the more care the meaning of what is here before us.

{*While in common parlance we may still use this term, it is important in all interpretation of Scripture to keep to the true word, "assembly," which, if it had been always adhered to, would have done much of itself to prevent some of the perversion of thought which has connected itself with the other. Church, as is perfectly well known, comes from the Greek Kuriake, "of the Lord," which (as is evident) leaves out the very thing which ecclesia defines, and so permits the free substitution of other thoughts in its place.}

A common confusion is that of the Church and the Kingdom, and which has both proceeded from and led on to very serious confusion in other respects. We have already seen sufficiently what the Kingdom is, to be delivered from the possibility of any absolute identification of them. It certainly was not the Church which John the Baptist proclaimed to be "at hand." Israel was alone before him as the people of God, though needing to be purged by the Lord for entrance into His Kingdom. Even so, people and Kingdom were plainly different thoughts, however closely they might be connected together.

The Kingdom in its Old Testament character being for the time set aside, on account of Israel’s rejection of the King, the "assembly" which Christ owns as His, in the day of that rejection, becomes the recognized people of God; and in the same relation to the "Kingdom and patience" that Israel will yet have in relation to His "Kingdom and glory." Still the Kingdom and the people are very different thoughts; although in any picture of the Kingdom we necessarily see the people. So it has been in that history of the Kingdom which we have had put before us in the parables of the thirteenth chapter. But there even; if we have been able to interpret them aright, the people before us in the first parables are not the same people as in the closing one at all; and the Kingdom, while changing in character at the close, goes on beyond the time of the "assembly," of which we have been speaking, altogether.

Church and Kingdom are not, then, even for the present time, the same; though it may be urged that (in the same way as with Israel) in some sense we may identify them. Yet even here, for any right interpretation of the passage before us, we must learn to discriminate. We shall surely find, if we look closely enough, that we cannot even say that (even for the present time) the limits of Church and Kingdom are practically the same: there is a difference here also which must be taken into account, although we may not be able, at the point which we have reached in the Gospel here, fully to define it.

The Kingdom, it is plain, in its mystery-form, is established in the world, not by any open act of divine power, but by the sowing of the "word of the Kingdom" in the hearts of men. It is thus not territorial, as the kingdoms of the world are, but a Kingdom of the truth, a sphere of discipleship; which may be, however, merely outward and nominal, a profession true or false, which the end will declare. This is plain by the parables that have been before us. Its blessings are thus conditional, dependent upon character and conduct, as the parable of the unforgiving servant especially declares (Mat 18:1-35).

That it is administered by men; as representatives of the absent King, the Lord’s words to Peter here are clearly in proof, for the keys of the Kingdom are committed to him: not, I believe, distinctively, but as connected with that place which the Lord had just assigned him. As his confession of Him was just that of the others - of all true disciples, so the place of a stone in Christ’s spiritual building was not Peter’s alone, but that of all disciples; and the keys of the Kingdom go with this: the Church (that is) administers the Kingdom. In the eighteenth chapter, the power of binding and loosing, given here to Peter, is given to the assembly as a whole (ver. 18): and when we consider what the power of the keys implies, we shall find that in fact it is not peculiar to Peter at all. The two statements here go perfectly together, and as Peter is but a living stone founded upon the Rock, Christ Jesus, so every living stone is thus a Peter, and addressed as such through him.

After all that Rome and ritualism and even more evangelical systems have found in these keys, it may be hard to credit such a view as this; and with many it has been customary to point to Peter’s eminent place on the day of Pentecost in opening the Kingdom to the Jews, as afterwards in the person of Cornelius to the Gentiles. But an eminent place may be fully allowed him in this way, while yet we deny him any exclusive place; and in fact we cannot exclude others on the day of Pentecost; nor even at Caesarea allow that this was the sole use of the key in relation to the Gentiles, any more than the use of another key than that which before had opened the Kingdom to the Jews. One act did not surely exhaust the service of the key, nor to open the door twice require two keys. Can it be thought that the door once opened simply remained open,and needed no more opening? On the contrary, I believe it can be conclusively shown that the administration of the Kingdom, which these keys stand for, is not yet over, is not all come to an end in one initial authoritative act. Men still receive and are received in; and if the power of the keys speaks of admission into the Kingdom, and the Kingdom be the sphere of discipleship, then the key is in fact but authority to disciple.

Now there are keys, not simply a key; and so, if we are right, a double way of doing this is implied. The first is what the Lord Himself speaks of as "the key of knowledge," and which He reproaches the lawyers for taking from the people (Luk 11:52). Similarly in this Gospel He denounces the Pharisees for shutting up the Kingdom of heaven against men. "Ye neither go in yourselves," He tells them, "neither suffer ye those that are entering to go in" (Mat 23:13).

But while the key of knowledge is thus the first and fundamental form of what is here, it is not the whole. There is also an authoritative reception, which the Lord has enjoined, and which, just as submission to authority, is most suited in entering the Kingdom. Baptism is thus "unto Christ" (Rom 6:3), and "unto the name of the Lord Jesus" (Act 8:16), an open "putting on of Christ" (Gal 3:27). It is thus a bowing to the authority of the King, as entering the Kingdom: "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," says Ananias to Saul (Act 22:16). But the Lord Himself most distinctly puts the two keys together when, after His resurrection; with all authority given to Him in heaven and earth, He sends out the eleven with the commission of the King, saying: "Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son; and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the completion of the age (Mat 28:19-20).

All this is in perfect harmony with the words to Peter here, and sufficiently explains them. Thus read, they are in the highest degree appropriate to the occasion upon which they were spoken, as introducing to the new state of things which was at hand. Their very character as outlining, rather than filling in, leaving much to be explained at an after-time, is perfectly suited to their introductory position. This is not, however, all that the Lord announces here; He adds, "And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven:" words which have been perhaps as much in contention as to their meaning as any of those connected with them here.

There need be no doubt that the terms "binding" and "loosing" have reference to, and are indeed but the application; in a Christian manner, of those in use among the Rabbins, and the Lord’s extension of them to the assembly in the eighteenth chapter shows absolutely that such power as is implied in them was not simply to belong to Simon Peter. Two or three gathered to Christ’s name have exactly the same authority, the same sanction of their acts; in either case the Lord uses the very same words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth," or "loose," "whatsoever ye shall bind," or "loose, on earth shall be bound (or loosed) in heaven." If this were the communication of even apostolic power to Peter, then every two or three gathered to Christ’s name have similar apostolic power. No one doubts, of course, that Peter had this; no one, I suppose, would claim it for the two or three. That is not in contention: the question is solely now of what these words convey. The same words must have the same meaning, if there is to be any certain meaning in words at all: the application, or limitation; must be found in the connection. Not even the Romanist would say that there was to be absolutely no limitation; even in Peter’s case; and if any did, be would have (if he would be consistent) to say exactly the same of every little gathering to the name of Jesus. No one certainly could press a conclusion in the one case that would not have exactly the same title to be pressed in the other.

Now, if we seek the limitation in the context, that in the case of the two or three is easily seen to be to cases of discipline needed to maintain the Lord’s honor in their midst. The assembly does not define doctrine, and has no right to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men." Christ alone is the authoritative Teacher, by His Spirit, and all we are brethren (Mat 23:8). But the assembly has to maintain by a holy discipline what is due to Him who is Head and Lord, and whatsoever is truly bound in this way is bound in heaven. Here moral conditions also, in the very nature of things, impose a limitation: for to "bind" a saint to do evil cannot be authorized in heaven; and it would be wickedness to maintain this.

When we take this back with us to Simon Peter’s case, we shall find similar limitations. The context does not speak of the discipline of an assembly, but of administration in the Kingdom of heaven. This is not the Church, but the sphere of individual responsibility to the Lord, and hence the individuality of the assurance, "thou" not "ye." The connection here is with the keys of the Kingdom, - with discipling into it: here individual teachers teach, and disciples baptize. There is no limit to any class that Scripture gives us, except the limit of capacity, and no control over others recognized except as all are subject to the common discipline of which we have been speaking.

Peter, therefore, in what the Lord says to him here, is not the apostle, but the confessor of his Lord. In his faith he does not stand alone, but is the representative of others. As Peter, the living "stone," he does not stand alone either. In his use of the "keys" he is not alone; and in teaching and baptizing, the sanction of heaven is put upon what is done on earth; but nowhere apart from such necessarily implied conditions as we all own must come in in the case of two or three gathered to the Lord’s name.

There is really no special difficulty in all this. The difficulties have been created for us by ecclesiastical views and claims which have grown up, as the Church, in the decline of spiritual power, came to lean upon external supports and to adopt a legal system as a refuge from license - the boat, as easier than walking on the water. Alas, it must be confessed it is but oh, that Peter might here be suffered to speak to us of what he found in his walk upon that boisterous sea to meet His Lord, and of that Hand stretched out to meet him when the storm was beyond his strength, with the words which rebuked, not his rashness in walking there, but the little faith that had made it to appear but rashness.

(2) All this already tells of rejection of the King. Now He declares it to them in plain words such as He had not uttered yet. Those who have just expressed their faith in Him as the Christ are now told that they are not to utter this to any man. There is no hope as to the nation, and He shows them that He must "go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up." It is not atonement of which He speaks, but of rejection by men, the human side of His death, and not the divine. But this brings out in him who had been the spokesman of the apostles the working of that which was not faith but the opposite of it, and in which the Lord discerned the attack of the enemy. "Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee, Lord: this shall never be to Thee!" But He, turning round, said unto Peter, "Get thee behind Me, Satan; for thou art an offence unto Me; for thou hast not a mind toward the things of God, but toward the things of men."

Thus quickly are the thoughts rebuked of those who would put Peter upon a throne of infallibility above all others. He is now sunk down into a mere ordinary man, with nothing but the thoughts of men; nay, an instrument of Satan to tempt the Lord Himself. Satan too would willingly have spared Him that Cross that He foresaw: for all the counsels of God hung upon it. From one side it was, indeed, but the awful wickedness of man; but from another the display of the glory of God, at once in righteousness and in love towards men. Peter knew not yet his own need, nor yet the unique place and dignity of his Master. He is praying God to be propitious to Him who is to be Himself the one propitiation for others; and to spare Him that by which propitiation could alone be wrought. Thus human wisdom may mistake its way, and human affection set itself against the path of divine love. And thus may the same man who has just now been drinking in, in faith, the revelation of God, without any consciousness of the transition, presently with equal zeal and earnestness be listening to the adversary! How we need constantly to pray, "Search me, O God, and try me!"

But the Lord not only declares His own path; He announces it as the path also of all His followers. What was peculiar to Himself in it, the cup that none but Himself could drink, He does not speak of, and here there is indeed an infinite difference; but as far as man’s part in it is concerned, He warns us all, "If any one will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it." Thus the conditions of discipleship are laid down with the most decisive plainness, for all without exception. It is a world which has crucified Christ through which our path lies, and we have to make up our mind to face it. It is evident that He does not hold out any hope of the world changing, nor therefore of the path changing. The style of its opposition perhaps may change - even in His case it varied but the opposition itself, proceeding from its unbelief in Him, could not possibly change, except by that unbelief being given up: and that would mean; of course, the world ceasing to exist, in all that which, according to Scripture, constitutes it the "world.

Its moral characteristics the apostle John describes for us, where he says that "all that is of the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1Jn 2:16). When men are no more characterised by these things, then the world (as such) will have ceased to exist. We know that this has not taken place, however, and Scripture never contemplates such a state before the Lord comes, at least. The path still exists for us, therefore: and the conditions of the path exist.

The Lord calls upon His people, therefore, to take their life in their hand, if necessary in order to follow Him. We must not "will" to keep it, if we "will" to follow Him. That is to be the spirit of our discipleship, and with the implication; of course, that we shall be tested as to it. We know how fully the generations immediately following the days of the Lord on earth were tested - how often the cross and the sword and the flame made His people fully understand the conditions which He here proclaims. Can we fairly refuse the application to ourselves today? or to ask whether there is not still, and for all of us, such a test remaining? or if the spirit of such discipleship must not be found with us at least in order to abide the test?

Our lot may be cast in so-called Christian times and lands, and the arm of open persecution may seem to be, if not shattered, at least so weakened, as to permit us to look upon a test of this kind, for most of us, as hardly to be made. Christian profession is mostly in repute Christians themselves are in high places of authority, the government as a whole would not wish to be considered other than Christian. The world still exists, but, as the parables we have considered show, and as we all must recognize, has changed its tactics. As Pharisees and Sadducees followed John when all the rest were doing so, so the world largely follows Christ now, after its own worldly fashion. The Church too, bids for popularity, and does not disclaim but is glad of the alliance. Amid all this, is it not possible for the spirit of discipleship any longer to find a cross, when the Church and the world unite to say, "Lord, Lord," and you are only asked not to take too seriously the things that He says?

Some way it must surely be that the Lord’s words here must have to us also, if we are disciples, some present application and that straightforward obedience, in the laxest and easiest times, would (even on that very account) find penalty of some real kind in seeking to follow Christ according to His word rather than popular interpretations of it. If this be not just the losing life, this cannot make it less imperative for one to suffer it; and good it is to go back in thought to times in which men in reality "suffered the loss of all things," and even counted them but dung that they might win Christ." There can be no question that the Christ they went after in that way seemed to them unspeakably glorious; and for us it will be well indeed it; being the same Christ, He shine as bright.

The Lord closes here with that appeal to consider the soul’s value which has rung through so many hearts since then "For what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" The question needs no answer: the impossibility to answer it is the answer. He adds, that it is the Son of man, soon to come in glory, who will render to every one according to his doings. Some of those standing there, moreover, should not taste of death until they saw the Son of man coming in His Kingdom.

(3) The reference made by one present at the Transfiguration (which now follows) to this as making visible "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:16) should settle all question as to meaning of the last quoted words opinions as to which have been, however, most various. The great variety has all arisen from taking "the Son of man coming in His Kingdom" in a non-natural way as applying to the destruction of Jerusalem and the going out of the gospel and its successes, - both entirely different things. "The Son of man coming in His Kingdom" is a plain reference to the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:13-14), which indeed in like manner has been interpreted as applying to the "gospel dispensation," or the Kingdom in that "mystery" form in which we have seen it in the parables of the thirteenth chapter. But this is not the Kingdom of the Son of man as Daniel and the New Testament agree in representing it. We find the expression; no doubt, in the interpretation of the parable of the "tares of the field" (ver. 41) but only when in time of harvest the end of the present time is reached, and the Son of man (having come) sends forth His angels to gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and those that work iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire. Then; clearly, the gospel dispensation will be over, and the Kingdom will have taken its open and millennial form.

That the Kingdom of the Son of man is not the present one, the Lord’s words to the overcomer in Laodicea (Rev 3:21) make absolutely plain; in which He distinguishes between the throne on which He had sat down with His Father - where no mere man could ever sit - and His own throne, which He will share with His people. The opening vision (Rev 1:13) assures us that it is as "Son of man" that He is speaking here. Thus, then; the "Son of man coming in His Kingdom" cannot refer to the present period.

The second epistle of Peter again helps us as to the meaning of the transfiguration; when it speaks of our being called "by glory and virtue" (2Pe 1:3). Glory at the end awaits us, to be reached by a pathway of trial, which necessitates "virtue" (or "courage") to endure it. The apostle evidently refers to what is recorded in the Gospel here, the transfiguration being directly spoken of in the latter part of the chapter, as we have already seen. In it he could not but realize the call of the glory. That which is at the end of the course is in it brought before the disciples at the beginning, to animate and strengthen them in view of what has just been declared as to the conditions of discipleship, and he can appeal to it in proof that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty: for He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came to Him such a voice from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; and this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him on the holy mount." Thus it is the goal before them that is here exhibited to them, but the glory of the Kingdom, not the still more wondrous glory of which John speaks, "the glory of the Only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father." It is the human side that is here dwelt upon; though of course one cannot be separated from the other. John does not give us the transfiguration; because the Only-begotten (as such) cannot be transfigured.

The "after six days" with which the account begins, both here and in Mark, (in Luke differently expressed as "about an eight days after,") has reference, I believe, to the final character of what the scene here pictures, after the time of labor and of overcoming is fulfilled. The three disciples whom alone the Lord takes up with Him to witness it, point out to us the need of intimacy with Him such as only the comparatively few possess, if we would enjoy such disclosures. The "high mountain" most probably was Hermon; which was near Caesarea Philippi, but it is not named, and were this certain; we could base nothing on it. Earth has in fact no knowledge of the elevations where such visions of the future may be enjoyed, though even yet it is not so poor as to be without them; and at these times and places it is still the Lord Himself who puts on special glory before the eyes of those so blest as to behold it, and who is the glorious Centre around which all else revolves. So it surely will be in the day of His coming which is here before us. His face will shine as the sun,* for with Him the day will come - the blessed day in which the watch-night ends; and His apparel will be as the light, for it is with the light the sun apparels itself. It is God who is manifested in Him, and God is light. Earth is no more an outcast, but brought nigh.

{*Notice, that it is only Matthew who says this. Mark draws attention altogether to His garments. Luke says, His countenance was altered, and His raiment was white and glistering. The dispensational character of Matthew is here again strongly marked.}

Another thing takes place which strikes them with special wonder. "And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him." In the two other Gospels there are slight differences which yet must have significance: Mark says, "Elias with Moses;" Luke, in evident accordance with the character of the truth as he presents it, presses the fact of men being in such a place: "two men, which were Moses and Elias." In Matthew the lawgiver and the prophet of judgment because of the broken law, are mentioned in the natural order to remind us of this relation to each other. And they are talking with Jesus: so they had been; we may say, all through the centuries. Law in its fulfilment and law in its non-fulfilment, both alike required and foretold Him whose coming as the Priest-King is the full end of them reached. With Elias judgment itself is 4n view of-restoration; and the last note of the Old Testament prophecy ends with the announcement of his preparation work. Thus Moses and Elias have each a special suitability in connection with this anticipation of the coming of the King. The ages are thus seen all through in harmony; and with power in the hand of Christ eternal harmony is perfectly secured.

Peter’s voice breaks in, even here, and with words which show how he has failed to realize the meaning of the glorious vision. Terribly like his would-be followers today, he would enshrine the saints alongside of Christ, and make the Kingdom which is to come a present thing; giving, moreover, his help as if it were needed to accomplish this! But here he is stopped at once, and by an overwhelming spectacle: "There came a bright cloud and overshadowed them" the well-known token of the Divine Presence as it had led Israel of old through the desert, and dwelt in the sanctuary, - "and behold a Voice out of the cloud which said: This is My beloved Son; in whom I am well pleased; hear Him." No wonder that, "when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces, and were sore afraid." It was, in fact, the holiest of all unveiled. They stood where, only once a year, and with covering incense and atoning blood, the feet of the high priest alone might stand. And they were but men of the people, no sacrifice in their hand, no covering incense, and the glorious Presence, which had long been absent from the temple, - nay, had never appeared since the captivity in Babylon, - was indeed here. He whom none could see and live, had drawn nigh to them, and they heard His voice, as the people had heard it of old, when they prayed, in their fear, that they might no more hear it.

Yet all else was changed from the time of the shaking mount. Nor was it the Law which was now proclaimed to them, a law which brought but the knowledge of sin; and was, indeed, its "strength" (1Co 15:56). This Voice pointed them but to the Son of God, whom Peter had but just now confessed as this, their own gracious Master; to put Him in His rightful place, and separate Him from all their misconceptions - from the misconceptions which, alas, have nevertheless followed Him since, and still follow Him. Moses and Elias had but been drawn thither by Him who had drawn them also, and opened heaven to them. Moses cannot open heaven; Elias brings but fire out of it, though he himself is caught away there: in Christ, the Son; the Father’s Name is revealed, the object of the Father’s heart is found, communion with God is attained, the throne of God becomes a throne of grace, His "Kingdom righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom 14:17). In all this He is alone, and thus alone is to be heard.

He comes now, therefore, and touches them, and says what He alone is able to say to such as we are, "Arise, and be not afraid." And now all else has disappeared: they see no man but Jesus only.

Here we have, then; the central features of the Kingdom, as Christ Himself will introduce it. In Moses and Elias, the dead and the living saints are represented the glory in which He is seen is that of the Son of man; and the glory of His Father is also here. Thus the hearts of the disciples are strengthened in view of the cross by the knowledge of the end before them. "The knowledge of His glory" is given to sustain them by the way: "glory and virtue" are linked together as principles of the divine calling; for if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him."

(4) After all, as yet even these favored disciples know little of what is implied by this glorious vision and the rest seem not to have been prepared for it in any way, so that it is forbidden to be told them. It would not have given light, but dazzled. They themselves, as Mark tells us, did not know what the rising from the dead of which He spoke could mean; yet it was to be so soon the heart of their message. That Elias was to come and restore all things, as the scribes declared, they could not reconcile with the fact that Messiah was here, and as to the general condition nothing seemed accomplished. Elias they had just seen; but in what different connection! and the very glory of the heavenly vision only seemed, doubtless, to show the more the darkness of things on earth. They turn to Him with this question; which He answers with the assurance that Elias was indeed to come and to restore; but he had already come unrecognized, and men had treated him according to what was in their hearts. So too the Son of man was presently to suffer from them. And then they know that He has been speaking of John the Baptist.

But in fact it was difficult for them to reconcile what was so opposite: Messiah upon whom all depended for them, yet cut off and having nothing. And the divine purpose could not fail; but how could they imagine a victory by defeat, a cross as the way to glory? Israel rejecting also and rejected, and yet the promises to be fulfilled to her in spite of all. In fact, as Christians, we from another side have found it hard to keep the even balance of truth as to just these things. John was the Elias for his day, but "if they would receive it," as the Lord had already declared. It was in the wisdom of God that he should be so offered them for their acceptance, that there might be the complete trial of man thus: John being "sent to bear witness of that Light" whom he preceded, and who yet (as Light) needed no such witness, if they had had eyes to see. Alas, they had not eyes or hearts; and Elias, for the fulfilment of the message of Malachi, has yet to come, as Christ has also, to bring in the blessing of Israel to a repentant people. Meanwhile more wondrous purposes are being disclosed.

(5) The weakness and folly of man (which are but his perversity) are now exhibited among those who have received Christ, and have received from Him also a power which they are not competent to use. It is this which the case of the lunatic child is evidently intended to impress upon us. The disciples had been applied to, to cast out the demon, for which they had had authority given them by the Lord, and they had failed to do so. The father brings his child to Christ with this statement; and it is this which forces from Him the groan over a "faithless and perverse generation" by whom the love which bound Him to them was made to suffer through their unbelief. Seldom does the Lord exhibit to us so clearly the trial of uncongeniality which was His amid His chosen associates. Here it is openly exhibited, and the occasion was such as to require that the cause of a failure which had been manifest should be manifest also.

But He remained still, only the more seen as the unique dependence of His people. "Bring him to Me," is the assurance of resources that cannot be overtaxed, at the command of a love that cannot be too absolutely relied on. Accordingly the demon departs, and the child is healed. Matthew does not give us the details which we find in Mark, but leaves thus the main point clearer, the glorious power so freely used, where disciples have failed, with all else. But the failure must be searched out, and the disciples themselves inquire about it. They are not conscious of the cause of it, which the Lord had already implicitly declared, and now does explicitly: "Because of your little faith: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain; Depart hence, and it shall depart; and nothing shall be impossible to you." This implies, of course, that we are on the path of His appointment for us: for, indeed, faith is impossible for any other; and the suggestive figure of the mountain speaks clearly of the disappearance of the most firmly rooted obstacles in a path like this. In the path of self-will and self-indulgence, how vain would it be to expect anything of this kind! And this the closing words here show: for "prayer" is vain - "we ask and have not," when we "ask amiss, to consume it upon our lusts" - or "pleasures" (Jas 4:3); - and "fasting," if it is to have any spiritual value, implies self-mortification. People often speak of having (or not having) faith for the path; the truth is, we must have the path for faith: faith for any other path than God’s is plainly an impossibility.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 13

The New Departure (Founding of the Church.) - Mat_16:13-28; Mat_17:1-21

THIS conversation at Caesarea Philippi is universally regarded as marking a new era in the life of Christ. His rejection by "His own" is now complete. Jerusalem, troubled at His birth, had been troubled once again when He suddenly came to His Temple, and began to cleanse it in His Fathers name; and though many at the feast were attracted by His deeds of mercy, He could not commit Himself to any of them: {Joh_2:24} there was no rock there on which to build His Church. He had passed through Samaria, and found there fields white unto the harvest, but the time of reaping was not yet. Galilee had given better promise: again and again it had appeared as if the foundation of the new kingdom would be firmly laid in the land of "Zebulun and Naphtali"; but there had been bitter and crushing disappointment, - even the cities where most of His mighty works were done repented not. The people had eagerly welcomed His earthly things; but when He began to speak to them of heavenly things they "went back, and walked no more with Him." And though opportunity after opportunity was given them while He hovered on the outskirts, ever and anon returning to the familiar scenes, they would not repent; they would not welcome or even receive the kingdom of God which Christ came to found. The country has been traversed from the wilderness of Judea, in the far south, even unto Dan; and as there had been no room for the Infant King in the inn, so there was none in all the land for the infant kingdom.

Thus it comes to pass that, with the very small band He has gathered around Him-called in the land indeed, but now of necessity called to come out of it-He withdraws to the neighbourhood of the Gentile town of Caesarea Philippi; not for seclusion only, but, as the event shows, to found an Ecclesia-His Church. The scenery in this region is exceptionally beautiful, and the place was in every way suited for a season of quiet communion with nature and with natures God. It was, moreover, just outside the land; and in the place and surroundings there was much that must have been suggestive and inspiring. Is not this great mountain, on one of the southern flanks of which they are now resting, the mighty Hermon, the great landmark of the north, rearing its snowy head on high to catch the precious clouds of heaven, and enrich with them the winds that shall blow southward over Palestine? And are not these springs which issue from the rock beside them the sources of the Jordan, the sacred river? As the dew of Hermon, and as the flowing of the water-springs, shall be that Church of the living God, which, as the sequel will unfold, had its first foundation on this rocky hillside and by these river sources.

Into this remote and rocky region, then, the Master has retired with the small band of faithful disciples, on whom alone He can depend for the future. But can He depend even on them? Have they not been tainted with the general apostasy? Does He not already know one of them to be in heart a traitor? {cf. Joh_6:70} And have not all of them just needed the caution themselves to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Are they really strong men of faith, like "faithful Abraham," or are they to be like reeds shaken by the wind? The time has come to test it. This He does, first by asking them what they think of Himself, and then by showing them what they must expect if they still will follow Him. First there must be the test of faith, to ascertain what they have learned from their intercourse with Him in the past; then the test of hope, lest their attachment to Him should be based on expectations doomed to disappointment.

I-THE CHRIST. {Mat_16:13-20}

The faith test is a strictly personal one. We have seen how the Master has, so to speak, focussed His gospel in Himself. He had begun by preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and calling men to repentance; but as time passed on He found it necessary to make a more personal appeal, pressing His invitations in the winning form, "Come unto Me." When things came to a crisis in Galilee He first in symbol and then in word set Himself before the people as the bread of life, which each one must receive and eat if he would live. Thus He has been making it more and more evident that the only way to receive the Kingdom of God is to welcome Himself as the Son of the living God come to claim the hearts of men for His Father in heaven. How is it with the little band? Is theirs the popular notion, which classes the Son of God as only one among other gifted sons of men, or do they welcome Him in the plenitude of His divine prerogative and power? Hence the first inquiry, which brings out the answer: "Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." This is manifestly the popular idea at its highest and best. There were, no doubt, among the people those whose thought already was "Away with Him! away with Him!" But it might well go without saying that the disciples had no sympathy with these. It did, however, remain to be seen whether they were not content, like the rest of the people, to accept Him as a teacher sent from God, a great prophet of Israel, or at most a John the Baptist, the mere herald of the coming King. We can imagine, then, with what intensity of feeling the Master would look into the disciples eyes as He put the testing question, "But whom say ye that I am?" and with what joy He would hail the ready response of their spokesman Peter, when, with eyes full of heavenly light and heart glowing with sacred fire, he exclaimed, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!"

It would be beyond belief, were it not so sadly familiar a fact, that some, professing honestly to interpret this passage, resolve the answer of the apostle into little or nothing more than the popular idea, as if the Sonship here referred to were only what any prophet or righteous man might claim. He surely must be wilfully blind who does not see that the apostolic answer which the Lord accepts is wide as the poles from the popular notions He so decisively rejects; and this is made peculiarly emphatic by the striking words with which the true answer is welcomed-the Saviours first personal beatitude as if to suggest, His is the kingdom of heaven:- {cf. Mat_5:3; Mat_5:10} "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." It will be remembered that, in asserting His own personal relation to the Father, Christ had said: "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him"; {Mat_11:27} and now that to one at least the Father has been revealed in the Son, He recognises the fact with joy. These notions of the people about Him were but earth-born notions, the surmisings of "flesh and blood": this faith of the true apostle was born from above; it could have come only from heaven.

Now at last, therefore, the foundation is laid, and the building of the spiritual temple is begun. The words which follow (Mat_16:18) are quite natural and free from most, if not from all, the difficulties in which perverse human ingenuity has entangled them, if only we bear in mind the circumstances and surroundings. The little group is standing on one of the huge rocky flanks of mighty Hermon, great boulders here and there around them; and in all probability, well in sight, some great stones cut out of the rock and made ready for use in building, like those still to be seen in the neighbourhood of Baalbec, to the north of Hermon; for this region was famous for its great temples. Now, when we remember that the two words our Lord uses (πετρος and πετρα) for "rock" in our version have not precisely the same meaning-the one (Petros, Peter) signifying a piece of rock, a stone, the other (Petra) suggesting rather the great bed-rock out of which these stones are cut and on which they are lying-we can understand that, while the reference is certainly in the first place to Peter himself, the main thing is the great fact just brought out that he is resting, in the strength of faith, on God as revealed in His Son. Thus, while Peter is certainly the piece of rock, the first stone which is laid upon the great underlying foundation on which all the faithful build, and therefore is in a sense-the common popular sense, in fact-the foundation stone, yet the foundation of all is the Bed-Rock, on which the first stone and all other stones are laid. Bearing this well in mind, we further see that there is no inconsistency between this and those other scriptures in which God is represented as alone the Rock of our salvation. The Bed-Rock, "the Rock of Ages," is here, as elsewhere, God as revealed in His Son, and Peter is the first stone "well and truly laid" upon it.

If the surroundings suggest the use of the words "Petros" and "Petra," stone and rock, the circumstances suggest the use of the word Ecclesia, or Church, which is here employed by our Lord for the first time. Up to this time He has spoken always of the kingdom, never of the church. How is this to be explained? Of course the kingdom is the larger term; and now it is necessary that that portion of the kingdom which is to be organised on earth should be distinguished by a specific designation; and the use of the word "church" in preference to the more familiar "synagogue" may be accounted for by the desire to avoid confusion. Besides this, however, the word itself is specially significant. It means an assembly "called out," and suggests the idea of separateness, so appropriate to the circumstances of the little band of outcasts.

To see into this more fully let us recall the recent teaching as to the true Israel (chap. 15.), no longer to be found in the old land of Israel. If there is to be an Israel at all, it must be reconstituted "outside the camp." In view of this, how strikingly significant is it that just as Abraham had to leave his country and go to a strange land to found the old theocracy, so Christ has to leave His country and go with His followers to those remote northern regions to constitute "the Israel of God," to inaugurate His Church, the company of those who, like these faithful ones, come out and are separate to be united by faith to Him! Christ with the Twelve around Him is the Israel. of the New Testament; and we can imagine that it was on this occasion especially that in the prayers which we know from St. Lukes Gospel He offered in connection with this very conversation, He would find these words of devotion especially appropriate: "Behold, I and the children which God hath given Me". {Heb_2:13} The family of God {see Mat_12:49} are by themselves apart, disowned by those who still bear unworthily the name of Israel; and most appropriate it is that on this occasion our Lord should begin to use that great word, which means first "called out" and then "gathered in": "on this rock I will build MY CHURCH."

When we think of the place and the scene and the circumstances, the sad memories of the past and the gloomy forebodings for the future, what sublimity of faith must we recognise in the words which immediately follow: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"! Oh! shame on us who grow faint-hearted with each discouragement, when the Master, with rejection behind Him and death before Him, found it encouragement enough after so much toil to make a bare beginning of the new temple of the Lord; and even in that day of smallest things was able to look calmly forward across the troubled sea of the dark future and already raise the shout of final victory!

But that day of victory is still far off; and before it can even begin to come, there must be a descent into the valley of the shadow of death. He is about to tell His disciples that He must go up to Jerusalem and die, and leave them to be the builders of the Church. He cannot continue long to be the Keeper of the keys; so He must prepare them for taking them from His hand when the time shall come for Him to go. Hence the words which follow, appropriately addressed in the first place to the disciple who had first confessed Him: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." "Honour to whom honour is due": the first member of the Church is to be its prime minister as well. When the Masters voice shall be silent, the voice of the rock-disciple (and of the other disciples as well, for the same commission was afterwards extended to them all) shall have the same authority to bind, to loose, to regulate the administration of Church affairs as if He Himself were with them. It is not yet time to tell them how it would be-viz., by the coming and indwelling of His Spirit; it is enough now to give them the assurance that the infant Church shall not be left without authority from above, without power from on high.

The Church is founded; but for a time it must remain in obscurity. The people are not ready; and the gospel which is to be the power of God unto salvation, is not yet complete, until He shall go up to Jerusalem and suffer many things and die. Till then all that has passed in this sacred northern retreat must remain a secret: "He charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ" (R.V).

II-THE CROSS. {Mat_16:21-28}

A still more searching test must now be applied. It is not enough to discover what they have learned from their intercourse with Him in the past; He must find out whether they have courage enough to face what is now impending in the future. Their faith in God as revealed in Christ His Son has been well approved. It remains to be seen whether it is strong enough to bear the ordeal of the cross, to which it must soon be subjected: "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed."

Already from time to time He had darkly hinted what manner of death He should die; but it was only from this time that He began to show it unto them, to put it before them so that they could not fail to see it. Herein see the wisdom and tender considerateness of "the Son of man." So dark and difficult a lesson would have been too much for them before. The ordeal would have been too severe. Not until their faith has begun with some firmness to grasp His true and proper divinity, can their hope live with such a prospect. There must be some basis for a faith in His rising again, before He can ask them even to look into the dark abyss of death into which He must descend. That basis is found in the confession of the rock-apostle; and relying on it He can trust them by-and-by, if not at once, to look through the darkness of the suffering and death to the rising again, the prospect of which He sets before them at the very same time: "and be raised again the third day." Besides, there was no possibility of their ever beginning to understand the atonement till they had grasped the truth of the incarnation. To this day the one is intelligible only in the light of the other. Those to whom Jesus of Nazareth is only "one of the prophets" cannot begin to see how He must suffer and die. Only those who with the apostles rise to the realisation of His divine glory are prepared to understand anything of the mystery of His Cross and Passion.

As yet, however, the mystery is too deep and the prospect too dark even for them, as becomes painfully evident from the conduct of the bravest of them all, who "took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee."

We naturally and properly blame the presumption of the apostle, who, when he did not understand, might at least have been silent, or have contented himself with some modest question, instead of this unbecoming remonstrance with One Whose Messiahship and Divine Sonship he had just confessed. But, though we may blame him for what he said, we cannot wonder at what he thought and felt. The lesson of the cross is just beginning. The disciples are just entering a higher form in the Masters school; and it does not follow, because they have undergone so well their examination on the great lesson of the past, that they are prepared all at once to take in what must be the great lesson of the future. They have had time for the first: may they not be allowed time for the second? Why, then, is Peter reproved so very severely?

We may say, indeed, that faithfulness to Peter himself required it. The strong commendation with which his noble confession has been greeted, instead of making him humble, as it ought to have done, inasmuch as it reminded him that it was not of himself but from above he had the power to make it, seems to have made him over-confident, trustful to that very flesh and blood to which he had been assured he was, in regard to that confession, in no wise indebted. It was therefore necessary that the warm commendation accorded to the strength of his faith should be balanced by an equally strong condemnation of his unbelief. But there is more than this to be said. Christ is looking at Peter, and speaking to Peter; but he recognises another, whom He names and whom in the first place he addresses: "Get thee behind Me, Satan." He recognises the same old enemy, with the same old weapon of assault; for it is the same temptation as that which formed the climax of the conflict in the wilderness, a temptation to prosecute His work by methods which would spare Him the awful agony of the cross. The devil had departed from Him then; but only, as we were informed, "for a season"; and there are frequent indications in the subsequent history that at critical times the great adversary took opportunities of renewing the old temptation. This is one of these occasions. Let us by all means bear in mind that our Lord was true man-that He was "compassed with infirmity," that He was "tempted in all points like as we are," though ever without sin; let us not imagine, then, that His human soul was always on so serene a height that the words of one who loved Him and whom He loved so much would have no effect on Him. It was hard enough for Him to face the awful darkness, without having this new stumbling-block set in His path. It is a real temptation, and a most dangerous one; He may not therefore tamper with it for a moment: He may not allow His affection for His true disciple to blind Him to the real Source of it; He must realise with whom He has to deal; He must behind the love of the apostle recognise the malice of the evil one, who is using him as his instrument; accordingly, with His face set as a flint, with His whole being braced for resistance, so that not a hairs-breadth shall be yielded, He says: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto Me" (R.V) - words which clearly indicate that He had recognised the danger, and summoned the resources of His faith and obedience to put the stumbling-block away.

"Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." We may be sure, therefore, that so soon as the energetic words were spoken he was gone: the stumbling-block was out of the way. The words which follow may therefore be regarded as spoken to Peter himself, to bring to his own consciousness the difference between the heavenly faith which had come by revelation from above, and the earthly doubt and denial, which was evidently not of God, though so natural to flesh and blood: "Thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men" (R.V).

Thus once more the Christ of God takes up the cross of man. In doing so He not only sets aside the protest, uttered or unexpressed, of His disciples hearts; but He tells them plainly that they too must take the same dark path if they would follow Him: "Then said Jesus unto His disciples, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." So He tests them to the uttermost. He withdraws nothing He has said about the blessedness of those who welcome the kingdom of heaven; but the time has come to put the necessary condition in its strongest light, so that, if they still follow, it will be not blindly, . but with eyes fully open to all that it involves. He has given hints before of the stringency of the Divine requirement; He has spoken of the strait gate and the narrow way; now He goes to the very heart of that hard matter, and unfolds the innermost secret of the kingdom of heaven. "Let him deny himself": here is the pivot of all-the crux.

Be it observed that this is not " self-denial" as currently understood, a term applied to the denial to self of something or other which perhaps self cares very little about, but something much more radical. It is the denim of self involving as its correlative the giving of the life to God. It is the death of self-will, and the birth of God-will, as the central force of the life.

"Let him deny himself, and take up his cross." Each one has "his" cross, some point in which the will of God and self-will come in direct opposition. To the Captain of our salvation the conflict came in its very darkest and most dreadful form. Its climax was in the Garden, when after the great agony He cried: "Not My will, but Thine be done." Our conflict will not be nearly so severe: it may even be on a point that may seem small, -whether or not we will give up some besetting sin, whether or not we will do some disagreeable duty, whether or not we will surrender something which stands between us and Christ, -but whatever that be in which the will of God and our own will are set in opposition, there is our cross, and it must be taken up, and self must be denied that we may follow Christ. "They that are Christs have crucified the flesh."

Is this, then, the great salvation? Does it resolve itself into a species of suicide? Do we enter the kingdom of life by death? It is even so; and the words which follow resolve the paradox: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it." It is a surrender of life, certainly, for the giving up of self means the giving up of all; but these words "for My sake" make all the difference. It is a surrender which, in dethroning self, enthrones Christ in the life. It is dying indeed; but it is dying into life: it is an act of faith which puts an end to the old life of the flesh, and opens the gate for the new life of the spirit.

We have seen that all may hinge on some point that may seem quite small, in which case the sacrifice is plainly not to be compared with the compensation; but even when the very greatest sacrifice is demanded, it is folly not to make it: "For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?" (R.V). And, if life is forfeited, how can it be bought back again: "What shall a man give in exchange for his life"? (R.V) "In Him was life," and in Him is life still; therefore He is more to us than all the world. It is better to suffer the loss of all things for Christ than to have all that flesh and blood could desire without Him.

The world is very large; and the Son of man must have seemed very small and weak that day, as He told them of the coming days when He should suffer so many things at His enemies hands, and die; but this is only while the time of testing lasts: things will be seen in their true proportion by-and-by, when "the Son of man shall come" (what a golden background this to the dark prospect immediately before them! He must go; yes; but He shall come) "in the glory of His Father with His angels; then He shall reward every man according to his works." Thus, with the searching test the Saviour gives the reassuring prospect; and test by reason of its indefinite distance they may fail to find in it all the encouragement they need for the present distress, He gives them the further assurance that, before very long, there shall be manifest tokens of the coming glory of their now despised and slighted King: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom."

III-THE GLORY. {Mat_17:1-8}

"After six days"-the interval is manifestly of importance, for the three Evangelists who record the event all lay stress on it. St. Luke says "about an eight days," which indicates that the six days referred to by the others were days of interval between that on which the conversation at Caesarea Philippi took place and the morning of the transfiguration. It follows that we may regard this important epoch in the life of our Lord as covering a week; and may we not speak of it as His passion week in the north? The shadow of the cross was on Him all His life through; but it must have been much darker during this week than ever before. At the beginning of it He had been obliged for the first time to let that shadow fall upon His loved disciples, and the days which followed seem to have been given to thought and prayer, and quiet, unrecorded conversation. Beyond all question their thought would be fixed on the new subject of contemplation which had just been brought before them, and whatever conversation they had with one another and with the Master would have this for its centre. It cannot but have been a very sad and trying week. The first tidings of the approach of some impending disaster is often harder to bear than is the stroke itself when afterwards it falls. To the disciples the whole horizon of the future would be filled with darkest clouds of mystery; for though they had been told also of the rising again and the glory that should follow, they could as yet get little cheer from what lay so far in the dim distance, and was, moreover, so little understood that even after the vision on the mount, the favoured three questioned with each other what the rising from the dead might mean. {Mar_9:10} To the Master the awful prospect must have been much more definite and real; yet even to His human soul it could not have been free from that namelessness of mystery that must have made the anticipation in some respects as bad as the reality, rendering the week to Him a passion week indeed.

No wonder that at the end of it He has a great longing heavenward, and that He should ask the three most advanced of His disciples, who had been with Him in the chamber of death and were afterwards to be witnesses of His agony in the Garden, to go with Him to a high mountain apart. The wisdom of His taking only these three was afterwards fully apparent, when it proved that the experience awaiting them on the mountain-top was almost too much for even them to bear. It is of no importance to identify the mountain; probably it was one of the spurs of the Hermon range, at the base of which they had spent the intervening week. We can perfectly understand the sacred instinct which led the Saviour to seek the highest point which could be readily reached, so as to feel Himself for the time as far away from earth and as near to heaven as possible. When we think of this, what pathos is there in the reference to the height of the mountain and the loneliness of the spot: He "bringeth them up into a high mountain apart"!

We are told by St. Luke that they went up "to pray." It seems most natural to accept this statement as not only correct, but as a sufficient statement of the object our Saviour had in view. The thought of transfiguration may not have been in His mind at all. Here, as always, He was guided by the will of His Father in heaven; and it is not necessary to suppose that to His human mind that will was made known earlier than the occasion required. We are not told that He went up to be transfigured: we are told that He went up to pray.

It seems probable that the idea was to spend the night in prayer. We know that this was a not infrequent custom with Him; and if ever there seemed a call for it, it must have been now, when about to begin that sorrowful journey which led to Calvary. With this thought agree all the indications which suggest that it was evening when they ascended, night while they remained on the top, and morning when they came down. This, too, will account in the most natural manner for the drowsiness of the apostles; and the fact that their Lord felt none of it only proved how much more vivid was his realisation of the awfulness of the crisis than theirs was. We are to think of the four, then, as slowly and thoughtfully climbing the hill at eventide, carrying their abbas, or rugs, on which they would kneel for prayer, and which, if they needed rest, they would wrap around them, as is the Oriental custom. By the time they reached the top, night would have cast its veil of mystery on the grandeur of the mountains round about them: while snowy Hermon in the gloom would rise like a mighty giant to heaven, its summit "visited all night by troops of stars." Never before nor since has there been such a prayer meeting on this earth of ours.

A careful reading of all the records leads us to think of the following as the order of events. Having gone up to pray, they would doubtless all kneel down together. As the night wore on, the three disciples, being exhausted, would wrap themselves in their cloaks and go to sleep; while the Master, to whom sleep at such a time was unnatural, if not impossible, would continue in prayer. Can we suppose that that time of pleading was free from agony? His soul had been stirred within Him when Peter had tempted Him to turn aside from the path of the Cross; and may we not with reverence suppose that on that lonely hilltop, as later in the Garden, there might be in His heart the cry, "Father, if it be possible"? If only the way upward were open now! Has not the kingdom of God been preached in Judea, in Samaria, in Galilee, away to the very borderlands? and has not the Church been founded? and has not authority been given to the apostles? Is it, then, absolutely necessary to go back, back to Jerusalem, not to gain a triumph, but to accept the last humiliation and defeat? There cannot but have been a great conflict of feeling; and with all the determination to be obedient even unto death, there must have been a shrinking from the way of the cross, and a great longing for heaven and home and the Fathers welcome. The longing cannot be gratified: it is not possible for the cup to pass from Him; but just as later in Gethsemane there came an angel from heaven strengthening him, so now His longing for heaven and home and the smile of His Father is gratified in the gladdening and strengthening experience which followed His prayer-a foretaste of the heavenly glory, so vivid, so satisfying, that He will thenceforth be strong, for the joy that is set before Him, to endure the Cross, despising the shame. For behold, as He prays, His face becomes radiant, the glory within shining through the veil of His mortal flesh. We all know that this flesh of ours is more or less transparent, and that in moments of exaltation the faces of even ordinary men will shine as with a heavenly lustre. We need not wonder, then, that it should have been so with our Lord, only in an immeasurably higher degree: that His face should have shone even "as the sun"; and that, though He could not yet ascend to heaven, heavens brightness should have descended on Him and wrapped Him round, so that even "His raiment was white as the light." And not only heavenly light is round, but heavenly company; for "behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him."

The disciples could not sleep through all this. "When they were fully awake, they saw His glory, and the two men that stood with Him." {Luk_9:32, R.V} How they recognised them we are not told. It may have been through their conversation, which in part at least they understood; for the substance of it has been preserved in St. Lukes Gospel, where we read that they "spake of His decease (literally, exodus) which He should accomplish at Jerusalem." The human soul of Jesus no doubt longed for an exodus here and now, from this very height of Hermon in the presence of God; but He knows this cannot be: His exodus must be accomplished in a very different way, and at Jerusalem. This Moses and Elijah knew; and their words must have brought Him encouragement and strength, and given steadiness and assurance to the wavering hearts of Peter, James, and John.

That the conversation was intended for their benefit as well, seems indicated by the way in which Peters intervention is recorded: "Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus." What he said is quite characteristic of the impulsive discipline, so ready to speak without thinking. On this occasion he blunders in a very natural and pardonable way. He feels as if he ought to say something; and, as nothing more to the purpose occurs to him, he blurts out his thoughtless proposal to make three tabernacles for their abode. Besides the thoughtlessness of this speech, which is manifest enough, there seems to lurk in it a sign of his falling back into the very error which a week ago he had renounced-the error of putting his Master in the same class as Moses and Elias, reckoning Him thus, as the people of Galilee had done, simply as "one of the prophets." If so, his mistake is at once corrected; for behold a bright luminous cloud-fit symbol of the Divine presence: the cloud suggesting mystery, and the brightness, glory-wraps all from sight, and out of the cloud there comes a voice: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him."

We now see how appropriate it was that just these two should be the heavenly messengers to wait upon the Son of man on this occasion. The one represented the law, the other the prophets. "The law and the prophets were until John"; but both are now merged in the gospel of Jesus, Who is all and in all. Moses and Elijah have long had audience of the people of God; but behold a greater than Moses or Elijah is here, and they must withdraw; and accordingly, when the Voice is silent and the cloud has cleared away, Jesus is left alone. No one remains to divide His authority and none to share His sorrow. He must tread the winepress alone. Moses and Elijah return to the world of spirits-Jesus, Gods beloved Son, to the world of men. And all His human sympathies were fresh and quick as ever; for, finding His three disciples fallen on their faces for fear, He came and touched them, saying, "Arise, and be not afraid." They no doubt thought their Lord had laid aside His human body, and left them all alone upon the mountain; but with His human hand He touched them, and with His human voice He called them as of old, and with His human heart He welcomed them again. Reassured, they lifted up their eyes, and saw their Lord-the man Christ Jesus as before-and no one else. All is over; and as the world is unprepared for it, the vision is sealed until the Son of man be risen from the dead.

Why were their lips sealed? The more we think of it, the more we shall see the wisdom of this seal of secrecy, even from the other nine; for had they been prepared to receive the revelation, they would have been privileged to witness it. The transfiguration was no mere wonder; it was no sign granted to incredulity: it was one of those sacred experiences for rare spirits in rare hours, which nature itself forbids men to parade, or even so much as mention, unless constrained to it by duty.

It is one of the innumerable notes of truth found, wherever aught that is marvellous is recorded in these Gospels, that the glory on the mount is not appealed to, to confirm the faith of any but the three who witnessed it. Upon them it did produce a deep and abiding impression. One of them, indeed, died a martyrs death so very early that we have nothing from his; {Act_12:2} but both the others have left us words written late in their after life, which show now ineffaceable was the impression produced upon them by what they saw that memorable night. John evidently has it in mind, both in the beginning of his Epistle and of his Gospel, as where he says: "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"; and Peter thus conveys the assurance which the experience of that night left with him to the end: "We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount." But while the impression made upon the three who witnessed it was so deep and abiding, it could not be expected to have any direct evidential value to others; accordingly it remained unused in their dealings with others until their Masters work had been crowned by His resurrection from the dead, which was to be the sign, as He had again and again said to those who kept asking. Him for a sign from heaven. The transfiguration was indeed a sign from heaven; but it was no sign for a faithless generation: it was only for those who "by the strength of their faith and the purity of their devotion were prepared to receive it. Signs fitted to satisfy the doubting heart had been wrought in great abundance"; {Mat_11:4-5} and the crowning sign was to be certified by many infallible proofs, after which it would be time to speak of the experience of that sacred night upon the holy mount.

How fitly the transfiguration closes this memorable week! As we linger with the Lord and His disciples at the sources of the Jordan, we realise that we have reached what we may call the water-shed of doctrine in His training of the Twelve. Slowly have they been rising in their thoughts of Christ, until at last they recognise His true divinity, and make a clear and full confession of it. But no sooner have they reached that height of truth than they are constrained to look down into the dark valley before them, at the bottom of which they dimly see the dreadful cross; and then, to comfort and reassure, there is this vision of the glory that shall follow. Thus we have, in succession, the three great doctrines of the faith: Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection. There is first the glory of Christ as the Son of God; then His shame as Bearer of our sin; then the vision of the glory that shall follow, the glory given to Him as His reward. For may we not regard that company upon the mount as a miniature of the Church in heaven and on earth? There was the great and glorified Head of the Church, and round Him five representative members: two from the family in heaven, three from the family on earth-those from the Church triumphant, these from the Church still militant-those from among the saints of the old covenant, these the firstfruits of the new. Could there have been a better representation of "the whole family in heaven and on earth"? How appropriate that the passion week of the north, which began with the founding of the Church in the laying of its first stone, should end with a vision of it as completed, which must to some extent have been a fulfilment of the promise. "He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied"!

Observe, too, in quick succession, the great key-words of the new age: The Christ, {Mat_16:16} The Church (Mat_16:18), The Cross (Mat_16:24), The Glory (Mat_16:27): the latter, as still in the future, made real by the glory on the holy mount. The mediaeval interpreters, always on the watch for the symbolism of numbers, especially the number three, regarded Peter as the apostle of faith, James of hope, and John of love. And though we may set this aside as a touch of fancy, we Cannot fail to observe that just as the mind, in its grasp of truth, is led from the incarnation to the atonement, and thence to the resurrection and the glory that shall follow; so the cardinal graces of the Christian life are called out in quick succession: first faith with its rock-foundation; then love with its self-sacrificing devotion; and finally hope with its vision of heavenly glory. The whole gospel of Christ, the whole life of the Christian, is found in this brief passage of the first Evangelist, ending with the suggestive words, "Jesus only."

IV-THE DESCENT. {Mat_17:9-21}

Who can tell what each step downward cost the Son of man? If it seemed good to the disciples to be on the mountain-top, what must it have been to the Master! and what utter denial of self and conscious taking up of the cross it must have been to leave that hallowed spot! We have already seen a reason, as regards the disciples, why the vision should be sealed till the time of the end; but was there not also a reason which touched the Master Himself? It was well that He had enjoyed such a time of refreshing-it would be something to look back to in darkest hours; but it must be a memory only: it may not therefore be a subject of conversation-not the glory, but the cross, must now, both for Himself and for His disciples, fill all the near horizon.

This view of the case is confirmed by the manner in which He deals with their question respecting Elijah. It was a very natural question. It was no doubt perplexing in many ways to be absolutely forbidden to tell what they had seen; but it seemed especially mysterious in view of Elijahs appearance, which they not unnaturally regarded as a fulfilment of the prophecy for which the scribes were waiting. Hence their question, "Why, then, say the Scribes that Elias must first come?" Our Lords answer turned their thoughts to the true fulfilment of the prophecy, which was no shadowy appearance on a lonely hill, but the real presence among the men of the time of a genuine reformer who had come in the spirit and power of Elijah, and who would certainly have restored all things, had not these very scribes and Pharisees, failing to recognise him, left him to the will of the tyrant who had done away with him. Then most significantly He adds, that as it had been with the Elijah, so would it be with the Messiah of the time: "Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them." Thus, in showing them where to look for the true fulfilment of the prophecy, He turns their attention as well as His own away from the glory on the mount, which must now be a thing of the past, to that dark scene in the prison cell, which was so painfully impressed upon their minds, and those still darker scenes in the near future of which it was the presage.

At the foot of the mountain there is presented one of those striking contrasts with which, as we have seen, this Gospel abounds. It is very familiar to us through Raphaels great painting; and we shall certainly not make the mistake of attempting to translate into our feeble words what is there seen, and may now be regarded as "known and read of all men." Leaving, therefore, to the imagination the contrast between the glory on the mount and the misery on the plain, let us briefly look at the scene itself. Briefly; for though it well deserves detailed treatment, the proper place for this would be the full record of it in the second Gospel; while the more general way in which it is presented here suggests the propriety of dealing with it in outline only. Without, then, attempting to enter on the striking and most instructive details to be found in St. Marks Gospel, and without even dealing with it as we have endeavoured to deal with similar cures under the head of the Signs of the Kingdom, it may be well to glance at it in the light of the words used by our Lord when He was confronted with the sorrowful scene: "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?"

It seems evident from these words that He is looking at the scene, not so much as presenting a case of individual suffering, appealing to His compassion, as a representation in miniature of the helplessness and perverseness of the race of men He has come to save. Remember how well He knew what was in man, and therefore what it must have been to Him, immediately after such a season of pure and peaceful communion on the holy mount, to have to enter into sympathy with all the variety of helplessness and confusion He saw around Him. There is the poor plague-stricken boy in the centre; beside him his agonised father; there, the feeble and blundering disciples, and the scribes {Mar_9:14} questioning with them; and all around the excited, sympathetic, and utterly perplexed multitude. Yet the kingdom of heaven is so near them, and has been so long proclaimed among them! Alas! alas for the perversity of men, that blinds them to the Sun of Righteousness, already arisen with healing in His wings, and for the unbelief even of the disciples themselves, which renders them, identified though they are with the kingdom, as helpless as all the rest! When we think of all this, need we wonder at the wail which breaks from the Saviours sorrowful heart, need we wonder that He cries "How long? how long?"

"Bring him hither to Me." Here is the solvent of all. "From that very hour" the boy is cured, the fathers heart is calmed and filled with gladness, the cavillers are silenced, the multitudes are satisfied, and the worn-out faith of the disciples is renewed. Out of chaos, order, out of tumult, peace, by a word from Christ. It was a wilder sea than Galilee at its stormiest; but at His rebuke the winds and waves were stilled, and there was a great calm.

So would it be still, if this generation were not perverse and faithless in its turn-the world perverse, the Church faithless. Above the stormy sea of human sin and woe and helplessness, there still is heard the lamentation "How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?" Here are we groaning and travailing in this late age of the world and of the Church, the worst kind of demons still working their wilt in their poor victims, the cry of anxious parents going up for lost children, disciples blundering and failing in well-meant efforts to cast the demons out, wise and learned scribes pointing at them the finger of scorn, excited and angry multitudes demanding satisfaction which they fail to get-Oh, if only all could hear the voice of the Son of man as the multitude heard it that day; and if we would only with one consent recognise the majesty of His face and mien as they did, {see Mar_9:15} bring to Him our plague-stricken ones, our devil-possessed, bring to Him our difficulties and perplexities, our vexed questions and our hard problems, would He not as of old bring order out of our chaos, and out of weakness make us strong? Oh, for more faith, faith to take hold of the Christ of God, come down from His holy habitation, and with us even to the end of the world, to bear the infirmities and carry the sorrows and take away the sins of men!-then should we be able to say to this mountain of evil under which our cities groan, "Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea," and it would be done. If only the Church of Christ in the world to-day had through all its membership that faith which is the only avenue by which the power of God can reach the need of man, our social problems would not long defy solution-"nothing would be impossible"; for over the millions of London, and the masses everywhere, there broods the same great heart of love and longing which prompted the gracious words, "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"; and there is not a wretched one in all the world for whom there is not a blessed ray of hope in this pathetic wail which still proceeds from the loving heart of Him Who is the same yesterday and to-day and for ever. "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to Me."

"Bring him hither"-this is a work of faith as well as a labour of love. The Church on earth is in the same position now as were the nine when the Master was absent from them on the mountain-top. He has ascended up on high, and the work must be carried on by the members of His body on the earth; and it is only in proportion to their faith that any success can attend them in their work.

Is faith, then, all that is necessary? It is: provided it be genuine living faith. This seems to be the point of the reference to the grain of mustard seed. The little seed, small as it is, is set in true relation to the great life-force of Mother Nature, and therefore out of it by-and-by there comes a mighty tree; and in the same way even feeble faith, if it be genuine, and therefore set in true relation to the power of the Father of our spirits, becomes receptive of a force which in the end nothing can resist. But genuine living faith it must be: there must be the real opening up of the soul to the Spirit of the living God, so that the mans nature becomes a channel through which unobstructed the grace and power of God shall flow. It need scarcely be remarked that the notion which mistakes faith for mere belief of certain doctrines is utterly misleading. In nothing is the perversity of a faithless generation more conspicuous than in the persistency with which this absurd and unscriptural notion of faith holds its ground, even with those who are supposed to be leaders of thought in certain directions. If only that mountain of folly could be cleared away, there would be a decided brightening of the spiritual outlook; for then men everywhere would see that the faith which Christ expects of them, and without which nothing can be accomplished, is no mere intellectual belief, but the laying open and leaving open of the entire nature to the Spirit of Christ. Thus spurious dead faith would be utterly discredited, and genuine living faith would alone be recognised; and while the first effect would be to disclose the exceeding scantiness of the Churchs faith, the result would be that even though what stood the test should be small as a grain of mustard seed, it would have in it such vitality and power that by-and-by it would become mighty and all-pervading, so that before it mountains would disappear (Mat_16:20).

The last words of the paragraph carry us back to the ultimate necessity for prayer. It is plain that our Lord refers to habitual prayer. We cannot suppose that these nine disciples had utterly neglected this duty; but they had failed to live in an atmosphere of prayer, as was their Masters rule. We may be sure that they had not prayed at the base of the mountain as their Lord had prayed on the summit, or they would certainly not have failed in their attempt to cure the lunatic child. This demand for prayer is not really anything additional to the faith set forth as the one thing needful. There has been a good deal of discussion lately as to whether we can think without words. We shall not presume to decide the question; but it may safely be affirmed that without words we could not think to any purpose. And just as the continuance and development of our thinking are dependent on words, so the continuance and development of our faith are dependent on prayer. Is not the weak spot of our modern Christianity just here? In this age of tear and wear, bustle and excitement, what becomes of prayer? If the amount of true wrestling with God in the daily life of the average Christian could be disclosed, the wonder might be, not that he accomplishes so little, but that God is willing to use him at all.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

16:13 Caesarea Philippi, located approximately twenty-five miles north of Capernaum, hosted many shrines to the Roman god of nature, Pan.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 16:13. Ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, κ.τ.λ., But when Jesus had come, etc.) A noticeable interval of time occurred between the things just narrated and those which are now declared.[728] The connection, therefore, of the passages is not close. The matters which follow took place a short time before our Lord’s Passion; and the shortness of this interval[729] assists the right interpretation of the promises made in Mat 16:18; Mat 16:28, and of the prohibition uttered in Mat 16:20, ch. Mat 17:9, etc.[730]—Καισαρείας, of Cœsarea) This very name, which had not heretofore been given to the towns of Palestine, might have warned all that the Jews were subject to Cæsar, that the sceptre had departed from Judah, and that the Messiah had therefore come. See, however, James Alting,[731] Schilo, pp. 147, 153. In Scriptural exegesis, the reader ought to place himself, as it were, in the time and place where the words were spoken, or the thing was done, and to consider the feelings[732] of the writer, the force of the words, and the context.—τῆς Φιλίππου, Philippi) Thus the inland Cæsarea is distinguished from that on the sea-shore.[733]—τίνα, whom) The disciples had profited by listening and inquiry; now their Master examines them by questioning, and gives an example of catechising.—τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου, the Son of Man) i.e. Me, whom I myself am wont to call the Son of Man. Peter gives the right antitheton [in his reply[734]], Mat 16:16: Thou art the Son of the living God.—Cf. Joh 5:19; Joh 5:27. This title, the Son of Man, which frequently occurs in the Evangelists, should be carefully observed: no one was so called but Christ Himself, and no one, whilst He walked on earth, so called Him except Himself. He first applies this appellation to Himself in Joh 1:51, when they were first found who acknowledged Him as the Messiah and the Son of God (ibid. Joh 1:50), and thenceforth very frequently, both before and after His prediction of His Passion. For they who expressed their faith in Him, called Him the Son of David. The Jews rightly suspected (Joh 12:34), that by this title He claimed to be the Messiah. For as the first Adam, with all his progeny, is called Man, so the second Adam (see 1Co 15:45) is called Son of Man, not with that notion with which בְּנֵי אָדָם (filii hominis), i.e. the weak, are opposed to בְּנֵי אִישׁ (filii viri), i.e. the powerful (in Psa 49:2 (Psa 48:2); or that in which men are called generally, sons of men (filii hominum), as in Mar 3:28; Eph 3:5; Eze 2:1, etc.: but with the article, Ὁ ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ. The article appears to refer to the prophecy of Daniel, Dan 7:13. This, in sooth, is that One Man whom Adam, after the fall, expected by promise for his whole race: Ὁ ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟς, the second (1Co 15:47), to whom every prophecy of the Old Testament pointed, who holds the rights and primogeniture of the whole human race (see Luk 3:23; Luk 3:38), and to whom alone we owe that we are not ashamed of the name of man: see Psalms 49(48):20, and cf. Rom 5:15. Moreover, our Lord, whilst walking amongst men, by this appellation, both expressed, and as suitable to the circumstances (pro economiâ) of that time, concealed amongst men (cf. ch. Mat 22:45) and hid from Satan the fact that He was ὁ Υἱὸς, the Son, absolutely so called, i.e. the Son of God promised and given to man, Gen 3:15; Isa 9:6; and sprung from man, Heb 2:11; and at the same time, as it were, reminded Himself of His present condition, Mat 20:28; Php 2:7-8. In the same manner, He expressed both His crucifixion and His ascension by one word, ὑψωθῶ, I be lifted up, Joh 12:32. Neither is this appellation suited only to the state of His humiliation, but the expression, the Son of man, is used for every conspicuous situation of His, either in humiliation or exaltation; see Joh 12:34, and compare therewith, in the following verse, the light is with you. And it agrees with the very form of His body, as implying youth; see Dan 7:13. Consider the following passages:—Mat 16:27-28; ch. Mat 12:32, Mat 24:27; Mat 24:30; Mat 24:37; Mat 24:39; Mat 24:44, Mat 25:31; Luk 17:22; Joh 12:23-36; Joh 5:27; Act 7:56. Therefore also this appellation does not once occur in the whole of the twenty-one apostolic epistles, but instead of it, the appellation, the Son of God; for in Heb 2:6 the article is not added, and the words are those of David, not of St Paul, who yet frequently calls Christ both ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς (homo), and ἌΝΗΡ (vir). See the Gnomon on Rom 5:15. And even in the Apocalypse Rev 1:13 and Rev 14:14, as long before in Dan 7:13, that appellation is only alluded to, not actually applied to our Lord. The agreement of the apostles, even in the case of this single phrase, shows that they wrote by the same Divine inspiration.

[728] Mark and Luke, it seems, as well as Matthew, here begin a new section, wherein, with a common design, they show how He proceeded upon His last journey (tour of preaching), replete with salvation, in the northern coasts of the land of Israel. Near Cæserea Philippi. He asks the disciples, when He was alone with them, “Whom do men say that I am?” and then He informs them of His Passion. Then He so arranges His departure (the course of His journey), as that He now imbues the whole land of Israel with the good seed. After having exhibited His glory on the mountain of Transfiguration, He returns to Capernaum, directing His course from thence through the midst of Samaria and Galilee; then onward beyond Jordan, bending His course towards Judea, He bids farewell to Bethabara [Joh 10:40, comp. with Joh 1:28], and, having crossed the Jordan afresh, He came finally to Jericho and Bethany, Mat 16:13 to Mat 20:34, etc.—Harm., p. 367.

[729] Consisting of about one month and a half.—V. g.

[730] A few weeks later, all the details of the truth concerning Him were published on every side, the restraints (which He had imposed on them, Mat 16:20) being removed. The sum of all which the disciples heretofore learned was this, Jesus is the Christ: This is repeated and confirmed, Mat 16:16, and furthermore on it this additional thesis is built, Christ shall suffer, etc., which constitutes the sum and substance of the rest of the Gospel history.—V. g.

[731] JAMES ALTING was born at Heidelberg in 1618: he studied at the Academy of Groningen, where he attained distinction as a divine, a Hebrew philologist, and a Syriac scholar. He died in 1679.—(I. B.)

[732] Affectus. See Author’s Preface, Sect. xv., and Translator’s foot-notes in loc—(I. B.)

[733] Cæsarea Philippi, previously called Paneas, was enlarged and adorned by the Tetrarch Philip, who gave it the name of Cæsarea in honour of the Emperor Tiberias, adding the cognomen Philippi to distinguish it from the great Cæsarea, the Roman metropolis of Judea. For further particulars, see Kitto’s Scripture Lands, and Lewin’s Life and Writings of St Paul.—(I. B.)

[734] In the original, “Petrus antitheton tangit,”—literally, “Peter touches the antitheton,” a metaphorical expression apparently derived from shooting at a target.—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_16:13 ff. Comp. Mar_8:27 ff.; Luk_9:18 ff. (which latter evangelist rejoins, at this point, the synoptic narrative, having left it immediately after recording the first miraculous feeding of the multitude, a circumstance which is sometimes alleged as a reason for doubting the authenticity of the second miracle of this kind).

Caesarea Philippi, a town in Gaulonitis, at the foot of Mount Lebanon, which was formerly known by the name of Paneas, Plin. N. H. v. 15. Philip the tetrarch enlarged and embellished it (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2, Bell. ii. 9. 1), and called it Caesarea in honour of Caesar (Tiberius). It received the name of Philippi in order to distinguish it from Caesarea Palestinae. Robinson, Pal. III. pp. 612, 626 ff., and neuere Forsch. p. 531 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XV. 1, p. 194 ff.

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] See, in general, note on Mat_8:20. The words are in characteristic apposition with με. That is to say, Matthew does not represent Jesus as asking in a general way (as in Mark and Luke) who it was that the people supposed Him to be, but as putting the question in this more special and definite form: whom do the people suppose me, as the Son of man, to be? He had very frequently used this title in speaking of Himself; and what He wanted to know was, the nature of the construction which the people put upon the designation in Daniel, which He had ascribed to Himself, whether or not they admitted it to be applicable to Him in its Messianic sense. Comp. Holtzmann in Hilgenfelds Zeitschr. 1865, p. 228. From the answer it appears that, as a rule, He was not being taken for the Messiah as yet (that consequently the more general appellation: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ., was not as yet being applied to Him in the special sense in which Daniel uses it), He was only regarded as a forerunner; but the disciples themselves had understood Him to be the Son of man in Daniels sense of the words, and, as being such, they looked upon Him as the Messiah, the Son of God. Accordingly it is not necessary to regard τ. υἱὸν τ. ἀνθρ. as interpolated by Matthew (Holtzmann, Weizsäcker), thereby destroying the suggestive correlation in which it stands to the expression, Son of God, in Peters reply. It is not surprising that Strauss should have been scandalized at the question, seeing that he understood it in the anticipatory sense of: whom do the people suppose me to be, who am the Messiah? Beza inserts a mark of interrogation after εἶναι, and then takes the following words by themselves thus: an Messiam? But this would involve an anticipation on the part of the questioner which would be quite out of place. De Wette (see note on Mat_8:20) imports a foreign sense into the passage when he thus explains: whom do the people say that I am, I, the obscure, humble man who have before me the lofty destiny of being the Messiah, and who am under the necessity of first of all putting forth such efforts in order to secure the recognition of my claims? Keims view is correct, though he rejects the με (see critical notes).

Observe, moreover, how it was, after He had performed such mighty deeds in His character of Messiah, and had prepared His disciples by His previous training of them, and when feeling now that the crisis was every day drawing nearer, that Jesus leads those disciples to avow in the most decided way possible such a conviction of the truth of the Christian confession as the experience of their own hearts might by this time be expected to justify. Comp. note on Mat_16:17. As for themselves, they needed a religious confession thus deeply rooted in their convictions to enable them to confront the trying future on which they were about to enter. And to Jesus also it was a source of comfort to find Himself the object of such sincere devotion; comp. Joh_6:67 ff. But to say that it was not till now that He Himself became convinced of His Messiahship (Strauss, before 1864, Schenkel), is to contradict the whole previous narrative in every one of the evangelists. Comp. Weizsäcker, Keim, Weissenborn, p. 41 ff.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 16:13-28 . At Caesarea Philippi (Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1 ; Luk 9:18-27 ). The crossing of the lake (Mat 16:5 ) proved to be the prelude to a second long excursion northwards, similar to that mentioned in Mat 15:21 ; like it following close on an encounter with ill-affected persons, and originating in a kindred mood and motive. For those who regard the two feedings as duplicate accounts of the same event these two excursions are of course one. “The idea of two journeys on which Jesus oversteps the boundaries of Galilee is only the result of the assumption of a twofold feeding. The two journeys are, in truth, only parts of one great journey, on which Jesus, coming out of heathen territory, first touches again the soil of the holy land, in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi.” Weiss, Leben Jesu , ii. 256. Be this as it may, this visit to that region was an eventful one, marking a crisis or turning-point in the career of Jesus. We are at the beginning of the fifth act in the tragic drama: the shadow of the cross now falls across the path. Practically the ministry in Galilee is ended, and Jesus is here to collect His thoughts and to devote Himself to the disciplining of His disciples. Place and time invite to reflection and forecast, and afford leisure for a calm survey of the whole situation. Note that at this point Lk. again joins his fellow-evangelists in his narrative. We have missed him from Mat 14:23 onwards ( vide notes on Lk.).

Mat 16:13 . Ἐλθὼν : here again this verb may mean not arriving at, but setting out for, or on the way: unterwegs , Schanz. So Grotius: cum proficisceretur, non cum venissct . Fritzsche dissents and renders: postquam venerat . Mk. has ἐν τῂ ὁδῷ to indicate where the conversation began. On the whole both expressions are elastic, and leave us free to locate the ensuing scene at any point on the road to Caesarea Philippi, say at the spot where the city and its surroundings came into view. Καισαρείας τ . φ .: a notable city, romantically situated at the foot of the Lebanon range, near the main sources of the Jordan, in a limestone cave, in the province of Gaulonitis, ruled over by the Tetrarch Philip, enlarged and beautified by him with the Herodian passion for building, and furnished with a new name (Paneas before, changed into Caesarea of Philip to distinguish from Caesarea on the sea). “A place of exceedingly beautiful, picturesque surroundings, with which few spots in the holy land can be compared. What a rush of many waters; what a wealth and variety of vegetation!” Furrer, Wanderungen , 414. Vide also the description in Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine , and in Professor G. A. Smith’s Historical Geography of the Holy Land . τίνα λέγουσιν , etc.: with this grand natural scene possibly or even probably (why else name it?) in view, Jesus asked His disciples a significant question meant to lead on to important disclosures. The question is variously reported by the synoptists, and it is not easy to decide between the forms. It would seem simpler and more natural to ask, “whom do, etc., that I am?” ( με εἶναι , Mk. and Lk.). But, on the other hand, at a solemn moment Jesus might prefer to speak impersonally, and ask: “whom … that the Son of Man is?” (Mt.). That title, as hitherto employed by Him, would not prejudge the question. It had served rather to keep the question who He was, how His vocation was to be defined, in suspense till men had learned to attach new senses to old words. It is intrinsically unlikely that He would combine the two forms of the question, and ask: “whom, etc., that I , the Son of Man , am?” as in the T. R. That consideration does not settle what Mt. wrote, but it is satisfactory that the best MSS. leave out the με . The question shows that Jesus had been thinking of His past ministry and its results, and it may be taken for granted that He had formed His own estimate, and did not need to learn from the Twelve how He stood. He had come to the conclusion that He was practically without reliable following outside the disciple circle , and that conviction is the key to all that follows in this memorable scene. How the influential classes, the Pharisees, and the priests and political men = Sadducees, were affected was apparent. Nothing but hostility was to be looked for there. With the common people on the other hand He had to the last been popular. They liked His preaching, and they took eager advantage of His healing ministry. But had they got a definite faith about Him, as well as a kindly feeling towards Him; an idea well-rooted, likely to be lasting, epoch-making, the starting-point of a new religious movement? He did not believe they had, and He expected to have that impression confirmed by the answer of the Twelve, as indeed it was.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

There were two Caesareas, the one called Stratonis upon the sea Mediterranean, which Herod built sumptuously in the honor of Octavius, Josephus, lib. 15. The other was Caesarea Philippi, which Herod the great the Tetrarch’s son by Cleopatra built in the honor of Tiberius at the foot of Lebanon, Josephus, lib. 15.

There are divers judgments and opinions of Christ, notwithstanding he is known of his alone.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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

Christ is here catechising his disciples.

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

1. He calls himself the Son of man; which may be taken either, (1.) As a title common to him with others. He was called, and justly, the Son of God, for so he was (Luk 1:35); but he called himself the Son of man; for he is really and truly "Man, made of a woman." In courts of honour, it is a rule to distinguish men by their highest titles; but Christ, having now emptied himself, though he was the Son of God, will be known by the style and title of the Son of man. Ezekiel was often so called to keep him humble; Christ called himself so, to show that he was humble. Or, (2.) As a title peculiar to him as Mediator. He is made known, in Daniel's vision, as the Son of man, Dan 7:13. I am the Messiah, that Son of man that was promised. But,

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

3. To this question the disciples have him an answer (Mat 16:14),Some say, thou art John the Baptist, etc. There were some that said, he was the Son of David (Mat 12:23), and the great Prophet, Joh 6:14. The disciples, however, do not mention that opinion, but only such opinions as were wide of the truth, which they gathered up from their countrymen. Observe,

(1.) They are different opinions; some say one thing, and others another. Truth is one; but those who vary from that commonly vary one from another. Thus Christ came eventually to send division, Luk 12:51. Being so noted a Person, every one would be ready to pass his verdict upon him, and, "Many men, many minds;" those that were not willing to own him to be the Christ, wandered in endless mazes, and followed the chase of every uncertain guess and wild hypothesis.

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

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

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

[1.] Some say, thou art John the Baptist. Herod said so (Mat 14:2), and those about him would be apt to say as he said. This notion might be strengthened by an opinion they had, that those who died as martyrs, should rise again before others; which some think the second of the seven sons refers to, in his answer to Antiochus, 2 Macc. 7:9, The King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.

[2.] Some Elias; taking occasion, no doubt, from the prophecy of Malachi (Mal 4:5), Behold, I will send you Elijah. And the rather, because Elijah (as Christ) did many miracles, and was himself, in his translation, the greatest miracle of all.

[3.] Others Jeremias: they fasten upon him, either because he was the weeping prophet, and Christ was often in tears; or because God had set him over the kingdoms and nations (Jer 1:10), which they thought agreed with their notion of the Messiah.

[4.] Or, one of the prophets. This shows what an honourable idea they entertained of the prophets; and yet they were the children of them that persecuted and slew them, Mat 23:29. Rather than they would allow Jesus of Nazareth, one of their own country, to be such an extraordinary Person as his works bespoke him to be, they would say, "It was not he, but one of the old prophets."

II. He enquires what their thoughts were concerning him; "But who say ye that I am? Mat 16:15. Ye tell me what other people say of me; can ye say better?" 1. The disciples had themselves been better taught than others; had, by their intimacy with Christ, greater advantages of getting knowledge than others had. Note, It is justly expected that those who enjoy greater plenty of the means of knowledge and grace than others, should have a more clear and distinct knowledge of the things of God than others. Those who have more acquaintance with Christ than others, should have truer sentiments concerning him, and be able to give a better account of him than others. 2. The disciples were trained up to teach others, and therefore it was highly requisite that they should understand the truth themselves: "Ye that are to preach the gospel of the kingdom, what are your notions of him that sent you?" Note, Ministers must be examined before they be sent forth, especially what their sentiments are of Christ, and who they say that he is; for how can they be owned as ministers of Christ, that are either ignorant or erroneous concerning Christ? This is a question we should every one of us be frequently putting to ourselves, "Who do we say, what kind of one do we say, that the Lord Jesus is? Is he precious to us? Is he in our eyes the chief of ten thousand? Is he the Beloved of our souls?" It is well or ill with us, according as our thoughts are right or wrong concerning Jesus Christ.

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

(1.) Peter's answer to this question, Mat 16:16. To the former question concerning the opinion others had of Christ, several of the disciples answered, according as they had heard people talk; but to this Peter answers in the name of all the rest, they all consenting to it, and concurring in it. Peter's temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mar 9:38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude, Joh 14:5, Joh 14:8, Joh 14:22. So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the church of Rome ascribes to him. They will needs advance him to be a judge, when the utmost they can make of him, is, that he was but foreman of the jury, to speak for the rest, and that only pro hc vice - for this once; not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion.

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

[1.] The people called him a Prophet, that Prophet (Joh 6:14); but the disciples own him to be the Christ, the anointed One; the great Prophet, Priest, and King of the church; the true Messiah promised to the fathers, and depended on by them as He that shall come. It was a great thing to believe this concerning one whose outward appearance was so contrary to the general idea the Jews had of the Messiah.

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

(2.) Christ's approbation of his answer (Mat 16:17-19); in which Peter is replied to, both as a believer and as an apostle.

[1.] As a believer, Mat 16:17. Christ shows himself well pleased with Peter's confession, that it was so clear and express, without ifs or ands, as we say. Note, The proficiency of Christ's disciples in knowledge and grace is very acceptable to him; and Christ shows him whence he received the knowledge of this truth. At the first discovery of this truth in the dawning of the gospel day, it was a mighty thing to believe it; all men had not this knowledge, had not this faith. But,

First, Peter had the happiness of it; Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona. He reminds him of his rise and original, the meanness of his parentage, the obscurity of his extraction; he was Bar-jonas - The son of a dove; so some. Let him remember the rock out of which he was hewn, that he may see he was not born to this dignity, but preferred to it by the divine favour; it was free grace that made him to differ. Those that have received the Spirit must remember who is their Father, Sa1 10:12. Having reminded him of this, he makes him sensible of his great happiness as a believer; Blessed art thou. Note, True believers are truly blessed, and those are blessed indeed whom Christ pronounces blessed; his saying they are so, makes them so. "Peter, thou art a happy man, who thus knowest the joyful sound," Psa 89:15 Blessed are your eyes, Mat 13:16. All happiness attends the right knowledge of Christ.

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

Perhaps Christ discerned something of pride and vain-glory in Peter's confession; a subtle sin, and which is apt to mingle itself even with our good duties. It is hard for good men to compare themselves with others, and not to have too great a conceit of themselves; to prevent which, we should consider that our preference to others is no achievement of our own, but the free gift of God's grace too us, and not to others; so that we have nothing to boast of, Psa 115:1; Co1 4:7.

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

Upon occasion of this great confession made of Christ, which is the church's homage and allegiance, he signed and published this royal, this divine charter, by which that body politic is incorporated. Such is the communion between Christ and the church, the Bridegroom and the spouse. God had a church in the world from the beginning, and it was built upon the rock of the promised Seed, Gen 3:15. But now, that promised Seed being come, it was requisite that the church should have a new charter, as Christian, and standing in relation to a Christ already come. Now here we have that charter; and a thousand pities it is, that this word, which is the great support of the kingdom of Christ, should be wrested and pressed into the service of antichrist. But the devil has employed his subtlety to pervert it, as he did that promise, Psa 91:11, which he perverted to his own purpose, Mat 4:6, and perhaps both that scripture and this he thus perverted because they stood in his way, and therefore he owed them a spite.

Now the purport of this charter is,

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

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

(1.) The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; I will build it. The church is a temple which Christ is the Builder of, Zac 6:11-13. Herein Solomon was a type of Christ, and Cyrus, Isa 44:28. The materials and workmanship are his. By the working of his Spirit with the preaching of his word he adds souls to his church, and so builds it up with living stones, Pe1 2:5. Ye are God's building; and building is a progressive work; the church in this world is but in fieri - in the forming, like a house in the building. It is a comfort to all those who wish well to the church, that Christ, who has divine wisdom and power, undertakes to build it.

(2.) The foundation on which it is built is, this Rock. Let the architect do his part ever so well, if the foundation be rotten, the building will not stand; let us therefore see what the foundation is, and it must be meant of Christ, for other foundation can no man lay. See Isa 28:16.

[1.] The church is built upon a rock; a firm, strong, and lasting foundation, which time will not waste, nor will it sink under the weight of the building. Christ would not build his house upon the sand, for he knew that storms would arise. A rock is high, Psa 61:2. Christ's church does not stand upon a level with this world; a rock is large, and extends far, so does the church's foundation; and the more large, the more firm; those are not the church's friends that narrow its foundation.

[2.] It is built upon this rock; thou art Peter, which signifies a stone or rock; Christ gave him that name when he first called him (Joh 1:42), and here he confirms it; "Peter, thou dost answer thy name, thou art a solid, substantial disciple, fixed and stayed, and one that there is some hold of. Peter is thy name, and strength and stability are with thee. Thou art not shaken with the waves of men's fluctuating opinions concerning me, but established in the present truth," Pe2 1:12. From the mention of this significant name, occasion is taken for this metaphor of building upon a rock.

First, Some by this rock understand Peter himself as an apostle, the chief, though not the prince, of the twelve, senior among them, but not superior over them. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, Eph 2:20. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem, Rev 21:14. Now Peter being that apostle by whose hand the first stones of the church were laid, both in Jewish converts (Acts 2), and in the Gentile converts (Acts 10), he might in some sense be said to be the rock on which it was built. Cephas was one that seemed to be a pillar, Gal 2:9. But it sounds very harsh, to call a man that only lays the first stone of a building, which is a transient act, the foundation on which it is built, which is an abiding thing. Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question.

Secondly, Others, by this rock, understand Christ; "Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church." Perhaps he laid his hand on his breast, as when he said, Destroy this temple (Joh 2:19), when he spoke of the temple of his body. Then he took occasion from the temple, where he was, so to speak of himself, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of that; so here he took occasion from Peter, to speak of himself as the Rock, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of Peter. But this must be explained by those many scriptures which speak of Christ as the only Foundation of the church; see Co1 3:11; Pe1 2:6. Christ is both its Founder and its Foundation; he draws souls, and draws them to himself; to him they are united, and on him they rest and have a constant dependence.

Thirdly, Others by this rock understand this confession which Peter made of Christ, and this comes all to one with understanding it of Christ himself. It was a good confession which Peter witnessed, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; the rest concurred with him in it. "Now," saith Christ, "this is that great truth upon which I will build my church." 1. Take away this truth itself, and the universal church falls to the ground. If Christ be not the Son of God, Christianity is a cheat, and the church is a mere chimera; our preaching is vain, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins, Co1 15:14-17. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. 2. Take away the faith and confession of this truth from any particular church, and it ceases to be a part of Christ's church, and relapses to the state and character of infidelity. This is articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia - that article, with the admission or the denial of which the church either rises or falls; "the main hinge on which the door of salvation turns;" those who let go this, do not hold the foundation; and though they may call themselves Christians, they give themselves the lie; for the church is a sacred society, incorporated upon the certainty and assurance of this great truth; and great it is, and has prevailed.

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

(1.) This implies that the church has enemies that fight against it, and endeavour its ruin overthrow, here represented by the gates of hell, that is, the city of hell; (which is directly opposite to this heavenly city, this city of the living God), the devil's interest among the children of men. The gates of hell are the powers and policies of the devil's kingdom, the dragon's head and horns, by which he makes war with the Lamb; all that comes out of hell-gates, as being hatched and contrived there. These fight against the church by opposing gospel truths, corrupting gospel ordinances, persecuting good ministers and good Christians; drawing or driving, persuading by craft or forcing by cruelty, to that which is inconsistent with the purity of religion; this is the design of the gates of hell, to root out the name of Christianity (Psa 83:4), to devour the man-child (Rev 12:9), to raze this city to the ground.

(2.) This assures us that the enemies of the church shall not gain their point. While the world stands, Christ will have a church in it, in which his truths and ordinances shall be owned and kept up, in spite of all the opposition of the powers of darkness; They shall not prevail against it, Psa 129:1, Psa 129:2. This gives no security to any particular church, or church-governors that they shall never err, never apostatize or be destroyed; but that somewhere or other the Christian religion shall have a being, though not always in the same degree of purity and splendour, yet so as that the entail of it shall never be quite cut off. The woman lives, though in a wilderness (Rev 12:14), cast down but not destroyed (Co2 4:9). Corruptions grieving, persecutions grievous, but neither fatal. The church may be foiled in particular encounters, but in the main battle it shall come off more than a conqueror. Particular believers are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, Pe1 1:5.

Secondly, The other part of this charter is, to settle the order and government of the church, Mat 16:19. When a city or society is incorporated, officers are appointed and empowered to act for the common good. A city without government is a chaos. Now this constituting of the government of the church, is here expressed by the delivering of the keys, and, with them, a power to bind and loose. This is not to be understood of any peculiar power that Peter was invested with, as if he were sole door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, and had that key of David which belongs only to the Son of David; no, this invests all the apostles and their successors with a ministerial power to guide and govern the church of Christ, as it exists in particular congregations or churches, according to the rules of the gospel. Claves regni caelorum in B. Petro apostolo cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes - All we that are priests, received, in the person of the blessed apostle Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven; so Ambrose De Dignit. Sacerd. Only the keys were first put into Peter's hand, because he was the first that opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, Act 10:28. As the king, in giving a charter to a corporation, empowers the magistrates to hold courts in his name, to try matters of fact, and determine therein according to law, confirming what is so done regularly as if done in any of the superior courts; so Christ, having incorporated his church, hath appointed the office of the ministry for the keeping up of order and government, and to see that his laws be duly served; I will give thee the keys. He doth not say, "I have given them," or "I do now;" but "I will do it," meaning after his resurrection; when he ascended on high, he gave those gifts, Eph 4:8; then this power was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the rest, Mat 28:19, Mat 28:20; Joh 20:21. He doth not say, The keys shall be given, but, I will give them; for ministers derive their authority from Christ, and all their power is to be used in his name, Co1 5:4.

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

2. It is the power of the keys that is given, alluding to the custom of investing men with authority in such a place, by delivering to them the keys of the place. Or as the master of the house gives the keys to the steward, the keys of the stores where the provisions are kept, that he may give to every one in the house his portion of meat in due season (Luk 12:42), and deny it as there is occasion, according to the rules of the family. Ministers are stewards, Co1 4:1; Tit 1:7. Eliakim, who had the key of the house of David, was over the household, Isa 22:22.

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

4. It is a power which Christ has promised to own the due administration of; he will ratify the sentences of his stewards with his own approbation; It shall be bound in heaven, and loosed in heaven: not that Christ hath hereby obliged himself to confirm all church-censures, right or wrong; but such as are duly passed according to the word, clave non errante - the key turning the right way, such are sealed in heaven; that is, the word of the gospel, in the mouth of faithful ministers, is to be looked upon, not as the word of man, but as the word of God, and to be received accordingly, Th1 2:13; Joh 12:20.

Now the keys of the kingdom of heaven are,

(1.) The key of doctrine, called the key of knowledge. "Your business shall be to explain to the world the will of God, both as to truth and duty; and for this you shall have your commissions, credentials, and full instructions to bind and loose:" these, in the common speech of the Jews, at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. Now the apostles had an extraordinary power of this kind; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden, as divorce; and the apostles were empowered to declare this to the world, and men might take it upon their words. When Peter was first taught himself, and then taught others, to call nothing common or unclean, this power was exercised. There is also an ordinary power hereby conveyed to all ministers, to preach the gospel as appointed officers; to tell people, in God's name, and according to the scriptures, what is good, and what the Lord requires of them: and they who declare the whole counsel of God, use these keys well, Act 20:27.

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

(2.) The key of discipline, which is but the application of the former to particular persons, upon a right estimate of their characters and actions. It is not legislative power that is hereby conferred, but judicial; the judge doth not make the law, but only declares what is law, and upon an impartial enquiry into the merits of the cause, gives sentence accordingly. Such is the power of the keys, wherever it is lodged, with reference to church-membership and the privileges thereof. [1.] Christ's ministers have a power to admit into the church; "Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them; those who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, admit them and their seed members of the church by baptism." Ministers are to let in to the wedding-feast those that are bidden; and to keep out such as are apparently unfit for so holy a communion. [2.] They have a power to expel and cast out such as have forfeited their church-membership, that is binding; refusing to unbelievers the application of gospel promises and the seals of them; and declaring to such as appear to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, that they have no part or lot in the matter, as Peter did to Simon Magus, though he had been baptized; and this is a binding over to the judgment of God. [3.] They have a power to restore and to receive in again, upon their repentance, such as had been thrown out; to loose those whom they had bound; declaring to them, that, if their repentance be sincere, the promise of pardon belongs to them. The apostles had a miraculous gift of discerning spirits; yet even they went by the rule of outward appearances (as Act 8:21; Co1 5:1; Co2 2:7; Ti1 1:20), which ministers may still make a judgment upon, if they be skilful and faithful.

Lastly, Here is the charge which Christ gave his disciples, to keep this private for the present (Mat 16:20); They must tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. What they had professed to him, they must not yet publish to the world, for several reasons; 1. Because this was the time of preparation for his kingdom: the great thing now preached, was, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand; and therefore those things were now to be insisted on, which were proper to make way for Christ; as the doctrine of repentance; not this great truth, in and with which the kingdom of heaven was to be actually set up. Every thing is beautiful in its season, and it is good advice, Prepare thy work, and afterwards build, Pro 24:27. 2. Christ would have his Messiahship proved by his works, and would rather they should testify of him than that his disciples should, because their testimony was but as his own, which he insisted not on. See Joh 5:31, Joh 5:34. He was so secure of the demonstration of his miracles, that he waived other witnesses, Joh 10:25, Joh 10:38. 3. If they had known that he was Jesus the Christ, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, Co1 2:8. 4. Christ would not have the apostles preach this, till they had the most convincing evidence ready to allege in confirmation of it. Great truths may suffer damage by being asserted before they can be sufficiently proved. Now the great proof of Jesus being the Christ was his

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

When Jesus came] Ελθων δε ο Ιησους - when Jesus was coming. Not, when Jesus came, or was come, for Mark expressly mentions that it happened εν τη οδω, in the way to Caesarea Philippi, Mr 8:27, and he is Matthew's best interpreter.-WAKEFIELD.

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

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(13) Cæsarea Philippi.—The order of the journeyings of our Lord and His disciples would seem to have been as follows:—From the coasts of Tyre and Sidon they came, passing through Sidon, to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mar_7:31); thence by ship to Magdala and Dalmanutha, on the western shore (Mat_15:39; Mar_8:10); thence, again crossing the lake (Mar_8:13), to the eastern Bethsaida (Mar_8:22); thence to Cæsarea Philippi. There is in all these movements an obvious withdrawal from the populous cities which had been the scene of His earlier labours, and which had practically rejected Him and cast in their lot with His enemies. This last journey took them to a district which He had apparently never before visited, and to which He now came, it would seem, not as a Preacher of the kingdom, but simply for retirement and perhaps for safety. Cæsarea Philippi (so called to distinguish it from the town of the same name on the sea-coast) does not appear (unless we identify it with Laish or Dan, and for this there is no sufficient evidence) in the history of the Old Testament. Its position at the foot of Hermon led Robinson (Researches, iii. 404, 519) to identify it with the Baal-gad of Jos_11:17; Jos_12:7; Jos_13:5, or the Baal-hermon of Jdg_3:3; but this also hardly extends beyond the region of conjecture. The site of the city was near the chief source of the Jordan, which flowed from a cave which, under the influence of the Greek cultus that came in with the rule of the Syrian kings, was dedicated to Pan, and the old name of the city, Paneas, bore witness to this consecration. Herod the Great built a temple there in honour of Augustus (Jos. Ant. xv. 10, § 3), and his son Philip the tetrarch (to whose province it belonged) enlarged and embellished the city, and re-named it in honour of the emperor and to perpetuate his own memory. From Agrippa II. it received the name of Neroneas, as a like compliment to the emperor to whom he owed his title; but the old local name survived these passing changes, and still exists in the modern Bâiâs. With the one exception of the journey through Sidon (Mar_7:31), it was the northern limit of our Lord’s wanderings; and belonging as it does to the same period of His ministry, His visit to it may be regarded, though not as an extension of His work beyond its self-imposed limits, as indicating something like a sympathy with the out-lying heathen who made up the bulk of its population—a sense of rest, it may be, in turning to them from the ceaseless strife and bitterness which He encountered at Capernaum and Jerusalem. How the days passed which were spent on the journey, what gracious words or acts of mercy marked His track, what communings with His Father were held in the solitude of the mountain heights—are questions which we may dwell upon in reverential silence, but must be content to leave unanswered. The incident which follows is the one event of which we have any record.

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?—The Greek emphasises “men” by prefixing the article, so as to contrast the opinions of men, as such, with God’s revelation. The question comes before us, as possibly it did to the disciples, with a sharp abruptness. We may believe, however, that it occupied a fitting place in the spiritual education through which our Lord was leading His disciples. It was a time of, at least, seeming failure and partial desertion. “From that time,” St. John relates, speaking of what followed after the discourse at Capernaum, “many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him” (Joh_6:66). He had turned to the Twelve and asked, in tones of touching sadness, “Will ye also go away?” and had received from Peter, as the spokesman of the others, what was for the time a reassuring answer, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life;” and this had been coupled with the confession of faith which we now find repeated. But in the meantime there had been signs of wavering. He had had to rebuke them as being “of little faith” (Mat_16:8). They had urged something like a policy of reticence in His conflict with the Pharisees (Mat_15:12). One of the Twelve was cherishing in his soul the “devil-temper” of a betrayer (Joh_6:70). It was time, if we may so speak, that they should be put to a crucial test, and the alternative of faith or want of faith pressed home upon their consciences.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

Son of man] See note ch. Mat_8:20. The question of Jesus is: In what sense do the people believe me to be the Son of man? In the sense which Daniel intended or in a lower sense? Observe the antithesis in Peter’s answer:—the Son of man is the Son of God.

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

Mar_8:27-30 : The question is put “while they were on the way,” the words “the Son of the living God” are omitted, as also the blessing on Peter. Luk_9:18-20 : Jesus was engaged in prayer alone; the words of the confession are “the Christ of God;” the blessing on Peter is omitted.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,.... The towns that were in the neighbourhood of this city; which city went by several names before, as Leshem, Jos 19:47 which being taken by the Danites, they called it Dan; hence we read of "Dan, which is Caesarea" (b). It was also called Paneas, from the name of the fountain of Jordan, by which it was situated; and which Pliny says (c) gave the surname to Caesarea; and hence it is called by Ptolomy (d) Caesarea Paniae; and by the name of Paneas it went, when Philip the (e) tetrarch rebuilt it, and called it Caesarea, in honour of Tiberius Caesar; and from his own name, Philippi, to distinguish it from another Caesarea, of which mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, built by his father Herod, and so called in honour of Augustus Caesar; which before bore the name of Strato's tower. The Misnic doctors speak of two Caesareas (f), the one they call the eastern, the other the western Caesarea. Now, as Mark says, whilst Christ and his disciples were in the way to these parts; and, as Luke, when he had been praying alone with them,

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

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

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Ver. 13. Whom do men say that I, &c.] This question Christ asked, not as tickled with ambition to hear his own commendation (which yet is held and said to be the only sweet hearing), {a} but as taking occasion to make way for their Christian confession, and likewise for their further information.

The Son of man am] So he was called: 1. Because a true Man 1:2. Because he passed for no more than an ordinary man. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Joh 6:52; Joh 3:1-36. Because as man born of a woman, he was of few days and full of trouble: yea, he was the man that had seen affliction by the rod of God’s wrath.

{a} ηδιστον ακουσμα επαινος. Xenophon.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See also Mar 8:27-29, and Luk 9:18-20.

Cesarea Philippi - There were two cities in Judea called Caesarea. One was situated on the borders of the Mediterranean (See the notes at Act 8:40), and the other was the one mentioned here. This city was greatly enlarged and ornamented by Philip the tetrarch, son of Herod, and called Caesarea in honor of the Roman emperor, Tiberius Caesar. To distinguish it from the other Caesarea the name of Philip was added to it, and it was called Caesarea Philippi, or Caesarea of Philippi. It was situated in the boundaries of the tribe of Naphtali, at the foot of Mount Hermon. It is now called Panias or Banias, and contains (circa 1880’s) about 200 houses, and is inhabited chiefly by Turks. The word “coasts” here now usually applied to land in the vicinity of the sea - means “borders” or “regions.” He came into the part of the country which appertained to Cesarea Philippi. He was passing northward from the region of Bethsaida, on the coasts of Magdala Mat 15:39, where the transactions recorded in the previous verses had occurred.

When Jesus came - The original is, “when Jesus was coming.” Mark says Mar 8:27 that this conversation took place when they were in the way, and this idea should have been retained in translating Matthew. While in the way, Jesus took occasion to call their attention “to the truth that he was the Messiah.” This truth it was of much consequence that they should fully believe and understand; and it was important, therefore, that he should often learn their views, to establish them if right, and correct them if wrong. He began, therefore, by inquiring what was the common report respecting him.

Whom do men say ... - This passage has been variously rendered. Some have translated it, “Whom do men say that I am? the Son of man?” Others, “Whom do men say that I am - I, who am the Son of man - i. e., the Messiah?” The meaning is nearly the same. He wished to obtain the sentiments of the people respecting himself.

Mat 16:14

And they said ... - See the notes at Mat 11:14. They supposed that he might be John the Baptist, as Herod did, risen from the dead. See Mat 14:2. He performed many miracles, and strongly resembled John in his manner of life, and in the doctrines which he taught.

Mat 16:16

And Simon Peter answered ... - Peter, expressing the views of the apostles, with characteristic forwardness answered the question proposed to them by Jesus: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The Christ - The Messiah, the “Anointed” of God. See the notes at Mat 1:1.

The Son - That is, the Son by way of eminence - in a special sense. See the notes at Mat 1:17. This appellation was understood as implying divinity, Joh 10:29-36.

Of the living God - The term “living” was given to the true God to distinguish him from idols, that are dead, or lifeless blocks and stones. He is also the Source of life, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. The word “living” is often given to him in the Old Testament, Jos 3:10; 1Sa 17:26, 1Sa 17:36; Jer 10:9-10, etc. In this noble confession Peter expressed the full belief of himself and of his brethren that he was the long-expected Messiah. Other people had very different opinions of him, but they were satisfied, and were not ashamed to confess it.

Mat 16:17

And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou ... - Simon Bar-jona is the same as Simon son of Jona. Bar is a Syriac word signifying son. The father of Peter, therefore, was Jona, or Jonas, Joh 1:42; Joh 21:16-17.

Blessed - That is, happy, honored, evincing a proper spirit, and entitled to the approbation of God.

For flesh and blood - This phrase usually signifies man (see Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12), and it has been commonly supposed that Jesus meant to say that man had not revealed it, but he seems rather to have referred to himself. “This truth you have not learned from my lowly appearance, from my human nature, from my apparent rank and standing in the world. You, Jews, were expecting to know the Messiah by his external splendor; his pomp and power as a man; but you have not learned me in this manner. I have shown no such indication of my Messiahship. Flesh and blood have not shown it. In spite of my appearance, my lowly state - my lack of resemblance to what you have expected, you have learned it as from God.” They had been taught this by Jesus’ miracles, his instructions, and by the direct teachings of God upon their minds. To “reveal” is to make known, or communicate something that was unknown or secret.

Mat 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, Joh 1:42

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Gal 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Gal 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”

Will build my church - This refers to the custom of building in Judea upon a rock or other very firm foundation. See the notes at Mat 7:24. The word “church” literally means “those called out,” and often means an assembly or congregation. See Act 19:32, Greek; Act 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being “called out” from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers, Eph 1:22; 1Co 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers worshipping in one place, Act 8:1; Act 9:31; 1Co 1:2, etc.; sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Rom 16:5. In common language it means the church visible - i. e., all who profess religion; or invisible, i. e., all who are real Christians, professors or not.

And the gates of hell ... - Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates by which they were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. See the notes at Mat 7:13. Compare the notes at Job 29:7. See also Deu 22:4; 1Sa 4:18; Jer 36:10; Gen 19:1; Psa 69:12; Psa 9:14; Pro 1:21. The word “gates,” therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes.

“Hell” means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits; and the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations of the enemies of the church would not be able to overcome it a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.

Mat 16:19

And I will give unto thee ... - A key is an instrument for opening a door.

He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence an emblem of power and authority. See the Isa 22:22 note; Rev 1:18; Rev 3:7 notes. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth. See the notes at Mat 3:2. When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Acts 2:14-36; 10. The “power of the keys” was given, on this occasion, to Peter alone, solely for this reason; the power of “binding and loosing” on earth was given to the other apostles with him. See Mat 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had was the honor of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.

Whatsoever thou shalt bind ... - The phrase “to bind” and “to loose” was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus, they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, “The school of Shammei binds it” - i. e., forbids it; “the school of Hillel looses it” - i. e., allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority - that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church:

1.By the teaching of Christ, and,

2.By the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

This does not refer to persons, but to things - “whatsoever,” not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden, and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of divine authority. Accordingly, they commanded the Gentile converts to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” Act 15:20; and, in general, they organized the church, and directed what was to be observed and what was to be avoided. The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it.

Mat 16:20

Then charged ... - That is, he commanded them.

Mar 8:30 and Luke Luk 9:21 say (in Greek) that he strictly or severely charged them. He laid emphasis on it, as a matter of much importance. The reason of this seems to be that his time had not fully come; that he was not willing to rouse the Jewish malice, and to endanger his life, by having it proclaimed that he was the Messiah. The word “Jesus” is wanting in many manuscripts, and should probably be omitted: “Then he charged them strictly to tell no man that he was the Christ or Messiah.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Cæarea Philippi, was first called Paneades, and was afterwards embellished and greatly enlarged by Philip the tetrarch, son of Herod the great, and dedicated in honour of Augustus, hence its name. There was moreover another Cæsarea, called Straton, situated on the Mediterranean: and not in this, but in the former, did Christ interrogate his disciples. He first withdrew them from the Jews, that they might with more boldness and freedom deliver their sentiments. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lv.) --- The Cæsarea here mentioned continued to be called by heathen writers Panea, from the adjoining spring Paneum, or Panium, which is usually taken for the source of the Jordan.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 13-20. The climax of recognition of Christs true nature declared in the great confession of Peter. (Mar_8:27-30 Luk_9:18-21)

Coasts (merh); parts, as Mat_15:21, etc. Caesarea Philippi. The addition to the name Caesarea is intended to commemorate its restorer and beautifier, the tetrarch Philip, and to distinguish it from the city of the same name on the coast between Joppa and Carmel. (Act_8:40, etc.) Our Lord had landed at Bethsaida, where the Jordan enters the Lake of Gennesaret, turned northwards, and, following the course of the river, had now arrived in the vicinity of one of its chief sources at Caesarea Philippi, the most northerly city of the Holy Land. It was, if not identical with, in close proximity to, the Dan of the Old Testament, whence arose the saying, "From Dan to Beersheba," to denote the whole extent of country from north to south. Later it was called Paneas, and now Banias. Philip altered the name to Caesarea in honour of Tiberius Caesar, his patron. Christ seems not to have visited the city itself, but only the outlying villages in the district. We may conjecture why at this Lime he moved to this remote region. It was probably, partly, a measure of precaution. He had excited the fiercest animosity of the dominant party, and even of the sceptical Sadducees; he was pertinaciously followed by their emissaries, always on the watch to lay hold of his words and actions, and to found upon them dangerous charges; and now, knowing it was time to announce to his followers in plain terms his claim to be Messiah, he would not do this in Judaea, where it might cause commotion, and embroil him with the authorities, but preferred to teach this great truth where he might speak freely without fear of immediate consequences, out of the reach of his persevering opponents. Virtually, also, his public work in Judaea and Galilee had reached its end. He had no chance of a hearing if he had made further attempts at teaching. The calumnies of the rabbis had affected the fickle populace, who would willingly have followed a military pretender, but had no heart to set at nought their national teachers in favour of One whom they were persuaded to regard as a dangerous innovator, not improbably upheld by Satanic agency. He asked his disciples. It was after a time of solitary prayer (Luk_9:18) that he put this question to his followers. Determined now to reveal himself, he desired to make them express the mistaken views which were rife concerning his Person and office, and to lead them to the more important inquiry what opinion they themselves held touching this momentous mystery (ver. 15). Whom (who) do men say that I the Son of man am? Quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis (Vulgate); Who do men say that the Son of man is? (Revised Version). The versions represent the variation of manuscripts between tina me legousin k.t.l., and tina legousin , omitting me . The pronoun is probably genuine and emphatic. In the other case, "the Son of man" is equivalent to me in ver. 15. I call myself the Son of man: what do the multitudes say of me? Who do they consider the Son of man to be? This was the term he used to show the truth of the Incarnation God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting." To Jewish ears it connoted Divinity. (see Luk_22:69, 70 Joh_3:13)

Vers. 13-19. Caesarea Philippi.

I THE GREAT CONFESSION.

1. The Lord"s question. It was asked amid scenes of singular beauty; there was much to delight the eye: the gushing source of Jordan, the terraced heights on which the city was built, the majestic mass of Hermon with its crown of snow. But these fair sights were associated with sad thoughts of idolatry and sin. Dan was near at hand the seat of the old worship of the golden calf. The city itself was more than half heathen; its name told of the Roman supremacy; it had its great temple dedicated by the first Herod to Augustus Caesar; it had its famous cave sacred to the Grecian Pan. But here, in the tetrarchy of Herod Philip, the Lord found that rest and freedom from persecution which he could find no longer in his own Galilee. Awful events were coming; his hour was at hand; he must be alone with the twelve to prepare them for the approaching trial. St. Luke tells us that he was alone praying; only his disciples were with him. There were no thronging multitudes here needing his gracious mercy; there were no Pharisees and Sadducees to disturb him with their taunts and hypocrisies. But a great crisis was at hand, and the Lord was alone praying. The holy Son of God teaches us by his own blessed example the infinite value of prayer to prepare us for times of peril. He ever lived in unbroken communion with the Father. Those who by the help of his Spirit are learning to live in that fellowship which is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, will naturally have recourse to prayer in all the emergencies of life; habitual communion with God leads his people to live always in the spirit of prayer, and keeps them always ready. Those who thus ever live with God will instinctively draw closer to him, and pour out their hearts in the intense energy of earnest supplication at all the turning points of life, in the hour of danger or temptation, in the critical times of the history of the Church. It was a critical time now. The Lord had been rejected; he had been driven from Galilee, where he was once so popular. His own action had caused this seeming failure. Not long ago the multitude sought to take him by force to make him a King. They would have flocked around him in countless numbers and in fierce enthusiasm, if, like Judas of Galilee, he had raised the standard of national independence against the Roman rule; if he had announced himself publicly as the expected Messiah, he would have been hailed as the Deliverer, the Son of David, the Heir to David"s throne. But instead of following the current of popular thought and popular expectation, the Lord had set himself directly against it. He had put aside the offered crown; he had himself forced the apostles to leave him, and had sent the multitudes away in the hour of his seeming triumph. They did not understand his mission; his kingdom was not of this world. Henceforth his work of teaching lay mainly with the twelve; he was to convince them of the true character of his Person and office. He was bringing them to the point now. He was bringing them face to face with the great truth which they had long felt in their hearts, but which had not been yet distinctly declared save once or twice in private. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" the Lord asked. In the dignity of his conscious Divinity he had never asked such a question before; he heeded not the opinions of men; he sought not their praise; he knew their hearts. But he asked for the sake of the apostles, to bring their vague thoughts into clearer distinctness, to deepen their convictions, to confirm their faith. The well known phrase, "the Son of man," seemed to point to the true answer; from the time of Daniel it had a Messianic significance, it was associated with the Messiah, both by the priests (Luk_22:69, Luk_22:70) and by the people, (Joh_12:34) but not, perhaps, always certainly and distinctly. "Who is this Son of man?" the people asked in the passage last referred to.

2. The answer of the disciples. They were men of the people; they had mixed freely with them; they had, heard frequent and eager discussions about their Master"s teaching and miracles, about his character, his authority, his claims. His life must have been regarded with the deepest interest and the intensest curiosity throughout the country. It excited jealousy and opposition in many quarters; but it could not be ignored by any one. It forced itself upon public attention; it was so strange, so unlike any other life in its originality, in its perfect holiness, in its Divine power. And now the Lord asked what had the disciples heard men say of him. The answer was sad, not disappointing, to him who knew all things; but a hard thing for the apostles to confess. None now owned him to be the Christ. There were many opinions: some, like the terrified Antipas, thought that he was John the Baptist risen from his martyr"s tomb; some thought that he was Elijah, come again as Malachi had prophesied; some said he might be Jeremiah, come to restore the ark, as the Jews fondly hoped; (RAPC 2Ma 2:1-8) others imagined that he might be some one or other of the old prophets, come, perhaps, as the forerunner of the Messiah. Such were the various opinions current among the people. None, as far as the apostles knew, then recognized his Messiahship. It had not been so always. From the time when John bare record that he was the Son of God, when Andrew said, "We have found the Messias," there had been many who asked, "Is not this the Christ?" The belief revived afterwards at Jerusalem; (Joh_7:41 Joh_9:22 Joh 12:13) but now in Galilee, his own country, it seems to have become extinct. The change in popular feeling had been brought about, partly by the Lord"s own conduct and teaching, (Joh_6:66) partly by the influence of the enemies. Had he adapted himself to the spirit of the times, and yielded to the wishes of the people, the way to transient and apparent success lay open to him. His refusal gave strength to the combined opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and enabled them to undermine his popularity. He knew it. He asked the question, not for information, but to lead on to deep and holy teaching. Observe the truthfulness of the apostles; they report the exact truth; they do not attempt to hide the ebbing tide of popular applause. They do not flatter the Lord with false hopes; they were too sincere for that; he was too high and holy.

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

4. The confession. The question was put to all the apostles; Peter answers in the name of all. He was, as Chrysostom says, the mouth of the apostles, the leader of the apostolic choir. Yet there is some thing of his individual character, his fervid impetuous personality, in the strong decided answer. Peter had no doubts, none at all He may have shared (all the apostles shared) in the general mistake as to the office and work of the Messiah; he had looked for a king to reign on the earthly throne of David. But he was at least sure of this the Lord Jesus was the Messiah. Whatever might be his surroundings, whether poverty and seeming weakness or magnificence and sovereign power; however he might be received, whether scorned and rejected by Pharisees and Sadducees, or welcomed with the acclaiming shout, "Hosanna to the King of Israel!" whatever might happen, Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed King. Of this Peter was convinced with an absolute undoubting conviction. But this was not all. Peter not only recognized Jesus as the Christ according to the Jewish conception of the Messiah; he rises higher. The Lord was not what the Jews, it seems, expected a Man very highly distinguished for wisdom and holiness, chosen by God to be the Messiah. He was far more; he was the Son of the living God. The words are full of force and energy. Men may become the sons of God by adoption and grace; but, we feel instinctively, no mere man could be styled "the Son of the living God." The Lord is the Son of him who hath life in himself, and by virtue of that eternal generation he hath life in himself. (Joh_5:26) He is the only begotten Son, Life of life, as he is Light of light, very God of very God. We know not whether St. Peter himself understood at the time the full meaning, the blessed, holy, awful meaning of his great confession. It was revealed to him now by the Father. The Holy Spirit led him by degrees to realize the great and solemn truths which it implied. Nathanael, indeed, had anticipated him; the disciples had hailed the Lord as the Son of God when he had come moving over the stormy sea to their succour; Peter himself, not long before, had confessed his faith in the same exalted terms. (Joh_6:69) But on those occasions the Lord seemed not to heed the title which was ascribed to him. Now he formally accepted it. The time was come when the apostles should recognize their Master as the Christ, the time for the first founding of the Christian Church.

II THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONFESSION.

1. The blessing. The Lord repeats the word which he had so often used on the Mount of the Beatitudes in describing the children of the kingdom; he applies it nosy to St. Peter. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona," he said solemnly, using the full name, patronymic as well as personal name, as we do on solemn occasions; as he did once again when he put to the same apostle the searching question, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Simon was blessed, for this knowledge had come, not from human teachers, but by revelation from the Father. Simon"s confession was not like other confessions of the Lord"s Messiahship, an inference from his words or works; it was the expression of an inward spiritual conviction, a knowledge gained by Divine revelation, like St. Paul"s knowledge of Christ, (Gal_1:15, Gal_1:16) a knowledge which transformed his heart and consecrated his whole life to the service of the Lord. Blessed are they now who have the like knowledge, into whose hearts God hath shined, "to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Blessed are they who with that inner knowledge of the heart own the Lord Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God; for thus to know Christ, he himself hath told us, is eternal life.

2. The prophecy.

(1) "Thou art Peter." The Lord had given him that name long ago, at his first interview with him. (Joh_1:42) It was then given by anticipation. Now Simon had shown the truthfulness of the Lord"s foreknowledge; he was proving.himself to be a true Peter, or rock like apostle, strengthened and established by the grace of Christ for the work. to which the Lord had called him. He was Peter, rock like, a piece of rock. "That Rock was Christ," the Lord whom Peter had just confessed to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. There is not "any rock like our God." He is the Rock of Ages, the Rock that is higher than the highest of saints, the Rock of our refuge, the Rock of our salvation. The Lord Jesus is our Rock, because he is God, the Messiah, the incarnate Son of the living God. "The Word was made flesh;" that great fact is the foundation of all our hopes. "God manifest in the flesh" is the Rock on which the Christian Church is built, the one foundation once laid; (1Co_3:11) the Stone which the builders disallowed, but nevertheless the Head of the corner; the chief Cornerstone, elect, precious. Peter had no strength in himself apart from the one Rock; he was sinking in the stormy sea when the Lord caught him by the hand; he was failing into a deeper abyss when the Lord"s loving mournful look recalled him to the sense of his sinfulness. Peter was as the dove (Bar-Jona: Jonah means "a Dove") that is in the clefts of the rock; (comp. Son_2:14) he was only safe, as we are only safe, when he was hidden in the Rock of Ages. Yet, in a secondary sense, Peter may be regarded as a rock. He derived his new name, which is by interpretation "a Stone," from Christ the Rock; he derived his rock like character from spiritual union with the Rock of Ages; he was one of the living stones, hewn out of the Rock, (Isa_51:1) built into the Rock, which form thespiritual house described by himself in his First Epistle. (Doubtless he was thinking then of these great words of Christ when he spoke of Christ as a living Stone, a chief Cornerstone, a Rock) But he was more than this; he was one of those who helped to lay the one foundation, the one only foundation in the truest sense, (1Co_3:11) the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, (Eph_2:20) when they preached Christ as the only Saviour. And in a secondary sense he might himself, like the other apostles, be called one of the foundations, (Rev_21:14) one of the pillars, (Gal_2:9) and in another figure one of the master builders. (1Co_3:10) But the foundation stones rest upon the Rock, the one true Foundation; and" the wise master builders build under the one Master, which is Christ.

(2) The Church. We meet with this great word here for the first time as we read the Scriptures of the New Testament in the existing order; once more only it occurs in the Gospels. (Mat_18:17) We must remember where this prophecy was spoken; in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, among the most remarkable rock scenery of the Holy Land, possibly under the shadow of the high red limestone cliff which overhangs the town, the summit of which was crowned by the white marble temple built by Herod in honour of Augustus. That rock, Dean Stanley says ("Sinai and Palestine," p. 399), "may possibly have suggested the words which now run round the dome of St. Peter"s." That temple with its blasphemous dedication was an outrage in the eyes of the holy Son of God; the temple which he would rear was wholly different, built on a Rock more stable, more abiding far. "My Church it was a wondrous prophecy. All seemed to have forsaken him save only the twelve; one was a traitor even in that little company; yet the Lord looked forward, in the vision of his Divine foreknowledge, to that great multitude which no man could number, called out from all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues. It was to be the whole congregation of Christian people called out of the whole world, first by himself, then by his apostles and their successors speaking in his Name. It was to be built up (edified) in him, resting on him the living Rock, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone. It was to be one, and yet many; many living stones built up into one holy temple, united into one by the one chief Cornerstone, the one Rock on which it rests. It was Christ"s, "my Church;" given to him by the Father, bought to be his own with his most precious blood, sanctified and illuminated by the indwelling of his most Holy Spirit. It is the Church of the living God; therefore the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. Hades is the realm of the disembodied dead; it is insatiable, it hath never enough, it enlargeth itself, and openeth its mouth without measure. The Lord himself, the Head of the Church, seemed once to yield to its power; he descended into Hades. But it was not possible that he could be holden of death; the third day he rose again from the dead. "He is alive forevermore, and hath the keys of Hades and of death." Because he liveth, his Church shall live also. The gates of Hades shall not prevent his saints from rising to meet the returning Lord. The abode of the dead shall not retain the Church which belongs to Christ, the Son of the living God, the Church which is his bride, nay, his body; which liveth in the life of Christ and rejoiceth in his love. Filled with this blessed hope, the Church sings its song of triumph in the presence of death, "O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory? Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. The promise.

(1) The keys. The Church is now presented to our view as the kingdom of heaven, the holy city. The Lord Christ hath the key of David; he openeth, and no man shutteth; he shutteth, and no man openeth. (Rev_3:7) That power was now delegated to St. Peter as the representative of the apostolic college. He exercised it when under his ministry three thousand souls were added to the Church on the great Day of Pentecost; he exercised it when he baptized Cornelius, when he said to Simon Magus, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter." The Church exercises that power now in preaching, in baptizing, in admitting to Communion, in declaring by God"s authority God"s absolution of the penitent. "He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent.

(2) Binding and loosing. The words seem to mean, according to constant Hebrew usage, "to forbid" and "to allow." The Lord commits to Peter, as afterwards (Mat_18:18) to all the apostles, the government of the Church; he gives him legislative authority, power to declare what is lawful, what is unlawful; what is obligatory, what is open. That power he exercised when he spoke in favour of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem. (Act_15:7-11) That power St. Paul exercised again and again. That power in some degree is still vested in the Church. "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God"s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.

LESSONS.

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

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

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

Vers. 13-17. The great confession.

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

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

II THE DIFFICULTY OF ANSWERING THIS QUESTION. The Jews were much perplexed. They could not but be impressed with the greatness of Christ, yet they failed to recognize his high claims. It would not have been surprising if the disciples also had been perplexed; indeed, many were troubled, and many forsook the great Teacher. (Joh_6:66) Jesus had not fulfilled the hopes of the people; the religious leaders of the nation had definitely rejected him; be was now in voluntary exile, deserted by the crowds that had once followed him with enthusiasm. If some of us find it difficult to believe in him today after his great work has been completed, and we see the fruits of it in history, is it wonderful that many felt the difficulty in his lifetime?

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

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

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

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

HOMILIES BY MARCUS DODS Vers. 13-19. Peter"s confession.

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

Vers. 13-20. The true confession.

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

I THAT THE FAITH WHICH IS HUMAN IS UNCERTAIN.

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

(1) "Some say John the Baptist." So said Herod. He has murdered the Baptist. (cf. Mat_4:1-12) Herod"s courtiers would say as Herod said.

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

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

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

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

(1) "Some say Elijah." For Elijah was promised as the forerunner of Christ. (see Mal_4:5, Mal_4:6) And the time for the advent of Messiah had arrived. (see Gen_49:10 Dan_9:25)

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

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

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

(1) "Some say Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." The doctrine of metempsychosis, transmigration, or passing of the soul from one body into another, was accepted among the Jews. (cf. ver. 14; Mat 14:2Jo Mat_9:2)

(2) This doctrine largely entered into the Pharisees" notion of the resurrection. To them the question of the Sadducees would be a real puzzle, which Jesus answered to the astonishment of both. (see Mat_22:23-33)

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

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

1. In its doctrine.

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

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

(3) But this confession had been made before. After the stilling of the storm, "they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God". (Mat_14:33) Nathanael"s confession was still earlier. (see Joh_1:49) And still later we have another remarkable confession. (see Joh_6:69)

(4) The disciples of Jesus were, several of them, disciples of John; and from John they had this testimony concerning Jesus. (see Joh_1:35-42)

2. In its experience.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Simon, at his call, received this patronymic. (see Joh_1:42) Literally, Peter is a "stone;" metaphorically it is stability, strength. The change of name suggests change of nature, or conversion. (cf. Gen_32:28)

(2) The firmness of the rock belonged not to Peter in respect to his mental temper. (see Mat_26:69 Gal_2:11)

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

(4) Whoever has the faith of Peter thereby becomes himself a Peter a living stone. Peter himself witnesses to this. (see 1Pe_2:4, 1Pe_2:5) Translate this figure, and what does it import?

2. He is founded on the Rock of Ages.

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

(2) Peter is accordingly found amongst the other apostles, and together with them also the prophets, as one of the many foundation stones resting upon the Rock. (see Eph_2:20 Rev_21:14)

(3) Christ, who is the Foundation, (see Act_4:11, 12 1Co_3:11) is also the Builder of his Church. In his hand every stone has its proper place and fitting.

3. His salvation is secured.

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

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

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

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

1. Peter had the honour of the keys.

(1) Keys were anciently a common symbol of authority; and presenting the keys was a form of investing with authority; and these were afterwards worn as a badge of office. (see Isa_22:22) Peter"s authority was to open the gate of faith to the world.

(2) He accordingly first preached the gospel to the Jew, on the memorable Day of Pentecost. (see Act_2:41) He first preached the gospel to the Gentiles also. (see Act_10:44-47 Act_15:7)

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

2. He had the power of binding and loosing.

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

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

(3) But beyond this he had no distinction from the other apostles, who were also inspired authoritatively to set forth these terms. The question which Peter answered was addressed to the whole company of the apostles, "Whom do ye say that I am?" and Peter answered it in their name, or as their representative. (cf. Joh_20:21-23)

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

3. Every foremost confessor has his honour.

(1) The martyr has his crown. He has his conspicuous place in the better resurrection. (see Rev_2:10 Rev_20:4 Rev_20:6)

(2) Superior goodness will be signally recognized. J.A.M. (see Dan_12:3 1Co_15:41, 1Co_15:42)

Opinions concerning Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Jesus was Son of the living God; and this involved that Jesus was doing his Father"s moral work in the souls of men. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Jesus coming - There was a large interval of time between what has been related, and what follows. The passages that follow were but a short time before our Lord suffered. Mark viii, 27; Luke ix, 18.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Son of man

Also, Mat 16:27; Mat 16:28 (See Scofield "Mat 8:20")

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ the Son of the Living God.

"

v. 13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?

v. 14. And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets.

A second time Christ made an excursion northwards, to the very boundary of Palestine, into the territory of Herod Philip, who had practically rebuilt this city and made it his residence. It had formerly been called Paneas, and is probably the ancient Leshem or Laish, Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:7. The reasons for this journey were probably those of the preceding trip to the North, to get away, for a while, from the distractions of the active ministry, with its tedious and wearing vexations, and to gain time and opportunity for uninterrupted intercourse with the disciples. They needed a great deal of help in their faith, since the days of real temptations were drawing near. They must grow in Him and through Him in faith and firmness, lest the last great test find them unable to hold their own. While they were on their way into this region, Jesus, not so much for His own information as for the sake of testing the faith of His disciples, asks them the question: Whom do people take Me for? What do they find in Me? He applies the official title "Son of Man" to Himself, as distinguishing Him according to His person and His work. It appears that the bitter slanderings of the Pharisees had at least had so much effect that the belief in His Messiahship had gradually been suppressed among the common people. But they still held Him in high esteem. They either believed that one of the prophets, such as John the Baptist, Elijah, or Jeremiah, had been raised from the dead, or they held, according to Pharisaical example, that the soul and spirit of one of these prophets had come to new life in Jesus. Christ was indeed a prophet, Deu 18:15, and He was very properly called Elijah, Mal 4:5; however, in a far higher sense than these ignorant people thought. But the Lord’s inquiry had a deeper purpose, namely, to get an express declaration of faith from His disciples, and to confirm and strengthen them in it.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. Our Saviour’s question, and the disciples answer, Our Saviour’s question is twofold:

1. Whom do men say that I am? Not that the Son of God was ignorant what men said of him; but he had an intention more firmly to settle and establish his disciples in the belief of his being the promised Messias.

And therefore, 2. He puts the question to them, Whom do you, my disciples, say that I am? "You, that have heard the holiness of my doctrine, and seen the divinity of my miracles: what say you to me? And what confession do you make of me?"

Christ expects greater measures of grace and knowledge, and higher degrees of affiance and faith, from those that have enjoyed the greatest means of grace and knowledge. The disciples were eye and ear-witnesses of his doctrine and miracles, and accordingly he expects from them a full confession of his divinity.

Observe, 2. The answer returned,

1. By the apostles in general; and they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias: some Jeremias. It is no new thing, it seems to find diversity of judgments and opinions concerning Christ and the affairs of his kingdom. We find, that when our Saviour was amongst men, who daily both saw and heard him, yet there was then a diversity of opinions concerning him.

2. Peter, in the name of the rest, and as the mouth of all the apostles, makes a full and open confession of his being the Son of God; thou art Christ the Son of the living God.

Whence note, that the veil of Christ’s human nature did not keep the eye of his disciples’ faith from seeing him to be the Son of God as well as the Son of man; thou art Christ the Son of the living God.

Observe, 3. How highly pleased our Saviour was with this confession; he pronounces Peter, and the rest in him, Blessed, who had by him made this Christian confession; Blessed art thou, Simon; and tells him,

1. What did not enable him to make that confession, Not flesh and blood; that is, not man, nor the wisdom and reason of man.

2. But postitively, God the Father, by the operation of his Spirit, and the dispensation of the gospel has wrought this divine faith in you, and drawn forth this glorious confession from you, that I am indeed the Son of God.

Thence learn, That no man can savingly believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, and Saviour of the world, but he in whom God himself by his Holy Spirit has wrought such a persecution by the ministry of the gospel.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [LXX. B. The Great Confession].

LXX. THIRD WITHDRAWAL FROM HEROD'S TERRITORY. Subdivision B. THE GREAT CONFESSION MADE BY PETER. (Near Cæsarea Philippi, Summer, A. D. 29.) aMATT. XVI. 13-20; bMARK VIII. 27-30; cLUKE IX. 18-21.

b27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Cæsarea Philippi [The city of Paneas was enlarged by Herod Philip I., and named in honor of Tiberias Cæsar. It also bore the name Philippi because of the name of its builder, and to distinguish it from Cæsarea Palestinæ or Cæsarea Strotonis, a city on the Mediterranean coast. Paneas, the original name, still pertains to the village, though now corrupted to Banias. It is situated under the shadow of Mt. Hermon at the eastern of the two principal sources of the Jordan, and is the most northern city of the Holy Land visited by Jesus, and save Sidon, the most northern point of his travels]: a13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, cit came to pass, bon the way cas he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked bhis disciples, saying, unto them, aWho do men say that the Son of man is? aWho do men cthe multitude say that I am? [Jesus asks them to state the popular opinion concerning himself as contrasted with the opinion of the rulers, Pharisees, etc.] 19 And they answering btold him, saying, csaid, aSome say John the Baptist; cbut band asome, bothers, Elijah; but cand others, aJeremiah, or cthat one of the old prophets is risen again. [For comment on similar language, see Gal_1:16] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [Peter was blessed by having a revelation from God by which facts were made known that could not be discovered by the unaided human reason. God had revealed the truth to him in the words and works of Jesus, and this revealed truth was to him a source of happiness both temporal and eternal. Like confessions as to this truth had been made before ( Mat_14:33, Joh_1:49), but they had been made under the pressure of miraculous display and strong emotion. Hence they were rather exclamatory guesses at the truth, and differed from this now made by Peter which was the calm expression of a settled conviction produced both by the character and by the miracles of Jesus.] 18 And I say also unto [411] thee, That thou art Peter [petros, a noun masculine] and upon this rock [Petra, a noun feminine] I will build my church [The tense here is future. Christ had followers, but they were not yet organized, and hence had no such structural form as to suggest a similitude to a building]; and the gates of Hades [Hades was the name of the abode of the dead. Its gate symbolized its power because the military forces of an ancient city always sallied forth from its gates] shall not prevail against it. [Death shall neither destroy the organic church which is in the world, nor the members thereof which go down into the grave ( 1Th_4:15, 1Co_15:54-56). No passage in the word of God has called forth more discussion than this and the succeeding verse, the first point in dispute being as to what is meant by the rock; i. e., whether Christ or Peter or Peter's confession is the foundation of the church; the second point being as to the extent of the power and authority bestowed on Peter by the symbol of the keys. To aid us in reaching a correct conclusion we must note that Jesus speaks in metaphorical language. He represents: 1. His kingdom as a city about to be built upon a rock. 2. Himself as a builder of the city. 3. Simon Peter as the one who holds the keys to the gates by which egress and regress is had to the city. 4. The gates or powers of the opposing city of Hades are not able to prevail against this kingdom city. Now, since Jesus himself occupies the position of builder in the metaphor, and Simon Peter the position of key-bearer, neither of them can properly be regarded as the foundation. The foundation must therefore be the confession which Peter has just spoken, since it is all that remains that is liable to such application. The case could present no difficulty at all were it not for the unmistakable allusion to Peter (petros, a loose stone) as in some way associated with petra, the bedrock or foundation. But in the light of other Scriptures this allusion presents no difficulty; for all the apostles were such stones, and were closely allied to the foundation ( Eph_2:19-22, Gal_2:9). Compare also 1Pe_2:3-8. The Christian religion in all its redemptive completeness rests and can rest on no other [412] foundation than Christ ( 1Co_3:11). But the church or kingdom of Christ among men rests organically and constitutionally upon a foundation of apostolic authority, for the apostles were the mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit; but in this apostolic foundation the other apostles had equal rights, each one of them becoming a living foundation stone as soon as his faith led him to make a like confession with Simon Peter. Hence we find the apostle Paul asserting the superior authority of the apostles to all other Christian teachers and workers ( 1Co_12:28), and times without number asserting his apostolic office and authority-- 1Co_9:1, 1Co_9:2, 2Co_12:12, 2Co_13:1-4, Gal_1:1, Gal_1:8, Eph_3:1-6, Phm_1:8, Phm_1:9.] 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys; i. e., the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense ( Rev_3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isa_22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Cæsarea Palestinæ, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms. The words "bind" and "loose" were commonly used among the Jews in the sense of forbid and allow. Abundant instances of this usage have been collected by Lightfoot. They relate to the binding and annulling of laws and rules. [413] In this sense the word for loose, is used very many times in the New Testament, but it is translated by the word break or broken ( Mat_5:19, Joh_7:23, Joh_10:35). The power here given to Peter was soon after extended to the rest of the apostles ( Mat_18:18). The apostles were to lay down, as they afterward did, the organic law of the new kingdom, defining what things were prohibited and what permitted. Their actions in this behalf would of course be ratified in heaven, because they were none other than the acts of the Holy Spirit expressed through the apostles.] b30 And a20 Then c21 But acharged he the disciples cand commanded them to tell this to no man; bthat they should tell no man of him. athat he was the Christ. [The people were not ready to receive this truth, nor were the apostles sufficiently instructed to rightly proclaim it. Their heads were full of wrong ideas with regard to Christ's work and office, and had they been permitted to teach about him, they would have said that which it would have been necessary for them to subsequently correct, thus producing confusion.]

[FFG 410-414]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi. Compare Mark 8:27–38; Luke 9:18–22. This city was located near the base of Mt. Hermon, at a source of the Jordan, and in the northeast extremity of Palestine. It was called Cæsarea Philippi by Herod Philip, who rebuilt it in honor of Tiberius Cæsar, and added Philippi after his own name, to distinguish it from Cæsarea on the Mediterranean coast. It has now about fifty houses, many ruins of columns, towers, temples, a bridge, and a remarkable castle. Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? The original Greek is more specific, and means, “Who do the common people say that I am?” He does not ask for the opinion of the scribes, Pharisees, or priests, but of the people.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Here the scene shifts to a later time. Jesus asks his disciples if they understand who he is.

Now

This word is used here to mark a break in the main story line or to introduce a new person. Here Matthew starts to tell a new part of the story.

the Son of Man

Jesus is referring to himself. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)

the Son of the living God

This is an important title for Jesus that shows his relationship to God. (See: Translating Son and Father)

the living God

Here "living" contrasts the God of Israel to all the false gods and idols that people worshiped. Only the God of Israel is alive and has power to act.

translationWords

Caesarea

Philippi

Son of Man

John (the Baptist)

Elijah

Jeremiah

prophet

Peter

Christ

Son of God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

13–20. THE GREAT CONFESSION OF ST PETER, AND THE PROMISE GIVEN TO HIM

Mar 8:27-30: The question is put ‘while they were on the way,’ the words ‘the Son of the living God’ are omitted, as also the blessing on Peter. Luk 9:18-21: Jesus was engaged in prayer alone; the words of the confession are ‘the Christ of God;’ the blessing on Peter is omitted.

13. Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. The most northerly point in the Holy Land reached by our Lord. The city was rebuilt by Herod Philip, who called it by his own name to distinguish it from Cæsarea Stratonis on the sea coast, the seat of the Roman government, and the scene of St Paul’s imprisonment.

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

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

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13-20.] Confession of Peter. Mar 8:27-30. Luk 9:18-21. Here St. Luke rejoins the synoptic narrative, having left it at ch. 14:22. We here begin the second great division of our Saviour’s ministry on earth, introductory to His sufferings and death. Up to this time we have had no distinct intimation, like that in ver. 21, of these events. This intimation is brought in by the solemn question and confession now before us. And as the former period of His ministry was begun by a declaration from the Father of His Sonship, so this also, on the Mount of Transfiguration.

13. Καισαρείας τῆς Φ.] A town in Gaulonitis at the foot of Mount Libanus, not far from the source of the Jordan, a day’s journey from Sidon, once called Laish (Jdg 18:7, Jdg 18:29) and afterwards Dan (ibid.), but in later times Paneas, or Panias, from the mountain Panium, under which it lay (Jos. Antt. xv. 10. 3. Φιλίππου Καισαρείας, ἣν Πανεάδα Φοίνικες προσαγορεύουσι, Euseb. H. E. vii. 17). The tetrarch Philip enlarged it and gave it the name of Cæsarea (Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 1). In after times King Agrippa further enlarged it and called it Neronias in honour of the Emperor Nero (Jos. Antt. xx. 9. 4). This must not be confounded with the Cæsarea of the Acts, which was Cæsarea Stratonis, on the Mediterranean. See Act 10:1, and note. The following enquiry took place ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, Mar 8:27. St. Luke gives it without note of place, but states it to have been asked on the disciples joining our Lord, who was praying alone, Luk 9:18.

τίνα λέγουσιν] who do men say that the Son of Man is? τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρ. being equivalent to με in the corresponding sentence below, ver. 15. Of those who read με in the text, some would render as if our Lord had said, ‘Who say men that I am? the Son of Man?’ i.e. the Messiah? (Beza, Le Clerc, and others,) but this is inadmissible, for the answer would not then have been expressed as it is, but affirmatively or negatively. Equally inadmissible is Olshausen’s rendering ἐμὲ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθ. (ὡς οἴδατε) ὄντα, ‘Me, who am, as ye are aware, the Son of Man?’ an expression, Olshausen says, by which the disciples would be led to the idea of the Son of God. But then this would destroy the simplicity of the following question, But who say ye that I am? because it would put into their mouths the answer intended to be given. The E. V. has beyond doubt the right rendering of this reading: and τὸν υἱ. τ. ἀνθ. is a pregnant expression, which we now know to imply the Messiahship in the root of our human nature, and which even then was taken by the Jews as = the Son of God, (see Luk 22:69, Luk 22:70,) which would serve as a test of the faith of the disciples, according to their understanding of it.

οἱ ἄνθρωποι (generic: = οἱ ὄχλοι in Luke), i.e. the σὰρξ κ. αἷμα of ver. 17, the human opinion.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

(M) And Jesus having come into the districts of Cæsarea Philippi, asked His disciples, saying, Whom say men that (I) Son of Man am?] Mk. has: “And Jesus and His disciples went out into the villages of Cæsarea Philippi, and on the road He asked (ἐπηπώτα) His disciples, saying to them, Whom do men say that I am?”—ἐλθὼν δέ] for Mk.’s καὶ ἐξῆλθεν, as often. Mt. substitutes τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου for Mk.’s με to form an antithesis to v. 16 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

(M)

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

ἅλλοι δέ, Mat_14, Luk_19. Mk. has καὶ ἄλλοι.

δέ—εἶπεν, Mat_16, Luk_20. Mk. has λέγει.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ζῶντος, Mat_16 = τοῦ θεοῦ, Luk_20.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.