082. Chapter 23 - The Good Confession

Chapter 23 - The Good Confession Matthew 16:13-20;Mark 8:27-30;Luke 9:18-21 Greater Understanding and Faith

Only when we tarry a sufficient time with the two preceding scenes in Matthew and Mark are we prepared to study the grand climax of Jesus’ self-revelation at Caesarea Philippi. To understand that the disciples were facing a time of dreadful temptation such as Jesus had faced during the forty days with the devil in the wilderness, we must experience the full force of their disappointment and chagrin as they saw Jesus retreat again from the attacks of His enemies. We must feel the stinging rebuke Jesus administered to the disciples as they were crossing the lake. Only when we enter into this valley of frustration and perplexity with them are we prepared to emerge on the mountaintop of triumphant faith as Peter declared their steadfast faith in Christ in spite of all the rejections by the famous national leaders and by the people.

John the Baptist had testified to his disciples: “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). These apostles had declared before this time that they believed Jesus to be the Christ the Son of God, but their faith had not as yet been so sorely tried. Nathaniel had cried out with joy at his first meeting with Christ, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel” (John 1:49). Jesus had accepted his declaration of faith with great calmness and with the promise of much greater miraculous evidence to be given in the future. The apostles in the half-submerged boat, as Jesus had just stilled the tempest, had said with awe, “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him” (Matthew 8:27). After the tremendous miracles of the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water the disciples had fallen down in the boat and worshiped Jesus, declaring, “Of a truth thou art the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). The confession of Peter at Capernaum had been impressive: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God” (John 6:68, John 6:69). At Caesarea Philippi Peter speaks with larger understanding and more precise statement, and in the face of all the attacks and rejections.

Caesarea Philippi

Caesarea Philippi was the capital of the province of Herod Philip. It was situated at the head of one of the three sources of the Jordan about twenty-six miles north of the Sea of Galilee and two and one-half miles east of Dan. The city was very ancient. In earlier times it was called Panium because it was a center of worship of the Greek god Pan (the worship of nature). Philip rebuilt the city and renamed it in honor of the Roman emperor and himself. Caesarea Philippi became a center of worship of Caesar Augustus. Here where the pagan worship of nature and man had been carried on, Jesus took His disciples to question them concerning the worship of the Son of God. The real purpose in coming here was not related to the history of the city. He was seeking opportunity for private instruction of His apostles. The proximity to Mount Hermon, on whose southern slope Caesarea Philippi is located, may have had something to do with selecting this general territory, as the transfiguration followed one week later. Caesarea Philippi had a powerful location on the solid rock of the mountain foothills. There were gushing springs that encircled three sides of the city forming a natural moat; a precipice crowned by a citadel was on the fourth side. Some commentators think that this conversation took place in full sight of the city and that Jesus pointed to the powerful location of the city on the solid rock as He spoke of the church built on the solid rock of His deity. The a.v. says “coasts of Caesarea Philippi” (Matthew 16:13), but the a.s.v. changes this archaic term to “parts of.” The a.v. says “towns of Caesarea Philippi” (Mark 8:27); The a.s.v. says “villages.” It probably means the suburbs of the capital. The Occasion

Luke informs us that “as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him.” This statement probably sounded like a contradiction to some scribe, who changed his copy of the text to read, “The disciples met him; fell in with him.” But the best manuscripts read that Jesus was praying in a private place apart from the multitude, and that the disciples were nearer than the multitudes. Later the people were called to hear His discourse following the good confession. Jesus was accustomed to praying thus alone, with His disciples in the area, and the multitudes in the distant background. We can understand Jesus’ need for prayer as He prepared to test the faith of the disciples in the face of national rejection; He was also about to endure the extreme humiliation of revealing to them that He was soon to surrender to torture and death at the hands of His enemies.

Current Rejection

Instead of seeking to evade the fact that the national leaders and the people had in general rejected His Messianic claims, Jesus began the discussion with His disciples in such a way as to bring the unbelief and rejection into the open in the boldest manner. This is the reason He asked two questions. He asked them to state the prevailing unbelief. He was leading them to crystallize their faith in a definite declaration. The answers of the crowd were different and contradictory, but they were a unit in denying that Jesus was the Christ. In the second question the pronoun ye is emphatic in itself, and by its position in the Greek, and by reason of the conjunction but. The answer of Peter was in the most direct contrast with the answers quoted from the opinions of the people.

There were other answers which the apostles might have cited to the question, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” They might have reported some of the more slanderous and insulting answers as to who people were saying Jesus was: “a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners”; “in league with the devil and operating under his power in casting out demons; a blasphemer in claiming to be the Son of God.” But the apostles did not dignify such insulting epithets with repetition. They only reported favorable estimates of Jesus. The people who offered these opinions were giving what they considered high estimates, but they were so far below the truth that they amount to rejection. To be mistaken for so great a man as John the Baptist or to be identified as one of the great prophets of the Old Testament, such as Elijah and Jeremiah, would be considered by most as an incredible honor. But this constituted shameful rejection of Jesus.

John the Baptist The ridiculous suggestion that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead appears to have arisen in the court of Herod Antipas. Herod’s conscience-stricken belief that Jesus was John risen up to avenge the murder Herod had committed seems to have been suggested first by some of the superstitious courtiers at Tiberias, the capital, and then adopted by Herod (Luke 9:7-9). His ignorance and dissolute manner of life undoubtedly contributed to such an absurd view. When the apostles cited this current report, their manner of quoting must have reflected their contempt for such ignorance.

Elijah The return of Elijah had been predicted by Malachi in the closing verses of the Old Testament. The manner in which the Jews expected this prediction to be fulfilled probably was varied and confused. Even the apostles had to have explicit instruction as they came down from the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus had already plainly declared to the multitudes that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the prediction: “And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come” (Matthew 11:14).

Jeremiah

Second Esdras had added the prediction that Jeremiah would return before the Messianic kingdom should be established. This certainly reflected the very high estimate in which the Jews held Jeremiah. This rumor about Jesus, which was floating around, was even more vague than the one that identified Him with Elijah. “One of the prophets” drifted off into further generality; He was like the Old Testament prophets — one of the old line.

All these popular views were like the modern rejections of Jesus as “a good man,” “the greatest of teachers,” or “one of the prophets.” They seem to praise, but they actually defame Jesus as a deceiver. There is no such middle ground which may be occupied. If the claims of Jesus to deity are denied, then He was not a good man, nor the great teacher, nor a prophet. It is all or nothing.

Peter’s Confession The declaration of Peter is not to be taken as a sudden flash of insight. The faith of the group had been developing with the years of association and instruction. When they now used the term Son of God, they had a much deeper understanding of the content than earlier in the ministry of Jesus. But it is the term Christ which would give them the greatest difficulty. Peter spoke with profound conviction, but a few moments later he showed that he did not understand the divine content of the word Christ. He was horrified at the idea of Christ’s allowing His enemies to put Him to death. And yet this is the central proposition of the Gospel: “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”

Jesus’ Joy The great joy of Jesus at the confession Peter made underscores the importance of the scene and the confession. In spite of all the rejection and opposition by the intellectual, political leadership, and by the nation as a whole, Peter affirmed his faith. He spoke boldly in complete contradiction to all the inferior popular views which were in reality hostile. The precise manner in which Peter couched the confession in such magnificent brevity seems to be the point of emphasis in Jesus’ commendation that God had revealed this truth to Peter. He certainly had not learned it from men (flesh and blood is a common Hebraic expression to differentiate man from God). They had just stated what men were saying. He now states what he had heard from Christ and what he believed with all his heart. God had revealed this great truth of the gospel of redemption through the deeds and the words of Jesus, who is Himself God. MyFather reaffirms the deity of Christ and His unity with God.

Some hold that Jesus meant that God had by a direct miraculous revelation at this moment made known to Peter this sublime truth of the Christian religion, “not by oral communication from himself, but of that inward reception by silent communication from the Father which is the sole source of the true knowledge of spiritual things.” But Jesus had labored by word and deed for nearly three years to bring them to this conviction, and He had repeatedly declared that His revelation was sufficient for faith. If it required a special revelation from God for Peter to understand, then why should Jesus have condemned the Pharisees for not understanding or believing? There is a sense in which all revelation and comprehension of truth is from God, but to say this was from God apart from the revelation of personal contact with Jesus and personal instruction from Him is to set aside the importance of the incarnation an insufficient of itself to bring faith without special, immediate miraculous aid. Moreover, Peter did not fully understand the content of the confession he had just made. And just how is his misunderstanding corrected immediately afterward? Is it by a sudden flash of divine revelation, or is it by stern rebuke of Jesus and patient, detailed instruction?

Brevity

One of the amazing things about Peter’s confession is that it is so brief, so precise, so entirely adequate that even though he did not at the time comprehend the divine content of the word Christ, yet at Pentecost, when he was fully inspired to proclaim the full gospel, the good confession did not have to be revised. It was adequate to carry the entire divine content. It may be that here is the point of emphasis in the declaration of Jesus that God had revealed to Peter the manner of answer he should give.The rest of the New Testament repeats over and over “the good confession.”

Inner Meaning

Since Matthew’s account makes plain that Peter did not understand the full content of the title Christ, the inevitable question is how much Peter understood and affirmed in the term Son of God. This is like raising the proposition that the finite cannot encompass the infinite. Who is there today who understands fully the incarnation and the atonement? How could Jesus be both man and God, and why did He have to die for our sins? But the entire question is not futile. There are certain historical events which actually occurred. There are certain historical facts which can be ascertained and tested like any other facts of history. The historical facts are made known to us by the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw and heard Jesus and who from years of fellowship with Him have delivered to the world these historic facts — first in oral proclamation and then in the inspired writings. Our faith in Jesus is the most precious inner experience of life, but it cannot be separated from our acceptance of the historic facts about Jesus. These historic facts are the heart of the gospel — the good news of redemption for man which Jesus brought from heaven to earth. They were the basis of Peter’s answer as to who Jesus was. This fact is the center of the gospel. This divine truth is the rock on which the church is established. Jesus Himself is declared to be the foundation of the church: “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). In the conversation at Caesarea Philippi a slightly different turn is given to this grand affirmation. The divine truth that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God is declared to be the solid rock on which the church is established. It is a rock. It is solid. Here are historic facts that have stood against all the attacks of unbelievers. The gates of Hades have not been able to prevail against the church to wrest it from its historical foundation in the sublime fact that Jesus is in truth the Christ the Son of God.

All efforts to dilute the meaning of Peter’s confession into something less than a recognition of His deity fail. His understanding was adequate to win the joyous commendation of Christ, who knew the inmost thoughts and the measure of understanding Peter had. Peter did not comprehend the central element of the title Christ — that according to the Scriptures the Anointed One had to die to redeem man from his sins. Old Testament passages such as Isaiah fifty-three had predicted the death of the Messiah to redeem man from sin. But Peter did not understand these Scriptures as yet. Although Jesus had given many veiled hints of His approaching death, they had been too incredible for the apostles to accept them as literal. Out of the agonizing turmoil of recent weeks the apostles were rising to declare their steadfast faith. They still believed even though Jesus had not used His miraculous power to rescue John, but had permitted him to be murdered. The pressing question now was, “What next?” Here at Caesarea Philippi Jesus immediately proceeded to supply this critical lack in the understanding of Peter as to the meaning of Christ. He did not undertake to correct or change his understanding of the term Son of God. One week later on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus did give further instruction concerning the content of both these terms. Jesus continued to deepen and widen their understanding as the historical facts of the gospel were unfolded before their eyes. At Pentecost these events had become an assured part of their life experience. Peter proclaimed the facts of the gospel at Pentecost as well as its commands, promises, and warnings.

Attacks on the Accounts The efforts of the modernists to deny the deity of Christ depend on one of two lines of attack: (1) The meaning of the term Son of God is diluted until it is meaningless. (2) Sweeping denial is made that any such conversation as this ever took place. The Bultmann Form Criticism theorists hold that we do not have historical accounts in the Gospel narratives, but only a collection of myths, legends, miracle tales, and sayings which contain only some grains of wheat among the bushels of chaff.

Robinson’s Theory The kerygma attack claims that the “church” in its “preaching” at a later time concocted all sorts of myths. Audacious lying is attributed to anonymous nonentities who dreamed up the central elements of the gospel as to who Jesus was, and what He said and did. They are supposed to have written into the Gospel narratives the brazen assertions that Jesus did say and do these things. The Commentary on Matthew, by T. H. Robinson, in the Moffatt Series affirms that Peter did not say “the Son of the living God,” but that this was “read back into his [Peter’s] mind by the experience and belief of the early church” (p. 140). What polite phrases the modernists use to give the lie to the Gospel writers! Robinson says further in developing the proposition that this confession was a later product of the kerygma, or preaching of the church, “The divine Sonship of the Christ formed no part of contemporary messianic belief, and, until the day of Pentecost, the disciples were not given to the development of new ideas” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 140). The “Kergyma” Attack

Just how does a hostile critic come by such assured information as is thus dogmatically affirmed? How does he know that the church undertook “the development of new ideas” (notice it is not further revelation from God)? What is really affirmed is that the modernist holds in his hands the secreted strings attached to the puppets he has created out of his imagination, and he starts to pull the strings and make his puppets perform at will. Observe how Robinson reduces Christ to an empty zero. Jesus was just a Jew of the first century. He knew no more than “contemporary messianic belief” held. If He knew more, He could not tell it to His disciples so that they could understand it. Observe how God is removed from the scene by this Form Criticism theorizing. Contrast the ringing declaration of Jesus, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” to the denial that Peter could have made such a statement since it was not “contemporary messianic belief.” To begin with, what do the modernists know about “contemporary messianic belief” except what we read in the New Testament? The Dead Sea scrolls give only vague generalities of messianic expectation or occasional reference to erratic notions of the Essenes. But the New Testament is concentrated on the discussion of God’s revelation of the Messiah and the reaction of men of this revelation. The Revised Standard Version Attack This kerygma attack throws a spotlight on the procedure of the radical translation of the Revised Standard Version, which shrewdly presents by its “thou-you” double-dialect this same view that none of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry ever believed He was God in the flesh, but that this idea grew up as a later myth. The Revised Standard Version is the classic example of the kerygma attack on the deity of Christ. The translators take the central proposition of the Christian religion that Jesus was both God and man — and attempt to separate it from historic fact established by testimony of eyewitnesses and relegate it to be perverted Imagination of later times. The Elemental Proposition The elemental proposition in Robinson’s kerygma attack on the deity of Christ is this: Is there such a person as God? Did He speak unto the fathers of old time in the prophets? Has He spoken to us at the end of these days in His Son? If the answer to these three questions is affirmative, then the problem of the current messianic expectation in Palestine at the beginning of the first century fades into the background as a matter of secondary importance. The current messianic expectation is of primary importance to persons who reject the Bible as utterly unhistorical, who hold that Jesus was an ignorant man limited to the ideas of his times, who maintain that there is no such person as God or that there could he no such thing as a miraculous revelation from God to man.

God Has Spoken to Us

What if the title The Son of God was not already in general use as a title for the Messiah? What, then? What if the current messianic expectation did not comprehend the meaning of such passages as Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7 and Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14, and did not proclaim that the Messiah would be a supernatural Being? What then? Could not God speak to man in the fulness of time and reveal the truth of the gospel? Could not God send His Son into the world by a virgin birth to live among men, reveal His divine Person to them, and die for their redemption? Is there no such thing as historic fact and truth, or are there only ideas in the minds of men? The ultimate question always is: Is there such a person as God, or is He only an idea in the minds of men?

It is a historic fact that God revealed to man through the Old Testament prophets that the Messiah would enter the world as a child born of a virgin and would be “mighty God, the everlasting Father” (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7). It is a historic fact that Christ left heaven, came to earth, was born of a virgin, revealed Himself to men as the incarnate Son of God, and died and was raised from the dead for man’s redemption. It is a historic fact that the leaders of the Jewish nation understood immediately that Jesus was claiming to be God as well as man, charged Him repeatedly with blasphemy, and condemned Him to death on this charge because He claimed to be the Son of God. It is a historic fact that the disciples of Jesus accepted the teaching of Jesus, believed His claims, and repeatedly declared they believed Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God; that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gave decisive, dramatic declaration of the faith of the disciples; that the predictions of the death of Christ became a hard obstacle to the maintenance of their faith, and that the actual death on the cross dealt a deadly blow to their faith, but that the resurrection of Christ brought them to fulness of faith in His deity. It is a historic fact that the disciples repeatedly worshiped Jesus and He accepted their worship, and that after the resurrection even Thomas worshiped Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” It is a historic fact that the kerygma, or preaching, of the apostles after Pentecost presented the same basic faith which they had declared when they themselves stood in the presence of the risen Christ. The gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God, is not based on current messianic ideas but upon historic facts established by the testimony of reliable eyewitnesses. The Worship of Jesus

It is not possible to dilute the language of Thomas as he faced the risen Christ and cried out in fulness of faith, “My Lord and my God.” He offered the ultimate in worship to Jesus, and our Lord accepted his worship. The attempts to say that the worship offered to Jesus on the many occasions in the Gospel narratives was not divine worship, but only reverence for a human leader, cannot stand in the presence of what Thomas said to Jesus (John 20:28). Furthermore, unbelievers meet a stone wall when the worship of Jesus is placed alongside the horrified rejection of worship by Peter in the home of Cornelius, and by Paul and Barnabas at Lystra. Hear them cry out, “Do not worship me. I am merely a man. Worship God.” And yet these same men worshiped Jesus and called upon all men to worship Him. The final tribute of Thomas to the deity of Jesus is brushed aside by the modernists with the sneer, “Oh! that is the Gospel of John.” Since the hostile theorists insist on the priority of Mark, let us look at the testimony of Mark. A glance at the first chapter should suffice.

Mark’s Testimony The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). When Jesus was baptized, God spoke from heaven: “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). Since there is every reason to believe that Peter and various others of the twelve were present, here is one time that the deity of Christ had been revealed to them by “my Father who is in heaven.” We are absolutely certain that John the Baptist did discuss carefully with these disciples the tremendous miracle which had occurred at the baptism of Jesus and the fact that God Himself had declared Jesus to he His Son: “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). Mark shows that the first apostles were present and heard the terrified outcries of the demons: “What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:21), “...the Son of God” (Luke 4:41). Even though Jesus silenced the demons and refused to permit them to testify, their outcries were heard by all. The Constant Charge of Blasphemy

It has been generally overlooked how the negative aspect of the testimony that the apostles heard must have influenced their thinking. They simply could not have slipped over the term Son of God and not dug into its interior to discover its content — not while the scribes and Pharisees stood there continually crying out, “Blasphemy! He is claiming to be God!” The second chapter shows how this mighty struggle developed at the very outset of Jesus’ ministry when He forgave the sins of the paralytic and responded to the unspoken challenge of the Pharisees by reading their hearts, stating their charge of blasphemy, and refuting it by proving that He had the divine power He had claimed. The disciples might have been inclined to accept many of the mysterious assertions of deity by Jesus as veiled statements quite beyond their comprehension. But the Pharisees stood there constantly sticking a sharp pin into the minds of the apostles and stirring them to excited examination as they pointed out that Jesus was claiming to be God. The apostles had to choose between the charges of blasphemy and the claims to deity. There was no middle ground.

Difficulty of Disciples

Up to Caesarea Philippi the great difficulty which the apostles experienced in their growing faith was the comprehension of Son of God. They knew by personal experience that Jesus was a man. They could see and hear Him; they had been in His fellowship for years. How could He also be God? But by the time of the walking on the water and onward to Caesarea Philippi, they were clear and firm in their faith that Jesus was God as well as man. From this point forward their critical problem was Christ. How could He possibly submit to torture and death at the hands of His enemies if He is God? This problem had been troubling them all along in that His humble teaching, preaching, and healing campaigns had been so different from what they had expected of the Messiah. But with the death of John the Baptist, His refusal to be king at the call of the Zealots, the downfall of His popularity in Galilee, this problem of “Christ” was fast becoming critical. It exploded in their faces at Caesarea Philippi when Jesus calmly revealed to them His deliberate plan to surrender to death at the hands of His enemies.

Blasphemy the Charge To say that Jesus did not claim to be God or that He was not understood by those who heard Him to be making this claim is to deny the entire current of the Gospel narratives. If this be myth, then there is no history. T H. Robinson has to face this issue when he comes to comment on the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin as Jesus was charged with blasphemy because He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:63; Mark 14:6-62 — observe that Mark also offers this testimony). Having said that “the divine Sonship of Christ formed no part of contemporary messianic belief,” he now says, commenting on the term Son of God, “The last phrase is not unknown to pre-Christian apocalyptic literature, for the Messiah is a divine being in the Similitudes of Enoch — not apparently, in any other writing of the type” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 222). Thus Robinson contradicts himself in his comments on Matthew 16:16 and Matthew 26:63. He does not pause to attempt any proof that the absurd apocryphal document called “The Similitudes of Enoch” is pre-Christian. It is plainly a working over in a most fantastic way of materials out of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Similitudes of Enoch

Speculating on the probable date when the little apocryphal book called “The Similitudes of Enoch” was written has been one of the favorite guessing games of scholars through the years. The guesses range over more than two hundred years, from the second century b.c. to the second century a.d. Radical scholars who desire to maintain that the Book of Enoch is pre-Christian and charge that the Epistle of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch do not agree among themselves as to the date of the book. Some hold that it is pre-Christian and yet face distinctly post-Christian elements in the book. Consequently they undertake to solve their dilemma by dissecting the book.

R. H. Charles, who is an extreme radical and also an expert in this type of literature, cuts the book up into four segments and assigns them different dates. He does not place any of his segments as late as post-Christian, but his whole procedure offers vivid demonstration of how subjective the process is. B. C. Caffin also says, “Certain portions of the book, however, are of late date” (Pulpit Com., Epistle of Jude, p. 12). A. Ll. Davies speaks of as “The Books of Enoch” “a work of curious complexity and unevenness...a cycle of works” (Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, article “Enoch”). In light of the miniature fragments which result from his dissection, it is surprising he does not talk of “The Pamphlets of Enoch.”

T. Zahn cites Hofmann and Philippi as scholars who hold the Book of Enoch is post-Christian (Introduction to the New Testament, II, p. 287). Hofmann and Dillman were two German scholars who published in successive generations German editions of the book. Dillman divided the book so that part of it was pre-Christian (S. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 266, 267).C. Bigg declares, “It has been maintained by Hofmann, Weiss, Volkmar, and others that Enoch did not exist, at any rate in its complete form, before the beginning of the second century a.d.” (I.C.C. on Jude, p. 309).

Volkmar’s Theory

Volkmar holds that the Book of Enoch is a Jewish product from anti-Christian circles of the period about a.d. 132-134 in the midst of the final, catastrophic Jewish rebellion against Rome and is associated with the Messiah-claimant Barchocebas and Rabbi Akiba. It is obvious that the military leader when he assumed the Messianic title Bar Cochebas (“Son of the Star”) was working over the historical record of Matthew in regard to the star of Bethlehem. The Book of Enoch fits very well into this date. This theory holds that the military scribe Rabbi Akiba was associated with the writing of the Book of Enoch, and that the historical records of the Gospel narratives concerning “the Son of man,” His mighty miraculous ministry, His promised second coming, and the thrilling predictions of the visions of the Book of Revelation were operated on in the customary apocryphal manner to produce the fantastic pictures of the Book of Enoch, to stir excited expectations of miraculous military intervention On the battlefield against Rome, and to inspire the Jewish soldiers to fight with fanatical fury such as was seen at the battle of Bethur.

Exotic Nature of the Book In the absence of any actual proof that the Book of Enoch was pre-Christian, it should suffice to place the book alongside the Bible and observe the difference between night and day and to study carefully all the other apocryphal productions of the early centuries, both Jewish and Christian, to observe the writers’ regular practice of taking a passage of Scripture and with fantastic imaginations expanding it into absurd elongated convolutions. That the author of the Book of Enoch operates on the Old Testament in this customary fashion is beyond all dispute. The implication is instant that the contents of the book show he operates on the New Testament in the same prevailing manner of apocryphal writers. The author of the Book of Enoch dipped his pen into both the Old and New Testaments and scrawled his weird, grotesque concoctions.

Robinson’s Dilemma When Robinson cites the Book of Enoch as pre-Christian, he gains certain advantages for his propaganda against the Scripture, but he faces the critical burden of holding that such references to a supernatural Messiah as are seen in the Book of Enoch were in common circulation at the beginning of the Christian era and yet denying that the declarations of deity could have been made by Jesus or could have been understood by the Jews of His time.

Robinson admits that Jesus’ reply to the high priest recalls Psalms 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 (Matthew certainly adds in Isaiah 7:14 in making clear the meaning of the term Son of God and setting forth the central issue of the gospel, as well as the charge on which His enemies put Him to death — Matthew 1:18-25; Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7 is also powerful testimony). Robinson attempts to dodge the evidence of the good confession Jesus made before the high priest by raising the question of where the crime of blasphemy was involved. Does the claim to be the Messiah mean blasphemy? Was the high priest a Sadducee, hostile to any Messianic claim? The fundamental issue that Jesus was claiming to be God is thus evaded in spite of the explicit declarations of the Gospel narratives. There is no evidence whatsoever to support Robinson’s proposition that it was considered blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. “The Son of God” was the issue. Observe Pilate’s reaction to the charge (John 19:7-12). No one is so blind as he who refuses to see. The “Keys”

“Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jonah.” Jesus addressed Peter by his original name, Simon, to make the contrast stand out with the name Christ had given him at their first meeting (John 1:42). Bar-Jonah, “son of John,” or “son of Jonah,” shows that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. Bar is the word for son in Aramaic; it would have been beni in Hebrew. The beatitude which Jesus pronounced upon Peter was triumphant. There can be no doubt of the high place which was given to Peter at the establishment of the church. He was to have the keys of the kingdom. Keys are for opening doors. When the church or kingdom was established on the day of Pentecost, it was not James, John, Thomas, or Andrew who preached that first full gospel sermon. It was Peter who proclaimed the facts of the gospel and the terms upon which, according to God’s instruction, a person might enter into the church — faith, repentance, confession, baptism. When the church was opened to the Gentiles at the household of Cornelius, Peter, to whom the keys had been given, was the one sent to proclaim the gospel plan of salvation to the first Gentiles that entered the church. The plural keys can hardly refer to these two occasions, for the same message was preached both times. The same “keys,” or conditions for forgiveness of sins and entrance into the kingdom, were proclaimed both to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Some hold that keys was used by Jesus to suggest the four steps in the plan of salvation. But it seems that the plural form is a figure of speech as we commonly say when we are honoring a distinguished visitor by giving him the “keys” to the city. Jesus singled Peter out as the spokesman who would proclaim the first full gospel sermon.

Church and Kingdom This passage is the clearest place to see that the terms church and kingdom are parallel and refer to the same organism. An organization is something which man may create; an organism is a living thing which God creates. Jesus continually used the term kingdom in referring to this organism which He would bring into existence. Only twice in the Gospel of Matthew does He use the word church. This is one of the passages; the other is Matthew 18:17, where Jesus is giving instructions as to how to proceed with discipline in the church after it was established. Both the kingdom and the church have the earthly and the heavenly phase; there is the kingdom of heaven on earth and the kingdom in its final consummation at His second coming; there is the church militant and the church triumphant. Jesus uses both terms in the same breath in this passage. When he turns from the word church to the word kingdom, the historic facts which He predicted concerning Peter’s role in the setting up of the kingdom were clearly fulfilled in the opening chapters of Acts as the church was established. Once the church came into being, the constant references in Acts and the Epistles are to the “church.”

Hades

Jesus compared the church to some great fortress or city which is built upon an impregnable foundation of solid rock. The gates of Hades have been given various interpretations. Hades has two meanings: (1) It may refer to the grave or the abode of the departed spirits whether good or bad, whether in a blessed estate or in punishment. (2) Usually it means the temporary place of punishment where the wicked are kept until the final judgment day. The term Tartarus (in verb form) is used for this intermediate place of punishment in 2 Peter 2:4. The a.v. fails to distinguish between Hades and Gehenna (hell). It translates both words as hell, but the a.s.v. carefully distinguishes between the two. Because of the two meanings of Hades, the a.s.v. transliterates the Greek letters of the word into the English equivalents, thus making a new English word Hades. They did this to avoid the difficulty of interpreting instead of translating each passage.

Three Interpretations The interpretation given to this passage depends upon the meanings given to Hades. Two interpretations take Hades to mean the grave rather than the temporary place of punishment.

Gates do not fight, but let people in and out. Therefore, the meaning is held to be that Hades, (the grave) will never at any one time swallow up the followers of Jesus. The church will always remain in existence. This is an inferior interpretation because the declaration loses all its importance; the gates of Hades shall not he able to prevail against the world in this same sense because there will always be people alive in the world until the second coming. The gates of Hades shall not be able to prevail against the church in the sense that Hades (the grave) will not be able to hold Jesus after His death. He will come forth triumphant in His resurrection and will establish it, even as He predicted. Hades shall not prevail against it (the establishment of the church). The interpretation which the church has generally held from the beginning is to be preferred. While gates do not fight, they are a symbol of the power of a fortress or city. A city is no stronger than its gates. The great foe of Christianity is not the grave, but the devil. Two great kingdoms are at war with one another in this passage; Satan’s kingdom shall never prevail against Christ’s. In this figure Jesus is the builder of the fortress, and Peter is the gatekeeper. The former is the position of supreme importance; the latter implies a position of authority in admitting and excluding at the will of the Builder. The Book of Acts is the inspired interpreter of the Gospel narratives. If we desire to understand difficult passages and predictions in the Gospel accounts, our first procedure should be to turn to the Book of Acts and see what actually happened.

Peter the Rock? As the Roman Catholic Church developed and finally in the sixth century a pope was elected, the effort was made to justify the office by saying that Peter was the first Pope and was appointed here at Caesarea Philippi. But even as late as Augustine there was no unanimity of interpretation of this passage. In fact Augustine declared that he had interpreted the passage in various ways, with Christ as the rock or with Peter as the rock. The attempt to make out that the church was founded on Peter was a view which grew up with the Catholic Church. They emphasize the similarity of the words for Peter and rock and the prominence of Peter in the early church.

Protestants hold that the truth — Jesus is the Christ the Son of God — is the rock. Some prefer to say that Jesus is the Rock. But since the figure used here makes Jesus the Builder, it seems to make a clearer picture to hold that the divine truth Peter affirmed is the rock. They emphasize the fact that, although the name of Peter and the word used for the foundation are similar, so that there is an evident play on the name of Peter, it is plain that Peter is not being declared the foundation of the church because different words are used. A detailed discussion of the fact that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and that the same difference seen in the two Greeks words can be shown to have existed in the Aramaic words will be found in Appendix 1, “The Aramaic Background of the Gospel Narratives.” The Aramaic Words

Radical scholars generally agree with the Roman Catholic position that the Aramaic word would have been the same: “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build” (Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VII p 251). But John 1:42 gives instant refutation to this claim, for the name given to Simon was not Kepha, but a Hellenized form, Kephas, which Jesus evidently coined. So the same difference in the Greek words petros and petra is seen in the Aramaic kephas and kepha. T H. Robinson admits this vital fact: “there is only one word in Aramaic, and, except when used as a man s name, it is always feminine” (Com. on Matthew, p 241). This yields the case that the word would have been different when used of a man’s name. Robinson speaks as if there were an abundance of Aramaic literature available from which to announce the history of this word. Such is not the case. Robinson is merely making the admission which John 1:42 compels. We know from John 1:42 that the name Jesus gave Peter had a masculine ending and that it was Cephas. This is a most common procedure to form the name of a person by transferring a word from one language to another and coining a variation at will.

Petros and Petra The fact of final importance is that Matthew uses two Greek words; the name of Peter is petros, a masculine noun meaning a piece broken off a great mass of rock; the name for the foundation of the church is petra, a feminine noun meaning a solid mass of virgin rock like the cliffs along the seacoast. Some have said that petros means a pebble. The word is used at times to mean a stone so small it could be used in a slingshot. But it is also used of a stone large enough to set up as a boundary marker. In either case it is a piece broken off a mass of rock. The fact that Matthew uses two words shows that there was this discrimination made in Jesus’ original statement in Aramaic. Any attempt to show that there is no distinction is a direct attack upon the veracity of Matthew. He was present and heard what Jesus said. A change of tone or a gesture by Jesus could have underscored the different words used. But there was the difference. Matthew affirms it.

Peter’s Declaration The best interpreter of what Jesus said and meant should be Peter to whom He spoke. As we turn to the fulfillment of this prediction in the Book of Acts, do we find Peter informing the multitude at Pentecost that Jesus had predicted at Caesarea Philippi that he would be the foundation of the church, and did he offer himself as this foundation? Read his opening sermons again and see that he pointed to the Stone which the builders had rejected and which God had made the Head of the corner. When he wrote his epistles late in life, he returned again to this theme and exalted Christ as the foundation of the church. All Christians are living stones built into the structure, and the apostles have places of honor, but it is Christ who is the living Stone on whom the church is founded (1 Peter 2:3, 1 Peter 2:4).

Principles

Principles which are set forth in this declaration are: (1) The church belongs to Christ — “My church.” No man may claim it and set aside Jesus. No one has the right to change its faith or practice. (2) The church was to be established in the future by Christ. It had not existed in the Old Testament period. It was not established by John the Baptist. There is absolutely no evidence of any organization being brought into existence during the ministry of Jesus. He predicts that He will build this divine structure in the future and that His apostles will be the instruments He will use, with Peter as His spokesman. As we pass from the Gospel narratives to the Book of Acts, this is exactly what happened. The first two chapters of Acts show how these predictions were fulfilled.

There has been a feeble and farfetched effort to create a rule of Greek grammar in order to sustain the theory that the church was already in existence. This future tense is declared to be “a futuristic present,” by which means “I will build” is rendered “I am building.” It is curious that in manufacturing this rule of Greek grammar it was not called “a presentistic future.” The form is future, and the effort is to change it into a present. Certainly it would have given just as great an impression of learning to the uninformed. Before a rule of grammar can be properly affirmed, there must be found an impressive collection of instances in which the usage can be clearly proved. Such solid evidence is utterly lacking in this so-called “futuristic present.” Moreover, it collides head-on with the actual facts recorded in the Book of Acts.

(3) A third principle is the revelation that Peter was to have a glorious part in the establishment of the church. He was to act as gatekeeper for Christ’s church and proclaim to the world for the first time the conditions of entrance. (4) The church and the kingdom are spoken of as the same institution. This is disputed by many. But when the effort is made to distinguish between the two, the definitions of the kingdom become so vague as to be meaningless.

(5) The final principle is that the church is to survive the mighty warfare with Satan’s teeming forces. This raises the question as to whether the true church always remained in existence, even during the Dark Ages. Jesus does not specify other than that the gates of Hades would not be able to prevail against the church. It may mean that “truth crushed to earth will rise again,” as was seen in the Protestant Reformation, and the succeeding efforts not to reform the Catholic Church, but to restore the New Testament Church.

Binding and Loosing The binding and loosing on earth and in heaven refers to the forgiveness of sins by the proclamation of the divine means of pardon. Since Christ knew that Peter would faithfully deliver at Pentecost the decrees of heaven revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, He could say that God would ratify in heaven what Peter proclaimed on earth. Allen holds that the two statements keys and binding and loosing refer to administrative and legislative authority. Peter was to rule the church and to legislate! According to this, it must have been Peter instead of Jesus who gave the great commission and established the laws of pardon! Peter was to be the gatekeeper and spokesman. All he did was to publish the laws of admission to the kingdom which Jesus had commanded and the Holy Spirit had confirmed. Shall Have Been Loosed? An interesting point has been raised concerning the Greek of Matthew 16:19. The verbs shall be bound and shall be loosed are future perfect passive. Some insist they should be translated strictly, “shall [future] have [perfect] been [passive] bound, or loosed.” This would make the passage refer to the fact that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world and that God by His foreknowledge had already confirmed that which now took place, as the gospel was accepted or rejected and the sins of a person were remitted or bound upon him.

There is nothing particularly objectionable about this rendering, but grammarians generally doubt that the future perfect passive carries such a specific meaning in the New Testament. Voluminous literature of Hellenistic Greek gives wide range for studying the use of this tense. The periphrastic forms are very common in the koine. Goodwin’s Greek grammar says, “The future perfect is sometimes merely an emphatic future, denoting that a future act will be immediate or decisive; as phradze kai pepraksetai, speak, and it shall be [no sooner said than done] done” (pp. 247, 248). The eminent Greek scholars who translated the Authorized Version, the English Revised Version, and the American Standard Version all decided that the evidence from Greek literature is so abundant that the future perfect passive can be used simply as an emphatic future and the plain, simple rendering of the passage so much to be preferred that they rendered it shall be bound and shall be loosed.

Command to Remain Silent The reasons are evident for the disciples being forbidden to go out and proclaim abroad this conversation. The people were still set on the goal of a material, worldly messiah. Any announcement that Jesus had now clearly declared that He was the Messiah would be misinterpreted by them to mean their kind of messiah. The excited crowds would be still more difficult to restrain and instruct. Moreover, the disciples did not as yet understand what kind of Christ Jesus was. They drew back in horror from Jesus’ succeeding revelation of His death. They were still saying, “To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of life.” But they were finding these words increasingly difficult to accept. If in their present, unprepared state they should go forth to make a premature announcement of Jesus’ Messiahship, they would find themselves unable to explain or defend. They would be propagating a false conception of the Messiah, which they would afterwards have to correct.

Omission in Mark and Luke

Matthew alone records this all-important conversation with Peter. Mark (dictated by Peter) omits this account which glorifies Peter, as is customary in Mark’s Gospel. John does not record this incident or the transfiguration. These had already been adequately presented. John shows that Peter had made a similar confession at Capernaum a good while before this. Two-source Theory advocates strive in vain to explain why Matthew contains, while Mark and Luke omit, this great conversation concerning the church. Allen tries to argue that “the editor of Matthew” may have invented and inserted this at a later time to emphasize the prominence of Peter in the early church. He falls back upon himself a moment later in hopeless contradiction when he argues that Matthew 16:28 proves the early date of the Gospel. Thus he attempts to defend the Two-source Theory by cutting out arbitrarily Matthew 16:17-19(Com. on Matthew, p. 183). This is substantially the procedure of Robinson (Com. on Matthew, p. 140).

After Plummer admits that he cannot explain the omission of all this material in Luke (which cannot be explained if he copied from Mark and Matthew, or from common sources), he merely remarks helplessly here, “Luke and Mark omit the praise bestowed on Peter for this confession and the much discussed promise made to him (Matthew 16:17-19). Can it be of supreme importance” (Commentary on Luke, p. 247)? Such is the futility of a criticism which would belittle or cast doubt upon what it cannot explain. Why not doubt the merit or importance of the parable of the prodigal son because it is recorded by Luke alone? The fact that this great statement is recorded by Matthew alone is powerful evidence for the fact that the Gospel accounts were written independently and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What they omit is as remarkable as what they contain and can only be explained by divine guidance.

Mark’s Account

Much is made by critics of the abbreviated form of the good confession in Mark and Luke. This is especially true of the report of Mark: “Thou art the Christ.” But the attempts to show that Mark is not setting forth the deity of Christ in his Gospel fails completely when it is seen that Mark, as well as Matthew and Luke, follows with the transfiguration scene where the deity of Christ is so clearly affirmed: “This is my beloved Son.”

Prediction of Death

All three accounts show that the confession of Peter and the exciting conversation about the church was followed immediately by the dreadful prediction of Jesus’ death. Luke shows that this announcement was directly connected with the prohibition to announce to the public what had just been revealed to them. Mark says, “He began to teach them” ; He had taught them before this time about His death. But it was so veiled and vague that they had not understood. They must have been shocked and troubled on a number of occasions, such as when He had predicted that they would mourn and fast when “the bridegroom shall be taken away.” But they would have been able to thrust aside these predictions as too obscure and too incredible to be taken literally. Now the prediction was made so clear and precise, they could not misunderstand. Matthew says, “From that time began Jesus….”It was high time to begin; the date of His death was now only about nine months in the future. This was a small amount of time in which to prepare them to resist the dreadful shock. They had made such a bold, clear declaration of their faith that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God, it was time to begin to reveal to them the central and most difficult element of that term Christ.

Necessity of Jesus’ Death Revealed

There is implicit in the preceding record that Peter had spoken for all the apostles (unless Judas was already beginning to veer away, as had been hinted in John 6:70, John 6:71). The discussion which now followed makes clear that the other apostles were in strong agreement with Peter. A further reason for Jesus’ action in now beginning a forthright series of predictions of His death is seen in the bolder plots that were being made against His life. The disciples knew this. The murder of John the Baptist would have underscored the importance and menace of these plots. To keep the apostles in ignorance of the fact that He did not intend to defend Himself would place the apostles at a great disadvantage. It would be harder to control them and to keep them from meeting violence with violence. One of the solid foundations under their faith at the last when they stood in the presence of the risen Christ, would be the knowledge that He had repeatedly predicted His death and had revealed to them that He was sent into the world by God to die for the sins of the world.

Observe this word must in the three accounts. Jesus was seeking to cause His disciples to recognize the divine compulsion and plan behind His perplexing refusal to defend Himself and behind His approaching death. The enemies of Christ could not destroy Him. They would not be able to bring about His death unless it was God’s will that He go into their midst and suffer torture and death at their hands. Mark emphasizes the definite character of this prediction by adding, “He spake the saying openly” (Mark 8:32). All three accounts specify the enemies who are to accomplish His death: “elders” (members of the Sanhedrin); “chief priests” (high priest and those eligible to the office); “scribes” (famous scholars, almost exclusively Pharisees).

Three Days The time of the crucifixion was left indefinite. When was He to die? He did not say. They could not tell. But it would be sometime in the future, presumably the near future. And what of the kingdom — this glorious church which He had just declared He would build? When and how this? The time element of the resurrection was stated. They were not left without information on this point, but were told it would occur on “the third day” (Matt.); Mark says “after three days”; Luke has “the third day.” This shows that the time in the tomb is not of vital importance. There is no effort in the Gospel accounts to state the exact number of hours, but the time is stated in general: on the third day or after three days are counted as equivalent. Those who insist on interpreting Matthew 12:40 as meaning exactly seventy-two hours overlook the fact that the same Gospel a few chapters later quotes Jesus as describing the resurrection as “on the third day” (cf. chapter 16, Book One, “The Date of the Crucifixion,” for a more complete discussion of this subject).

Disciples’ Reaction The disciples did not understand the statement about the resurrection at this time or in the later predictions. The terrific shock of the prediction of His death stopped the clock of their thinking. “Why hear anything else if He is to allow His enemies to kill Him? Who wants to hear anything else? What could be said? Who wants to live any longer if He dies?” They simply closed their minds to anything further. Thus, the enemies of Jesus shrewdly and fearfully calculated on His predictions of resurrection while the apostles blindly refused to give any heed.

Peter’s Protest

Matthew and Mark report that “Peter took him”; the verb means to take a person aside, although it is clear from the passage that the other apostles were still within hearing and seeing distance. In this action Peter had a double purpose. He was horrified at what Jesus had said. He desired to avoid any further open discussion of such a terrible topic. Moreover, he desired to make a bold protest, and this could be more easily done in semi-private. The Sinaitic-Syriac manuscript has an interesting variation here; it reads, “Peter took him as though he pitied him” (as if to save Him from Himself). Jesus was gentle, loving, and self-sacrificing beyond all belief. He had urged them to love their enemies and do good to them that hated them, but this is too much! This Sinaitic-Syriac manuscript is rather erratic, and the reading does not have further support. The scribe was evidently adding a comment of his own.

Matthew, who has been so careful in giving details of the conversation with Peter concerning the church, now also gives carefully what Peter said in his rebuke. Peter’s love and devotion would naturally have impelled him to accept humbly whatever Jesus said, but this terrible prediction overwhelmed him. He was so full of joy and triumph at Jesus’ commendation of his confession, that now when he heard this tragic prediction it seemed to him an utter contradiction of Jesus’ Messiahship and deity. Peter’s words were exceedingly bold and full of pathos and dramatic power. Peter’s face and whole manner must have been the picture of consternation and anguish.

Jesus’ Rebuke As Peter’s protest was bold, Jesus’ response was even more blunt and mandatory: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” God had revealed to Peter the wonderful confession he had just made, but God was not the source of this present protest. Peter was repeating unwittingly the last temptation the devil offered in the wilderness — the conquest of the world by worldly means rather than by way of the cross. Peter was playing Satan’s role and offering Satan’s proposal. Jesus did not command Peter to leave, as He had ordered Satan to go hence, but He commanded Peter to get behind in the proper position of a follower and not try to act as a guide and dictate to Him His proper course. In front, he was a stumbling block. The Other Disciples

Mark’s repetition of the verb rebuke is noteworthy. Peter had boldly rebuked Jesus, but Jesus answered with a rebuke which was devastating. Mark includes another vivid detail: “But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter.” This shows the disciples were still within sight and hearing. Perhaps Jesus had yielded so far and no further to Peter’s effort to lead Him aside into a private conversation. Jesus would not have the exchange a private matter. The other disciples needed rebuke and instruction as well as Peter. This also shows that the apostles were in hearty agreement with Peter. They were being swept away by his dramatic protest and showed by their expression and excited posture their sympathy with his position. If the look which Jesus gave the rest of the apostles was a stormy rebuke, then the despairing protest of Peter, the look of rebuke at the other apostles, and the blunt denunciation of Peter followed one another in an almost instant chain explosion. The Things of Men The things of men suggests the popular conception of the Messiah — a political king ruling in earthly splendor. The things of God include the death of Christ for the sins of men. Thou mindest not is quite clear. The Greek verb phroneo means: (1) to have understanding, to be wise; (2) to feel or think; (3) to direct one’s mind to a thing, to seek, to strive for. “You consider and seek not God’s will and the blessings of heaven, but earthly comfort, satisfaction, and glory.” The King James Version is more difficult: “Thou savourest not.” Used as a verb savour suggests both give and receive: (1) to impart flavor, scent, tone, or the like; (2) to taste or smell with, to indicate the presence of. “You offer the inviting flavor of the world; you have the aroma of worldly desire to avoid suffering and to get something for nothing!” “You find my predictions bitter to the taste because you seek worldly security.” The Sermon

Mark has another vivid detail which is not reported by the other two writers: “And he called unto him the multitude with the disciples, and said unto them.” If we had only Matthew and Luke, we would conclude that just the apostles heard his startling and perplexing sermon. Luke’s declaration, “He said unto all,” would not have been quite clear. But Mark shows that Jesus now summoned the multitude, which was respectful enough to remain at a distance until summoned, but eager enough to come instantly at a call. With what trepidation the apostles must have seen Jesus summon the crowd. Peter had appealed to Jesus never to mention such a horrible subject as this again. Jesus was responding by summoning the entire multitude to hear His pronouncement. How far would He go in revealing to them His approaching death? The sermon of Jesus is condensed to five verses, but they are filled with profound insight, beauty, and power. Several of the most famous words of Jesus are in this sermon. They announced His death and challenged all who would to follow Him to death by crucifixion. They united with this challenge the glorious revelation of the establishment of His kingdom in great power. To deny a statement means one contradicts its truth and discards it as invalid. But what does it mean to deny a person? “Let him deny himself.” Let him disown the things that have self as their aim and end; let him deny the false or baser self and affirm the new or nobler self which has now become one with Christ. Paul continually writes of this.

Impact on the Crowd The crowd had not heard the thrilling confession and conversation and the shocking prediction and rebuke. Hence they were at a decided disadvantage in hearing this sermon, but they knew what the fate of the Old Testament prophets had been. They knew the fierce hatred and plots to kill Jesus which prevailed among the national leaders. And they knew what it meant “to take up his cross, and follow me.” The Jews of Galilee had learned by bitter experience in previous revolts against Syria and Rome. Hundreds of followers of Judas and Simon had been crucified in Galilee (Josephus, Antiquities, XVII:X:10). Relatives of some who heard Jesus’ sermon might have suffered this cruel death. They would understand that Jesus did not mean mere burden-bearing of sickness, disappointment, or misfortune which could not be avoided, but the voluntary acceptance of whatever suffering might be entailed in committing their lives to Christ. Luke reports, “take up his cross daily,”which expresses the constant willingness to suffer for the Lord. Thus martyrdom was suggested, and al so daily suffering by those who survived. Paul speaks of dying daily with and for Christ. Peter gives a fine contrast between the suffering we bring on ourselves by our misdeeds and the suffering we endure as Christians because of our devotion to Christ (1 Peter 2:19-25; 1 Peter 4:12-19). The words of this sermon at Caesarea Philippi must have taken deep root in Peter’s heart, for we hear him crying out at the last supper, “Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee” (Matthew 26:35).

Death and Life The abrupt demand that they must be ready to die for Him was followed immediately by a wonderful declaration that death to self is the open door to life. The person who seeks to save his life in the selfish and worldly sense shall lose it in the spiritual and heavenly sense. But the disciple who forgets his own selfish desires and loses himself in complete consecration to the service of God shall find his life in the highest and eternal sense. He will scorn the personal consequences he suffers and will not seek personal glory, but will dedicate himself completely to Christ. Observe the strong personal element in His invitation and challenge: “come after me,” “follow me,” “for my sake and the gospel’s,” “ashamed of me,” “Son of man shall come.” This same personal element pervades Jesus’ teaching and preaching in all four Gospel narratives. It is not true that in the Synoptics He speaks of the kingdom, but not of Himself. The Two Lives

After having contrasted the two lives — the lower, or earthly, and the nobler, or heavenly — He contrasted the spiritual life, or soul, and the world. The way of the world is to measure a man’s value in terms of his earthly possessions, fame, or power; Jesus proposes a different standard — not what a man has, but what he is. And Christ in the final day will judge what he is. To forfeit means to lose by way of penalty. The latter question of Matthew 16:26 means, “If a man has forfeited his soul, by what means can he buy it back?” This is a rhetorical question. It means he cannot buy it back. If he had the whole world of material things, he still could not buy it back.

Soul or Life? The Greek word psuche is used four times in two verses; twice it is rendered life in the a.v., and twice it is translated soul The a.s.v. translates life each time. It is plain that it cannot be translated soul in Matthew 16:25; “Whosoever shall lose his soul for my sake shall find it” would not be a possible translation. On the other band in the a.v. soul in Matthew 16:26 is most effective — “lose his own soul.” When the a.s.v. translates psuche as life in Matthew 16:26, it must be understood in the spiritual and eternal sense. Sacrifice of physical life in this world is the very thing Jesus is calling upon His followers to be prepared to do for Him and for the gospel. The Greek word can mean animated life, breath, soul, or spirit. The a.v. seems to have a more effective translation in using soul in Matthew 16:26. T H. Robinson speculates, The same Greek word is rendered life in Matthew 16:25 and soul in Matthew 16:26, but, as a matter of fact, the Greek word itself can only be a translation of an Aramaic phrase which in nine cases out of every ten will be the equivalent of a reflexive pronoun: who ever wants to save himself will lose himself...this, says Jesus, can only be done when a man denies himself, disowns himself, refuses to admit that he has any value or need to be considered in any way, save as a means to an end, an instrument for achieving a given task” (Commentary on Matthew, pp. 144, 145). That word self represents one of our efforts to identify the soul, the spirit, the ego, the person. The Day of Glory The thrilling prediction with which this sermon closes was calculated to offer surcease to the breaking hearts of the apostles and to summon hope to surmount despair. Jesus declared Himself the Messiah with this term Son of man. He predicted His glorious reign: “in the glory...with his angels.” He affirmed His deity, “of his Father,” and His place of eternal Judge. Luke adds, “in his own glory and the glory of the Father.” All that the apostles could see now was shame, torture, and death. He urged them to look up to the heavenly glory. Both Mark and Luke say holy angels, which pictures the sanctity and blessed character of the angels and surrounds the sinless character of Jesus with the radiance of the heavenly host. Mark and Luke speak of “whosoever shall be ashamed of me.” Matthew has the same idea in each man’s being judged by his deeds. Jesus had just predicted plainly to His apostles and hinted strongly to the multitude that a shameful death awaited Him; but, if they were ashamed of Him now as a crucified Messiah, He would be ashamed of them in the day in which He would judge the world. This statement repeated His challenge to all to be willing to die for Him. According to his deeds does not deny that we are saved by grace and that no one can earn salvation, but it does affirm human responsibility to God for our conduct, and the necessity of every man being judged “according to his deeds.” The Kingdom Come with Power The closing verse of the sermon is difficult. Radical seize this verse, which they insist must refer to the second coming, and use it as evidence that both He and the New Testament writers thought He was coming again immediately. This, in spite of the clear declarations of Jesus that “of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36); and the strong statements of Paul in 1 Thessalonians and of Peter in his second epistle. Matthew 16:27 plainly refers to the second coming of Christ, but Matthew 16:28 just as plainly does not refer to the coming of the Son of man at the final judgment day, but in the establishment of His kingdom at Pentecost. Matthew says “coming in his kingdom”; Mark clarifies this still further: “till they see the kingdom of God come with power” ; so also Luke. “Come with power” fits precisely the entire account of the first two chapters of Acts. The apostles would have been dazed by the seeming contradiction between His promises of the establishment of the church given to Peter and His prediction of death for Himself. The picture of the final consummation, the day of judgment, and the eternal reign of Christ would have been glorious, but in their beclouded reflections the question would have been “When?” They needed more comfort than remote predictions of the final judgment. Jesus gave this strong support for their sagging faith and hope by His dramatic prediction; “There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see….”

Other Interpretations

Besides the radical interpretation that Jesus is predicting His second coming immediately, there are a number of views advanced by commentators.Early Christian writers generally held (Theophylact is a good example) that Jesus referred to the transfiguration. This view led to the mistaken chapter division in Mark. Other views are: (1) the resurrection and ascension; (2) the spread of Christianity; (3) the internal development of the gospel; (4) the destruction of Jerusalem. Plummer points out with a keen argument that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to the second coming because until implies that the “some” will experience death after seeing the kingdom of God, which is not true of those who live to see the second coming of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:51; cf. Plummer, Commentary on Luke, pp. 249, 250).