Text -- Matthew 16:19 (NET)

16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mat 16:19

The Keys of the kingdom ( tas kleidas tēs basileias ).

Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom"that he did by "church"in Mat 16:18. In Rev 1:18; Rev 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades."He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven"which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper"or "steward"(oikonomos ) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Mat 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (Mat 20:21) and even on the night before Christ’ s death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind"(dēsēis ) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose"(lusēis ) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed"many things that the school of Schammai "bound."The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (estai dedemenon , estai lelumenon ), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter’ s use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (Mat 18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (Joh 20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares , because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

Vincent: Mat 16:19

Keys ( κλεῖδας )

The similitude corresponding to build. The church or kingdom is conceived as a house, of which Peter is to be the steward, bearing the keys. " Even as he had been the first to utter the confession of the church, so was he also privileged to be the first to open its hitherto closed gates to the Gentiles, when God made choice of him, that, through his mouth, the Gentiles should first hear the words of the Gospel, and at his bidding first be baptized" (Edersheim, " Life and Times of Jesus" ).

Vincent: Mat 16:19

Bind - loose ( δήσῃς - λύσῃς )

In a sense common among the Jews, of forbidding or allowing. No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, and that not in their pretension, but in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (Joh 20:23, Edersheim). " This legislative authority conferred upon Peter can only wear an offensive aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary character, and as being in no way determined by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connection with the rest of the apostles. Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Mat 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals" (Meyer on Mat 16:19; Mat 18:18).

Wesley: Mat 16:19

Indeed not to him alone, (for they were equally given to all the apostles at the same time, Joh 20:21-23;) but to him were first given the keys both of doctrine and discipline. He first, after our Lord's resurrection, exercised the apostleship, Act 1:15. And he first by preaching opened the kingdom of heaven, both to the Jews, Act 2:14 &c., and to the Gentiles, Act 10:34 &c. Under the term of binding and loosing are contained all those acts of discipline which Peter and his brethren performed as apostles: and undoubtedly what they thus performed on earth, God confirmed in heaven. Mat 18:18.

JFB: Mat 16:19

The kingdom of God about to be set up on earth

JFB: Mat 16:19

Whatever this mean, it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles (Mat 18:18); so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome, and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent. As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these "keys," on the day of Pentecost, he first "opened the door of faith" to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. See on Mat 18:18. One thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles--a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle.

Clarke: Mat 16:19

The keys of the kingdom - By the kingdom of heaven, we may consider the true Church, that house of God, to be meant; and by the keys, the power of admitting into that house, or of preventing any improper person from coming in. In other words, the doctrine of salvation, and the full declaration of the way in which God will save sinners; and who they are that shall be finally excluded from heaven; and on what account. When the Jews made a man a doctor of the law, they put into his hand the key of the closet in the temple where the sacred books were kept, and also tablets to write upon; signifying, by this, that they gave him authority to teach, and to explain the Scriptures to the people. - Martin. This prophetic declaration of our Lord was literally fulfilled to Peter, as he was made the first instrument of opening, i.e. preaching the doctrines of the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, Act 2:41; and to the Gentiles, Act 10:44-47; Act 11:1; Act 15:7

Clarke: Mat 16:19

Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth - This mode of expression was frequent among the Jews: they considered that every thing that was done upon earth, according to the order of God, was at the same time done in heaven: hence they were accustomed to say, that when the priest, on the day of atonement, offered the two goats upon earth, the same were offered in heaven. As one goat therefore is permitted to escape on earth, one is permitted to escape in heaven; and when the priests cast the lots on earth, the priest also casts the lots in heaven. See Sohar. Leviticus fol. 26; and see Lightfoot and Schoettgen. These words will receive considerable light from Lev 13:3, Lev 13:23 : The priest shall look upon him (the leper) and pronounce him unclean. Hebrew וטמא אתו vetime otho , he shall pollute him, i.e. shall declare him polluted, from the evidences mentioned before. And in Lev 13:23 : The priest shall pronounce him clean, וטהרו הכה vetiharo hacohen , the priest shall cleanse him, i.e. declare he is clean, from the evidences mentioned in the verse. In the one case the priest declared the person infected with the leprosy, and unfit for civil society; and, in the other, that the suspected person was clean, and might safely associate with his fellows in civil or religious assemblies. The disciples of our Lord, from having the keys, i.e. the true knowledge of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, should be able at all times to distinguish between the clean and the unclean, and pronounce infallible judgment; and this binding and loosing, or pronouncing fit or unfit for fellowship with the members of Christ, being always according to the doctrine of the Gospel of God, should be considered as proceeding immediately from heaven, and consequently as Divinely ratified

That binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Jews, and that they meant bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc., Dr. Lightfoot, after having given numerous instances, thus concludes: -

"To these may be added, if need were, the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the phrases, אסור ומותר bound and loosed, which we meet with thousands of times over. But from these allegations the reader sees, abundantly enough, both the frequency and the common use of this phrase, and the sense of it also; namely, first, that it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that to bind is the same with, to forbid, or to declare forbidden. To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was not understood by his hearers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter, or of madness

To this, therefore, do these words amount: When the time was come wherein the Mosaic law, as to some part of it, was to be abolished, and left off, and, as to another part of it, was to be continued and to last for ever, he granted Peter here, and to the rest of the apostles, Mat 18:18, a power to abolish or confirm what they thought good, and as they thought good; being taught this, and led by the Holy Spirit: as if he should say, Whatsoever ye shall bind in the law of Moses, that is, forbid, it shall be forbidden, the Divine authority confirming it; and whatsoever ye shall loose, that is, permit, or shall teach that it is permitted and lawful, shall be lawful and permitted. Hence they bound, that is forbade, circumcision to the believers; eating of things offered to idols, of things strangled, and of blood, for a time, to the Gentiles; and that which they bound on earth was confirmed in heaven. They loosed, that is, allowed purification to Paul, and to four other brethren, for the shunning of scandal; Act 21:24 and, in a word, by these words of Christ it was committed to them, the Holy Spirit directing, that they should make decrees concerning religion, as to the use or rejection of Mosaic rites and judgments, and that either for a time, or for ever

"Let the words be applied by way of paraphrase to the matter that was transacted at present with Peter: ‘ I am about to build a Gentile Church,’ saith Christ, and to thee, O Peter, do I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest first open the door of faith to them; but 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 law of Moses thou shalt forbid them shall be forbidden; whatsoever thou grantest them shall be granted; and that under a sanction made in heaven.’ Hence, in that instant, when he should use his keys, that is, when he was now ready to open the gate of the Gospel to the Gentiles, Acts 10, he was taught from heaven that the consorting of the Jew with the Gentile, which before had been bound, was now loosed; and the eating of any creature convenient for food was now loosed, which before had been bound; and he in like manner looses both these

"Those words of our Savior, Joh 20:23, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted to them, for the most part are forced to the same sense with these before us, when they carry quite another sense. Here the business is of doctrine only, not of persons; there of persons, not of doctrine. Here of things lawful or unlawful in religion, to be determined by the apostles; there of persons obstinate or not obstinate, to be punished by them, or not to be punished

"As to doctrine, the apostles were doubly instructed. 1. So long sitting at the feet of their Master, they had imbibed the evangelical doctrine

"2. The Holy Spirit directing them, they were to determine concerning the legal doctrine and practice, being completely instructed and enabled in both by the Holy Spirit descending upon them. As to the persons, they were endowed with a peculiar gift, so that, the same Spirit directing them, if they would retain and punish the sins of any, a power was delivered into their hands of delivering to Satan, of punishing with diseases, plagues, yea, death itself, which Peter did to Ananias and Sapphira; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus, and Philetus, etc.

After all these evidences and proofs of the proper use of these terms, to attempt to press the word, into the service long assigned them by the Church of Rome, would, to use the words of Dr. Lightfoot, be "a matter of laughter or of madness."No Church can use them in the sense thus imposed upon them, which was done merely to serve secular ends; and least of all can that very Church that thus abuses them.

Calvin: Mat 16:19

19.And I will give thee the keys Here Christ begins now to speak of the public office, that is, of the Apostleship, which he dignifies with a twofold title. First, he says that the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys; and, secondly, he adds, that they are invested with a power of binding and loosing, which is ratified in heaven. ⁴⁴⁰ The comparison of the keys is very properly applied to the office of teaching; as when Christ says (Luk 11:52) that the scribes and Pharisees, in like manner, have the key of the kingdom of heaven, because they are expounders of the law. We know that there is no other way in which the gate of life is opened to us than by the word of God; and hence it follows that the key is placed, as it were, in the hands of the ministers of the word.

Those who think that the word keys is here used in the plural number, because the Apostles received a commission not only to open but also to shut, have some probability on their side; but if any person choose to take a more simple view of the meaning, let him enjoy his own opinion. ⁴⁴¹ Here a question arises, Why does the Lord promise that he will give to Peter what he appeared to have formerly given him by making him an Apostle? But this question has been already answered, ⁴⁴² when I said that the twelve were at first (Mat 10:5) nothing more than temporary preachers, ⁴⁴³ and so, when they returned to Christ, they had executed their commission; but after that Christ had risen from the dead, they then began to be appointed to be ordinary teachers of the Church. It is in this sense that the honor is now bestowed for the future.

Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth The second metaphor, or comparison, is intended directly to point out the forgiveness of sins; for Christ, in delivering us, by his Gospel, from the condemnation of eternal death, looses the cords of the curse by which we are held bound. The doctrine of the Gospel is, therefore, declared to be appointed for loosing our bonds, that, being loosed on earth by the voice and testimony of men, we may be actually loosed in heaven. But as there are many who not only are guilty of wickedly rejecting the deliverance that is offered to them, but by their obstinacy bring down on themselves a heavier judgment, the power and authority to bind is likewise granted to the ministers of the Gospel. It must be observed, however, that this does not belong to the nature of the Gospel, but is accidental; as Paul also informs us, when, speaking of the vengeance which he tells us that he has it in his power to execute against all unbelievers and rebels, he immediately adds,

When your obedience shall have been fulfilled,
(2Co 10:6.)

For were it not that the reprobate, through their own fault, turn life into death, the Gospel would be to all the power of God to salvation, (Rom 1:16;) but as many persons no sooner hear it than their impiety openly breaks out, and provokes against them more and more the wrath of God, to such persons its savor must be deadly, (2Co 2:16.)

The substance of this statement is, that Christ intended to assure his followers of the salvation promised to them in the Gospel, that they might expect it as firmly as if he were himself to descend from heaven to bear testimony concerning it; and, on the other hand, to strike despisers with terror, that they might not expect their mockery of the ministers of the word to remain unpunished. Both are exceedingly necessary; for the inestimable treasure of life is exhibited to us in earthen vessels, (2Co 4:7,) and had not the authority of the doctrine been established in this manner, the faith of it would have been, almost every moment, ready to give way. ⁴⁴⁴ The reason why the ungodly become so daring and presumptuous is, that they imagine they have to deal with men. Christ therefore declares that, by the preaching of the Gospel, is revealed on the earth what will be the heavenly judgment of God, and that the certainty of life or death is not to be obtained from any other source.

This is a great honor, that we are God’s messengers to assure the world of its salvation. It is the highest honor conferred on the Gospel, that it is declared to be the embassy of mutual reconciliation between God and men, (2Co 5:20.) In a word, it is a wonderful consolation to devout minds to know that the message of salvation brought to them by a poor mortal man is ratified before God. Meanwhile, let the ungodly ridicule, as they may think fit, the doctrine which is preached to them by the command of God, they will one day learn with what truth and seriousness God threatened them by the mouth of men. Finally, let pious teachers, resting on this assurance, encourage themselves and others to defend with boldness the life-giving grace of God, and yet let them not the less boldly thunder against the hardened despisers of their doctrine.

Hitherto I have given a plain exposition of the native meaning of the words, so that nothing farther could have been desired, had it not been that the Roman Antichrist, wishing to cloak his tyranny, has wickedly and dishonestly dared to pervert the whole of this passage. The light of the true interpretation which I have stated would be of itself sufficient, one would think, for dispelling his darkness; but that pious readers may feel no uneasiness, I shall briefly refute his disgusting calumnies. First, he alleges that Peter is declared to be the foundation of the Church. But who does not see that what he applies to the person of a man is said in reference to Peter’s faith in Christ? There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words Πέτρος ( Peter) and πέτρα, ( petra, a stone or rock,) ⁴⁴⁵ except that the former belongs to the Attic, and the latter to the ordinary dialect. But we are not to suppose that Matthew had not a good reason for employing this diversity of expression. On the contrary, the gender of the noun was intentionally changed, to show that he was now speaking of something different. ⁴⁴⁶ A distinction of the same sort, I have no doubt, was pointed out by Christ in his own language; ⁴⁴⁷ and therefore Augustine judiciously reminds the reader that it is not πέτρα (petra, a stone or rock) that is derived from Πέτρος, ( Peter,) but Πέτρος ( Peter) that is derived from πέτρα, (petra, a stone or rock)

But not to be tedious, as we must acknowledge the truth and certainty of the declaration of Paul, that the Church can have no other foundation than Christ alone, (1Co 3:11; Eph 2:20,) it can be nothing less than blasphemy and sacrilege when the Pope has contrived another foundation. And certainly no words can express the detestation with which we ought to regard the tyranny of the Papal system on this single account, that, in order to maintain it, the foundation of the Church has been subverted, that the mouth of hell might be opened and swallow up wretched souls. Besides, as I have already hinted, that part does not refer to Peter’s public office, but only assigns to him a distinguished place among the sacred stones of the temple. The commendations that follow relate to the Apostolic office; and hence we conclude that nothing is here said to Peter which does not apply equally to the others who were his companions, for if the rank of apostleship was common to them all, whatever was connected with it must also have been held in common.

But it will be said, Christ addresses Peter alone: he does so, because Peter alone, in the name of all, had confessed Christ to be the Son of God, and to him alone is addressed the discourse, which applies equally to the rest. And the reason adduced by Cyprian and others is not to be despised, that Christ spake to all in the person of one man, in order to recommend the unity of the Church. They reply, ⁴⁴⁸ that he to whom this privilege was granted in a peculiar manner is preferred to all others. But that is equivalent to saying that he was more an apostle than his companions; for the power to bind and to loose can no more be separated from the office of teaching and the Apostleship than light or heat can be separated from the sun. And even granting that something more was bestowed on Peter than on the rest, that he might hold a distinguished place among the Apostles, it is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion. And in fact, Christ laid no heavier burden on him than he was able to bear. He is ordered to be the porter of the kingdom of heaven; he is ordered to dispense the grace of God by binding and loosing; that is, as far as the power of a mortal man reaches. All that was given to him, therefore, must be limited to the measure of grace which he received for the edification of the Church; and so that vast dominion, which the Papists claim for him, falls to the ground.

But though there were no strife or controversy about Peter, ⁴⁴⁹ still this passage would not lend countenance to the tyranny of the Pope. For no man in his senses will admit the principle which the Papists take for granted, that what is here granted to Peter was intended to be transmitted by him to posterity by hereditary right; for he does not receive permission to give any thing to his successors. So then the Papists make him bountiful with what is not his own. Finally, though the uninterrupted succession were fully established, still the Pope will gain nothing by it till he has proved himself to be Peter’s lawful successor. And how does he prove it? Because Peter died at Rome; as if Rome, by the detestable murder of the Apostle, had procured for herself the primacy. But they allege that he was also bishop there. How frivolous ⁴⁵⁰ that allegation is, I have made abundantly evident in my Institutes, (Book 4, Chapter 6,) to which I would willingly send my reader for a complete discussion of this argument, rather than annoy or weary him by repeating it in this place. Yet I would add a few words. Though the Bishop of Rome had been the lawful successor of Peter, since by his own treachery he has deprived himself of so high an honor, all that Christ bestowed on the successors of Peter avails him nothing. That the Pope’s court resides at Rome is sufficiently known, but no mark of a Church there can be pointed out. As to the pastoral office, his eagerness to shun it is equal to the ardor with which he contends for his own dominion. Certainly, if it were true that Christ has left nothing undone to exalt the heirs of Peter, still he was not so lavish as to part with his own honor to bestow it on apostates.

Defender: Mat 16:19

The "keys" here are not literal keys but rather a metaphor for the message that would open the way to salvation for those hearers who would respond. A similar figurative use of a "key" is in Luk 11:52, where Jesus charged the lawyers of His day with taking away "the key of knowledge." Peter, representing all the apostles, used these keys (the gospel message) to open the door to the Jews at Pentecost, then to the believers of Samaria, then to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius (Acts 2:14-41; Act 8:14-17; 10:17-48).

Defender: Mat 16:19

The phrases "shall be bound" and "shall be loosed" can better be translated "shall have been bound" and "shall have been loosed." Not only Peter but all the apostles (Joh 20:21-23) would have the authority to pronounce to their listeners the binding or loosing that would have been established in heaven as an immediate result of the response of these listeners to the gospel message (Mat 18:18)."

TSK: Mat 16:19

give : Acts 2:14-42, Act 10:34-43, Act 15:7

the keys : Isa 22:22; Rev 1:18, Rev 3:7, Rev 9:1, Rev 20:1-3

and whatsoever : Mat 18:18; Joh 20:23; 1Co 5:4, 1Co 5:5; 2Co 2:10; 1Th 4:8; Rev 11:6

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mat 16:13-20

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.\caps1     b\caps0 y the teaching of Christ, and,

2.\caps1     b\caps0 y 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."

Poole: Mat 16:19

And I will give unto thee not unto thee exclusively, that is, to thee and no others; for as we no where read of any such power used by Peter, so our Saviour’ s first question, Whom think you that I am? Letteth us know that his speech, though directed to Peter only, (who in the name of the rest first answered), concerned the rest of the apostles as well as Peter. Besides, as we know that the other apostles had as well as he the key of knowledge and doctrine, and by their preaching opened the kingdom of heaven to men; so the key of discipline also was committed to the rest as well as unto him: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, Joh 20:22,23 . The keys of the kingdom of heaven; the whole administration of the gospel, both with reference to the publication of the doctrine of it, and the dispensing out the ordinances of it. We read of the key of knowledge, which the scribes and Pharisees took away, Luk 11:52 , and the key of government: The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder, Isa 22:21 , I will commit thy government into his hand; which is applied to Christ, Rev 3:7 . The sense is, Peter, I will betrust thee, and the rest of my apostles, with the whole administration of my gospel; you shall lay the foundation of the Christian church, and administer all the affairs of it, opening the truths of my gospel to the world, and governing those who shall receive the faith of the gospel.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Some very learned interpreters think that our Saviour here speaketh according to the language then in use amongst the Jews; who by binding understood the determining and declaring a thing unlawful; and by loosing, declaring by doctrine, or determining by judgment, a thing unlawful, that is, such as no men’ s consciences were bound to do or to avoid. So as by this text an authority was given to these first planters of the gospel, to determine (by virtue of their infallible Spirit, breathed upon them, Joh 20:21 ) concerning things to be done and to be avoided. Thus Act 15:28,29 , they loosed the Gentiles from the observation of the ceremonial law. Some think that by this phrase our Saviour gave to his apostles, and not to them only, but to the succeeding church, to the end of the world, a power of excommunication and absolution, to admit in and to cast out of the church, and promises to ratify what they do of this nature in heaven; and that this text is expounded by Joh 20:23 , Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained; and that the power of the church, and of ministers in the church, as to this, is more than declarative. That the church hath a power in a due order and for just causes, to cast persons out of its communion, is plain enough from other texts; but that the church hath a power to remit sins committed against God more than declaratively, that is, declaring that upon men’ s repentance and faith God hath remitted, I cannot see founded in this text. Certain it is, that Christ doth not here bind himself to confirm the erroneous actions of men, either in excommunications or absolutions; nor to authorize all such actions of this nature that they do. I do therefore rather incline to think that our Saviour by this promise declared his will, that his apostles should settle the affairs of the gospel church, determining what should be lawful and unlawful, and setting rules, according to which all succeeding ministers and officers in his church should act, which our Lord would confirm in heaven. And that the ordinary power of churches in censures is rather to be derived from other texts of Scripture than this, though I will not deny but that in the general it may be here included; but I cannot think that the sense of binding and loosing here is excommunicating and absolving, but a doctrinal or judicial determination of things lawful and unlawful granted to the apostles; the not obeying or living up to whose determinations and decisions may be indeed a just cause of casting persons out of the communion of the church, as the contrary obedience and conformity to them a good ground of receiving them in again. But whether in this text be not granted to the apostles a further power than agrees to any ministers since their age I much doubt, and am very prone to believe that there is.

Lightfoot: Mat 16:19

And 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.   

[And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.] That is, Thou shalt first open the door of faith to the Gentiles. He had said that he would build his church to endure for ever, against which "the gates of hell should not prevail"... "and to thee, O Peter (saith he), I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest open a door for the bringing in the gospel to that church." Which was performed by Peter in that remarkable story concerning Cornelius, Acts_10. And I make no doubt that those words of Peter respect these words of Christ, Act 15:7; A good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel by my mouth, and believe.   

[And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth etc. And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, etc.] I. We believe the keys were committed to Peter alone, but the power of binding and loosing to the other apostles also, Mat 18:18.   

II. It is necessary to suppose that Christ here spake according to the common people, or he could not be understood without a particular commentary, which is nowhere to be found.   

III. But now to bind and loose; a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things; not of persons; which is here also to be observed in the articles what and whatsoever; Matthew_18.   

One might produce thousands of examples out of their writings: we will only offer a double decad; the first, whence the frequent use of this word may appear; the second, whence the sense may:   

1. "R. Jochanan said [to those of Tiberias], 'Why have ye brought this elder to me? Whatsoever I loose, he binds; whatsoever I bind, he looseth.' "   

2. Thou shalt neither bind nor loose.   

3. "Nachum, the brother of R. Illa, asked R. Jochanan concerning a certain matter. To whom he answered, Thou shalt neither bind nor loose."   

4. This man binds, but the other looseth.   

5. "R. Chaija said, Whatsoever I have bound to you elsewhere, I will loose to you here."   

6. He asked one wise man, and he bound: Do not ask another wise man, lest perhaps he loose.   

7. The mouth that bindeth is the mouth that looseth.   

8. "Although of the disciples of Shammai, and those of Hillel, the one bound, and the other loosed; yet they forbade not but that these might make purifications according to the others."   

9. A wise man that judgeth judgment, defileth and cleanseth [that is, he declares defiled or clean]; he looseth and bindeth. The same also is in Maimonides.   

10. Whether it is lawful to go into the necessary-house with the phylacteries only to piss? Rabbena looseth, and Rabh Ada bindeth. The mystical doctor, who neither bindeth nor looseth.   

The other decad shall show the phrase applied to things:   

1. "In Judea they did [servile] works on the Passover-eve" (that is, on the day going before the Passover), "until noon, but in Galilee not. But that which the school of Shammai binds until the night, the school of Hillel looseth until the rising of the sun."   

2. "A festival-day may teach us this, in which they loosed by the notion of a [servile] work;" killing and boiling, etc., as the Gloss notes. But in which they bound by the notion of a sabbatism; that is, as the same Gloss speaks, 'The bringing in some food from without the limits of the sabbath.'   

3. "They do not send letters by the hand of a heathen on the eve of a sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of the week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it, even on the fourth day of the week; but the school of Hillel looseth it."   

4. "They do not begin a voyage in the great sea on the eve of the sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of the week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it, even on the fourth day of the week; but the school of Hillel looses it."   

5. "To them that bathe in the hot-baths in the sabbath-day, they bind washing, and they loose sweating."   

6. "Women may not look into a looking-glass on the sabbath-day, if it be fixed to a wall, Rabbi loosed it, but the wise men bound it."   

7. "Concerning the moving of empty vessels [on the sabbath-day], of the filling of which there is no intention; the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it."   

8. "Concerning gathering wood on a feast-day scattered about a field, the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it."   

9. They never loosed to us a crow, nor bound to us a pigeon.   

10. "Doth a seah of unclean Truma fall into a hundred seahs of clean Truma? The school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it." There are infinite examples of this nature.   

Let a third decad also be added (that nothing may be left unsaid in this matter), giving examples of the parts of the phrase distinctly and by themselves:   

1. " The things which they bound not, that they might have a hedge to the law."   

2. " The scribes bound the leaven."   

3. They neither punished nor bound, unless concerning the leaven itself.   

4. " The wise men bound the eating of leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour," of the day of the Passover.   

5. "R. Abhu saith, R. Gamaliel Ben Rabbi asked me. What if I should go into the market? and I bound it him."   

1. The Sanhedrim, which looseth two things, let it not hasten to loose three.   

2. "R. Jochanan saith, They necessarily loose saluting on the sabbath."   

3. The wise men loose all oils; or all fat things.   

4. "The school of Shammai saith, They do not steep ink, colours, and vetches" on the eve of the sabbath, "unless they be steeped before the day be ended: but the school of Hillel looseth it." Many more such like instances occur there.   

5. " R. Meir loosed the mixing of wine and oil, to anoint a sick man on the sabbath."   

To these may be added, if need were, the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the phrases, bound and loosed; which we meet with thousands of times over. But from these allegations, the reader sees abundantly enough both the frequency and the common use of this phrase, and the sense of it also; namely, first, that it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, That to bind is the same with to forbid; or to declare forbidden. To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was not understood by his hearers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter or of madness?   

To this, therefore, do these words amount: When the time was come, wherein the Mosaic law, as to some part of it, was to be abolished and left off; and as to another part of it, was to be continued, and to last for ever: he granted Peter here, and to the rest of the apostles, Mat 18:18, a power to abolish or confirm what they thought good, and as they thought good, being taught this and led by the Holy Spirit: as if he should say, "Whatsoever ye shall bind in the law of Moses, that is, forbid; it shall be forbidden; the Divine authority confirming it; and whatsoever ye shall loose; that is, permit; or shall teach; that it is permitted and lawful; shall be lawful and permitted."   

Hence they bound; that is, forbade; circumcision to the believers; eating of things offered to idols, of things strangled, and of blood for a time to the Gentiles; and that which they bound on earth was confirmed in heaven. They loosed; that is, allowed purification to Paul, and to four other brethren, for the shunning of scandal, Act 21:24; and in a word, by these words of Christ it was committed to them, the Holy Spirit directing that they should make decrees concerning religion, as to the use or rejection of Mosaic rite and judgments, and that either for a time or for ever.   

Let the words be applied, by way of paraphrase, to the matter that was transacted at present with Peter: "I am about to build a Gentile church (saith Christ); and to thee, O Peter, do I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest first open the door of faith to them; but 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 law of Moses thou shalt forbid them shall be forbidden; whatsoever thou grantest them shall be granted; and that under a sanction made in heaven."   

Hence in that instant, when he should use his keys, that is, when he was now ready to open the gate of the gospel to the Gentiles, Act 10:28; he was taught from heaven, that the consorting of the Jew with the Gentile, which before had been bound; was now loosed; and the eating of any creature convenient for food was now loosed; which before had been bound; and he, in like manner, looses both these.   

Those words of our Saviour, Joh 20:23; "Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted to them," for the most part are forced to the same sense with these before us; when they carry quite another sense. Here the business is of doctrine only, not of persons; there of persons; not of doctrine; here of things lawful or unlawful in religion to be determined by the apostles; there of persons obstinate or not obstinate, to be punished by them, or not to be punished.   

As to doctrine, the apostles were doubly instructed: 1. So long sitting at the feet of their Master, they had imbibed the evangelical doctrine. 2. The Holy Spirit directing them, they were to determine concerning the legal doctrine and practice; being completely instructed and enabled in both by the Holy Spirit descending upon them. As to their persons, they were endowed with a peculiar gift, so that the same Spirit directing them, if they would retain and punish the sins of any, a power was delivered into their hands of delivering to Satan, of punishing with diseases, plagues, yea, death itself; which Peter did to Ananias and Sapphira; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus, and Philetus, etc.

Haydock: Mat 16:19

And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. ---

And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) ---

Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) ---

Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. John Chrysostom nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2d. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3d. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) ---

The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) ---

Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: "As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my making laws to govern my Church. " (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."

Gill: Mat 16:19

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,.... By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons' right unto it, and meetness for it. "The keys" of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, Act 2:1 and then to the Gentiles, Act 10:1 and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from Mat 18:18 wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none. Peter is not the door-keeper of heaven to let in, nor keep out, whom he pleases; nor has his pretended successor the keys of hell and death; these also are only in Christ's hands: though it has been said of the pope of Rome, that if he sends millions of men to hell, none should say to him, what dost thou? but the keys here mentioned are the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or of the Gospel, which was shut up in the Jewish nation, through the ignorance, malice, and calumnies of the Scribes and Pharisees, who would neither embrace it, or enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others that were going to enter into it; and through their taking away the key of knowledge, or the right interpretation of the word of God; and through a judicial blindness, which that nation in general was given up to: and this was shut up to the Gentiles through the natural darkness that was spread over them, and through want of a divine revelation, and persons sent of God to instruct them: but now Christ was about, and in a little time he would (for these words, with what follow, are in the future tense) give his apostles both a commission and gifts, qualifying them to open the sealed book of the Gospel, and unlock the mysteries of it, both to Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter. Keys are the ensigns of treasurers, and of stewards, and such the ministers of the Gospel are; they have the rich treasure of the word under their care, put into their earthen vessels to open and lay before others; and they are stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God, and of these things they have the keys. So that these words have nothing to do with church power and government in Peter, nor in the pope, nor in any other man, or set of men whatever; nor to be understood of church censures, excommunications, admissions, or exclusions of members: nor indeed are keys of any such similar use; they serve for locking and unlocking doors, and so for keeping out those that are without, and retaining those that are within, but not for the expulsion of any: but here they are used in a figurative sense, for the opening and explaining the truths of the Gospel, for which Peter had excellent gifts and abilities.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. This also is not to be understood of binding, or loosing men's sins, by laying on, or taking off censures, and excommunications; but only of doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful, free, or prohibited to be received, or practised; in which sense the words, אסור ומותר, "bound and loosed", are used in the Talmudic writings, times without number, for that which is forbidden and declared to be unlawful, and for that which is free of use, and pronounced to be so: in multitudes of places we read of one Rabbi אוסר, "binding", and of another מתיר, "loosing"; thousands, and ten thousands of instances of this kind might be produced; a whole volume of extracts on this head might be compiled. Dr. Lightfoot has transcribed a great many, sufficient to satisfy any man, and give him the true sense of these phrases; and after him to mention any other is needless; yet give me leave to produce one, as it is short, and full, and explains these phrases, and points at the persons that had this power, explaining Ecc 12:11 and that clause in it, "masters of the assemblies".

"these (say they ^t) are the disciples of the wise men, who sit in different collections, and study in the law; these pronounce things or persons defiled, and these pronounce things or persons clean, אוסרין והללן מתירין הללו, "these bind, and these loose"; these reject, or pronounce persons or things profane, and these declare them right.''

And a little after,

"get thyself an heart to hear the words of them that pronounce unclean, and the words of them that pronounce clean; the words of them אוסרין, that "bind", and the words of them מתירין, that "loose"; the words of them that reject, and the words of them that declare it right''

But Christ gave a greater power of binding and loosing, to his disciples, than these men had, and which they used to better purpose. The sense of the words is this, that Peter, and so the rest of the apostles, should be empowered with authority from him, and so directed by his Holy Spirit, that whatever they bound, that is, declared to be forbidden, and unlawful, should be so: and that whatever they loosed, that is, declared to be lawful, and free of use, should be so; and accordingly they bound some things which before were loosed, and loosed some things which before were bound; for instance, they bound, that is, prohibited, or declared unlawful, the use of circumcision, which before, and until the death of Christ, was enjoined the natural seed of Abraham; but that, and all ceremonies, being abolished by the death of Christ, they declared it to be nothing, and of no avail, yea, hurtful and pernicious; that whoever was circumcised, Christ profited him nothing, and that he was a debtor to do the whole law: they affirmed, that the believing Gentiles were not to be troubled with it; that it was a yoke not fit to be put upon their necks, which they, and their fathers, were not able to bear, Gal 5:1. They bound, or forbid the observance of days, months, times, and years; the keeping holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, which had been used in the Jewish church for ages past; such as the first day of the new year, and of every month, the day of atonement, the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, the jubilee year, the sabbatical year, and seventh day sabbath, Gal 4:9. They loosed, or declared lawful and free, both civil and religious conversation between Jews and Gentiles; whereas, before, the Jews had no dealings with the Gentiles, nor would not enter into their houses, nor keep company with them, would have no conversation with them; neither eat, nor drink with them; but now it was determined and declared, that no man should be called common, or unclean; and that in Christ Jesus, and in his church, there is no distinction of Jew and Gentile, Act 10:28. They also loosed, or pronounced lawful, the eating of any sort of food, without distinction, even that which was before counted common and unclean, being persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ, by the words he said, Mat 15:11. They asserted, that there is nothing unclean of itself; and that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; or that true religion does not lie in the observance of those things; that every creature of God is good, and fit for food, and nothing to be refused, or abstained from, on a religious account, provided it be received with thanksgiving, Rom 14:14. And these things now being by them bound or loosed, pronounced unlawful or lawful, are confirmed as such by the authority of God, and are so to be considered by us.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

Geneva Bible: Mat 16:19

^{( 6 )} And I will give unto thee the ^{( n )} keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt ^{( o )} bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

^{( 6 )} The authority of the Church is from God.

^{( n )} A metaphor taken from stewards who carry the keys: and here is set forth the power of the ministers of the word, as (Isa 22:22) says, and that power is common to all ministers, as (Mat 18:18) says, and therefore the ministry of the gospel may rightly be called the key of the kingdom of heaven.

^{( o )} They are bound whose sins are retained; heaven is shut against them, because they do not receive Christ by faith: on the other hand, how happy are they to whom heaven is open, who embrace Christ and are delivered by him, and become fellow heirs with him!

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mat 16:1-28

1 The Pharisees require a sign.

5 Jesus warns his disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

13 The people's opinion of Christ,

16 and Peter's confession of him.

21 Jesus foretells his death;

23 reproves Peter for dissuading him from it;

24 and admonishes those that will follow him, to bear the cross.

Maclaren: Mat 16:13-28

The Divine Christ Confessed, The Suffering Christ Denied

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? 14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19. And 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. 20. Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ.. 21. From that time forth began Jesus to shew 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, and be raised again the third day. 22. Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee. 23. But He turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. 24. 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. 25. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it. 26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27. For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. 28. 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.'--Matt. 16:13-28.

THIS section is embarrassing from its fulness of material. We can but lightly touch points on which volumes might be, and indeed have been, written.

I. Peter's Great Confession.

The first section (Matt. 16:13-20) gives us Peter's great confession in the name of the disciples, and Christ's answer to it. The centre of this section is the eager avowal of the impetuous apostle, always foremost for good or evil. We note the preparation for it, its contents, and its results. As to the preparation, our Lord is entering on a new era in His work, and desires to bring clearly into His followers' consciousness the sum of His past self-revelation. The excitement, which He had checked after the first miraculous feeding, had died down. The fickle crowd had gone away from Him, and the shadows of the cross were darkening. Amid the seclusion of the woods, fountains, and rocks of Caesarea, far away from distracting influences, He puts these two momentous questions. Following the Revised Version reading, we have a double contrast between the first and second. Men' answers to ye,' and the Son of Man' to I.' The first question is as to the partial and conflicting opinions among the multitudes who had heard His name for Himself from His own lips; the second, in its use of the I,' hints at the fuller unveiling of the depths of His gracious personality, which the disciples had experienced, and implies, Surely you, who have been beside Me, and known Me so closely, have reached a deeper understanding.' It has a tone of the same wistfulness and wonder as that other question of His, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me?' For their sakes, He seeks to draw out their partly unconscious faith, that had been smouldering, fed by their daily experience of His beauty and tenderness. Half-recognised convictions float in many a heart, which need but a pointed question to crystallise into master-truths, to which, henceforward, the whole being is subject. Great are the dangers of articulate creeds; but great is the power of putting our shadowy beliefs into plain words. With the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'

Why should this great question have been preceded by the other? Probably to make the disciples feel more distinctly the chaotic contradictions of the popular judgment, and their own isolation by their possession of the clearer light. He wishes them to see the gulf opening between them and their fellows, and so to bind them more closely to Himself. This is the question the answer to which settles everything for a man. It has an intensely sharp point. We cannot take refuge from it in the general opinion. Nor does any other man's judgment about Him matter one whir to us. This Christ has a strange power, after nineteen hundred years, of coming to each of us, with the same persistent interrogation on His lips. And to-day, as then, all depends on the answer which we give. Many answer by exalted estimates of Him, like these varying replies which ascribed to Him prophetic authority, but they have not understood His own name for Himself, nor drunk in the meaning of His self-revelation, unless they can reply with the full-toned confession of the apostle, which sets Him far above and apart from the highest and holiest.

As to the contents of the confession, it includes both the human and the divine sides of Christ's nature. He is the Messiah, but He is more than what a Jew meant by that name; He is the Son of the living God,' by which we cannot indeed suppose that Peter meant all that he afterwards learned it contained, or all that the Church has now been taught of its meaning, but which, nevertheless, is not to be watered down as if it did not declare His unique filial relation to the Father, and so His divine nature. Nathanael had burst into rapturous adoration of Jesus as the Son of God' at the very beginning; and the disciples' glad confidence, which cast out the fear of the dim form striding across the sea, had echoed the confession; all had heard His words, No man knoweth the Father but the Son.' So we need not hesitate to interpret this confession as in essence and germ containing the whole future doctrine of our Lord's divinity. True, the speaker did not know all which lay in His words. Do we? Do we not see here an illustration of the method of Christian progress in doctrine, which consists not in the winning of new truths, but in the penetrating further into the meaning of old and initial truths? The conviction which made and makes a Christian, is this of Peter's; and Christian growth is into, not away from, it.

As to the results, 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. The solemn address to the apostle by his ancestral name, gives emphasis to the contrast between his natural weakness and his divine illumination and consequent privilege. The name of Peter is not here bestowed, but interpreted. Christ does not say' Thou shalt be,' but Thou art,' and so presupposes the former conferring of the name. Unquestionably, the apostle is the rock on which the Church is built. The efforts to avoid that conclusion would never have been heard of, but for the Roman Catholic controversy; but they are as unnecessary as unsuccessful. Is it credible that in the course of an address which is wholly occupied with conferring prerogatives on the apostle, a clause should come in, which is concerned about an altogether different subject from the thou' of the preceding and the thee' of the following clauses, and which yet should take the very name of the apostle, slightly modified, for that other subject? We do not interpret other books in that fashion. But it was not the flesh and blood' Peter, but Peter as the recipient and faithful utterer of the divine inspiration in his confession, who received these privileges. Therefore they are not his exclusive property, but belong to his faith, which grasped and confessed the divine-human Lord; and wherever that faith is, there are these gifts, which are its results. They are the natural' consequences of the true faith in Christ, in that higher region where the supernatural is the natural. Peter's grasp of Christ's nature wrought upon his character, as pressure does upon sand, and solidified his shifting impetuosity into rock-like firmness. So the same faith will tend to do in any man. It made him the chief instrument in the establishment of the early Church. On souls steadied and made solid by like faith, and only on such, can Christ build His Church. Of course, the metaphor here regards Jesus, not as the foundation, as the Scripture generally does, but as the founder. The names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are on the foundations of the heavenly city; and, in historical fact, the name of this apostle is graven on the deepest and first laid. In like subordinate sense, all who share that heroic faith and proclaim it are used by the Master-builder in the foundations of His Church; and Peter himself is eager to share his name among his brethren, when he says Ye also, as living stones.'

Built on men who hold by that confession, the Church is immortal; and the armies who pour out of the gates of the pale kingdoms of the unseen world shall not be able to destroy it. Peter, as confessor of his Lord's human-divine nature, wields the keys of the kingdom of heaven, like a steward of a great house; and that too was fulfilled in his apostolic activity in his admitting Jews at Pentecost, and Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. But the same power attends all who share his faith and avowal, for the preaching of that faith is the opening of heaven's door to men. He receives the power of binding and loosing, by which is not meant that of forgiving or retaining sins, but that of prohibiting or allowing actions, or, in other words, of laying down the law of Christian conduct. This meaning of the metaphors is made certain by the common Jewish use of them. Despotic legislative power is not here committed to the apostle, but the great principle is taught that the morality of Christianity flows directly from its theology, and that whosoever, like Peter, grasps firmly the cardinal truth of Christ's nature, and all which flows therefrom, will have his insight so cleared that his judgments on what is permitted or forbidden to a Christian man will correspond with the decisions of heaven, in the measure of his hold upon the truth which underlies all religion and all morality, namely, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' These are gifts to Peter indeed, but only as possessor of that faith, and are much more truly understood as belonging to all who possess like precious faith' (as Peter says), than as the prerogative of any individual or class.

MHCC: Mat 16:13-20

Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord's being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated " rock," is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men's sins, are blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful.

Matthew Henry: Mat 16:13-20

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 hâc 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, 1Sa 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; 1Co 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, Zec 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, 1Pe 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,"2Pe 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 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 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, 1Co 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 (2Co 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, 1Pe 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, 1Co 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, 1Co 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 aquâ 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, 1Th 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; 1Co 5:1; 2Co 2:7; 1Ti 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, 1Co 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 resurrection: by that he was declared to be the Son of God, with power; and therefore the divine wisdom would not have this truth preached, till that could be alleged for proof of it. 5. It was requisite that the preachers of so great a truth should be furnished with greater measures of the Spirit than the apostles as yet had; therefore the open asserting of it was adjourned till the Spirit should be poured out upon them. But when Christ was glorified and the Spirit poured out, we find Peter proclaiming upon the house-tops what was here spoken in a corner (Act 2:36), That God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ; for, as there is a time to keep silence, so there is a time to speak.

Barclay: Mat 16:17-19

This passage is one of the storm-centres of New Testament interpretation. It has always been difficult to approach it calmly and without prejudice, for it is the Roman Catholic foundation of the position of the Pope and of the Church. It is taken by the Roman Catholic Church to mean that to Peter were given the keys which admit or exclude a man from heaven, and that to Peter was given the power to absolve or not to absolve a man from his sins. It is further argued by the Roman Catholic Church that Peter, with these tremendous rights, became the bishop of Rome; and that this power descended to all the bishops of Rome; and that it exists today in the Pope, who is the head of the Church and the Bishop of Rome.

It is easy to see how impossible any such doctrine is for a Protestant believer; and it is also easy to see how Protestant and Roman Catholic alike may approach this passage, not with the single-hearted desire to discover its meaning, but with the determination to yield nothing of his own position, and, if possible, to destroy the position of the other. Let us then try to find its true meaning.

There is a play on words. In Greek Peter is Petros (4074) and a rock is petra (4073). Peter's Aramaic name was Kephas (03710), and that also is the Aramaic for a rock. In either language there is here a play upon words. Immediately Peter had made his great discovery and confession, Jesus said to him: "You are petros (4074), and on this petra (4073) I will build my Church."

Whatever else this is, it is a word of tremendous praise. It is a metaphor which is by no means strange or unusual to Jewish thought.

The Rabbis applied the word rock to Abraham. They had a saying: "When the Holy One saw Abraham who was going to arise, he said, 'Lo, I have discovered a rock (petra, 4073) to found the world upon.' Therefore he called Abraham rock (tsuwr, 06697), as it is said: 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' " Abraham was the rock on which the nation and the purpose of God were founded.

Even more the word rock (tsuwr, 06697) is again and again applied to God himself. "He is the Rock; his work is perfect" (Deu 32:4). "For their rock is not as our Rock" (Deu 32:31). "There is no rock like our God" (1Sa 2:2). "The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer" (2Sa 22:2). The same phrase occurs in Psa 18:2. "Who is a rock, except our God?" (Psa 18:31). The same phrase is in 2Sa 22:32.

One thing is clear. To call anyone a rock was the greatest of compliments; and no Jew who knew his Old Testament could ever use the phrase without his thoughts turning to God, who alone was the true rock of his defence and salvation. What then did Jesus mean when in this passage he used the word rock? To that question at least four answers have been given.

(i) Augustine took the rock to mean Jesus himself. It is as if Jesus said: "You are Peter; and on myself as rock I will found my Church; and the day will come when, as the reward of your faith, you will be great in the Church."

(ii) The second explanation is that the rock is the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. To Peter that great truth had been divinely revealed. The fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is indeed the foundation stone of the Church's faith and belief, but it hardly seems to bring out the play on words which is here.

(iii) The third explanation is that the rock is Peter's faith. On the faith of Peter the Church is founded. That faith was the spark which was to kindle the faith of the world-wide Church. It was the initial impetus which was one day to bring the universal Church into being.

(iv) The last interpretation is still the best. It is that Peter himself is the rock, but in a special sense. He is not the rock on which the Church is founded; that rock is God. He is the first stone of the whole Church. Peter was the first man on earth to discover who Jesus was; he was the first man to make the leap of faith and see in him the Son of the living God. In other words, Peter was the first member of the Church, and, in that sense, the whole Church is built on him. It is as if Jesus said to Peter: "Peter, you are the first man to grasp who I am; you are therefore the first stone, the foundation stone, the very beginning of the Church which I am founding." And in ages to come, everyone who makes the same discovery as Peter is another stone added into the edifice of the Church of Christ.

Two things help to make this clear.

(i) Often the Bible uses pictures for the sake of one definite point. The details of the picture are not to be stressed; it is one point which is being made. In connection with the Church the New Testament repeatedly uses the picture of building, but it uses that picture for many purposes and from many points of view. Here Peter is the foundation, in the sense that he is the one person on whom the whole Church is built, for he was the first man to discover who Jesus was. In Eph 2:20the prophets and the apostles are said to be the foundation of the Church. It is on their work and on their witness and on their fidelity that the Church on earth, humanly speaking, depends. In the same passage, Jesus Christ is the chief corner-stone; he is the force who holds the Church together. Without him the whole edifice would disintegrate and collapse. In 1Pe 2:4-8all Christians are living stones who are to be built into the fabric of the Church. In 1Co 3:11Jesus is the only foundation, and no man can lay any other. It is clear to see that the New Testament writers took the picture of building and used it in many ways. But at the back of it all is always the idea that Jesus Christ is the real foundation of the Church, and the only power who holds the Church together. When Jesus said to Peter that on him he would found his Church, he did not mean that the Church depended on Peter, as it depended on himself and on God the Rock. He did mean that the Church began with Peter; in that sense Peter is the foundation of the Church; and that is an honour that no man can take from him.

(ii) The second point is that the very word Church (ekklesia, 1577) in this passage conveys something of a wrong impression. We are apt to think of the Church as an institution and an organization with buildings and offices, and services and meetings, and organizations and all kinds of activities. The word that Jesus almost certainly used was qahal (06951), which is the word the Old Testament uses for the congregation of Israel, the gathering of the people of the Lord. What Jesus said to Peter was: "Peter, you are the beginning of the new Israel, the new people of the Lord, the new fellowship of those who believe in my name." Peter was the first of the fellowship of believers in Christ. It was not a Church in the human sense, still less a Church in a denominational sense, that began with Peter. What began with Peter was the fellowship of all believers in Jesus Christ, not identified with any Church and not limited to any Church, but embracing all who love the Lord.

So then we may say that the first part of this controversial passage means that Peter is the foundation stone of the Church in the sense that he was the first of that great fellowship who joyfully declare their own discovery that Jesus Christ is Lord; but that, in the ultimate sense, it is God himself who is the rock on which the Church is built.

Barclay: Mat 16:17-19

Jesus goes on to say that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against his Church. What does that mean? The idea of gates prevailing is not by any means a natural or an easily understood picture. Again there is more than one explanation.

(i) It may be that the picture is the picture of a fortress. This suggestion may find support in the fact that on the top of the mountain overlooking Caesarea Philippi there stand today the ruins of a great castle which may well have stood there in all its glory in the time of Jesus. It may be that Jesus is thinking of his Church as a fortress, and the forces of evil as an opposing fortress; and is saying that the embattled might of evil will never prevail against the Church.

(ii) Richard Glover has an interesting explanation. In the ancient east the Gate was always the place, especially in the little towns and villages, where the elders and the rulers met and dispensed counsel and justice. For instance, the law is laid down that, if a man has a rebellious and disobedient son, he must bring him "to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives" (Deu 21:19), and there judgment will be given and justice done. In Deu 25:7the man with a certain problem is told to "go up to the gate to the elders." The gate was the scene of simple justice where the elders met. So the gate may have come to mean the place of government. For long, for instance, the government of Turkey was called the Sublime Porte (porte being the French for gate). So then the phrase would mean: The powers, the government of Hades will never prevail against the Church.

(iii) There is a third possibility. Suppose we go back to the idea that the rock on which the Church is founded is the conviction that Jesus is none other than the Son of the living God. Now Hades was not the place of punishment, but the place where, in primitive Jewish belief, all the dead went. Obviously, the function of gates is to keep things in, to confine them, shut them up, control them. There was one person whom the gates of Hades could not shut in; and that was Jesus Christ. He burst the bonds of death. As the writer of Acts has it, "It was not possible for him to be held by death.... Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption" (Act 2:24, Act 2:27). So then this may be a triumphant reference to nothing less than the coming Resurrection. Jesus may be saying: "You have discovered that I am the Son of the living God. The time will soon come when I will be crucified, and the gates of Hades will close behind me. But they are powerless to shut me in. The gates of Hades have no power against me the Son of the living God."

However we take it, this phrase triumphantly expresses the indestructibility of Christ and his Church.

Barclay: Mat 16:17-19

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

(i) He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is an obviously difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure.

(a) The phrase always signified some kind of very special power. For instance, the Rabbis had a saying: "The keys of birth, of the rain, and of the resurrection of the dead belong to God." That is to say, only God has the power to create life, to send the rain, and to raise the dead to life again. The phrase always indicates a special power.

(b) In the New Testament this phrase is regularly attached to Jesus. It is in his hands, and no one else's, that the keys are. In Rev 1:18the risen Christ says: "I am the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." Again in Rev 3:7the Risen Christ is described as, "The holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens." This phrase must be interpreted as indicating a certain divine right, and whatever the promise made to Peter, it cannot be taken as annulling, or infringing, a right which belongs alone to God and to the Son of God.

© All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isa 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he wit be the steward of the Kingdom. And in the case of Peter the whole idea is that of opening, not shutting, the door of the Kingdom.

That came abundantly true. At Pentecost, Peter opened the door to three thousand souls (Act 2:41). He opened the door to the Gentile centurion Cornelius, so that it was swinging on its hinges to admit the great Gentile world (Ac 10 ). Ac 15 tells how the Council of Jerusalem opened wide the door for the Gentiles, and how it was Peter's witness which made that possible (Act 15:14; Simeon is Peter). The promise that Peter would have the keys to the Kingdom was the promise that Peter would be the means of opening the door to God for thousands upon thousands of people in the days to come. But it is not only Peter who has the keys of the Kingdom; every Christian has; for it is open to every one of us to open the door of the Kingdom to some other and so to enter into the great promise of Christ.

(ii) Jesus further promised Peter that what he bound would remain bound, and what he loosed would remain loosed. Richard Glover takes this to mean that Peter would lay men's sins, bind them, to men's consciences, and that he would then loose them from their sins by telling them of the love and the forgiveness of God. That is a lovely thought, and no doubt true, for such is the duty of every Christian preacher and teacher, but there is more to it than that.

To loose and to bind were very common Jewish phrases. They were used especially of the decisions of the great teachers and the great Rabbis. Their regular sense, which any Jew would recognize was to allow and to forbid. To bind something was to declare it forbidden; to loose was to declare it allowed. These were the regular phrases for taking decisions in regard to the law. That is in fact the only thing these phrases in such a context would mean. So what Jesus is saying to Peter is: "Peter, you are going to have grave and heavy responsibilities laid upon you. You are going to have to take decisions which wig affect the welfare of the whole Church. You will be the guide and the director of the infant Church. And the decisions you give will be so important, that they will affect the souls of men in time and in eternity."

The privilege of the keys meant that Peter would be the steward of the household of God, opening the door for men to enter into the Kingdom. The duty of binding and loosing meant that Peter would have to take decisions about the Church's life and practice which would have the most far-reaching consequences. And indeed, when we read the early chapters of Acts, we see that in Jerusalem that is precisely what Peter did.

When we paraphrase this passage which has caused so much argument and controversy, we see that it deals, not with ecclesiastical forms but with the things of salvation. Jesus said to Peter: "Peter, your name means a rock, and your destiny is to be a rock. You are the first man to recognize me for what I am, and therefore you are the first stone in the edifice of the fellowship of those who are mine. Against that fellowship the embattled powers of evil will no more prevail than they will be able to hold me captive in death. And in the days to come, you must be the steward who will unlock the doors of the Kingdom that Jew and Gentile may come in; and you must be the wise administrator and guide who will solve the problems and direct the work of the infant and growing fellowship."

Peter had made the great discovery; and Peter was given the great privilege and the great responsibility. It is a discovery which everyone must make for himself; and, when he has made it, the same privilege and the same responsibility are laid upon him.

Constable: Mat 13:54--19:3

V. The reactions of the King 13:54--19:2

Matthew recorded increasing polarization in this section. Jesus expanded His ministry, but as He did so opposition became even more intense. The Jewish leaders became increasingly hostile. Consequently Jesus spent more time preparing His disciples. Jesus revealed Himself more clearly to His disciples, but they only understood some of what He told them. They strongly rejected other things He said. The inevitability of a final confrontation between Jesus and His critics became increasingly clear. The general movement in this section is Jesus withdrawing from Israel's leaders (13:54-16:12) and preparing His disciples for His passion (16:13-19:2).

Constable: Mat 16:13--19:3

B. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

Almost as a fugitive from His enemies, Jesus took His disciples to the far northern extremity of Jewish influence. He proceeded to give them important revelation concerning the future in that safe haven. He revealed to them more about His person, His program, and His principles as Israel's rejected King.

Constable: Mat 16:18--17:14

2. Instruction about the King's program 16:18-17:13

Jesus proceeded immediately to build on the disciples' faith. They were now ready for more information. He gave them new revelation concerning what lay ahead so they would be ready for it.

Constable: Mat 16:18-20

Revelation about the church 16:18-20

16:18 "I say to you" (cf. 5:18, 20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 8:10) may imply that Jesus would continue the revelation the Father had begun. However the phrase occurs elsewhere where that contrast is not in view. Undoubtedly it means that Jesus was about to teach the disciples something, at least.

Jesus drew attention to Peter's name because He was about to make a pun on it. The English name "Peter" is a transliteration of the Greek name Petros. Petros translates the Aramaic word kepa. This word transliterated into Greek is Kephas from which we get "Cephas" in English (John 1:42; et al.). The Aramaic word kepa was an accepted name in Jesus' day (cf. 4:18). It means "rock." Peter's nickname was "Rocky." Petros commonly meant "stone" in pre-Christian Greek, but kepa, which underlies the Greek, means "(massive) rock."⁶²⁴ It is incorrect to say that the name "Peter" describes a small stone.

There are three main views about the identity of "this rock." The first is that Jesus meant Peter was the rock.⁶²⁵ Peter's name meant "rock," so this identity seems natural in the context. Moreover, Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Jesus' subsequent confirmation of his confession also points in that direction. Peter became the leading disciple in the early church (Acts 1-12), a third argument for this view.

However, Jesus used two different words for "Peter" and "rock." Matthew recorded the Aramaic distinction in Greek. If Jesus had wanted to identify Peter as the rock on which He would build the church, the clearest way to do this would have been to use the same word. While Peter's confession triggered Jesus' comment about building His church on a rock, it did not place Peter in a privileged position among the disciples. Jesus never treated Peter as though he occupied a favored position in the church because he made this confession. Third, the New Testament writers never connected Peter's leadership in the early church with his confession. That rested on divine election, Jesus' command to strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32), and Peter's personality.

A second view is that Jesus meant the truth that Peter confessed, namely that Jesus is the Messiah and God, was the rock.⁶²⁶ This position has in its favor the different words Jesus used for "rock" and the definite "this" before "rock" as identifying something in the immediately preceding context. Furthermore other New Testament references to the foundation of the church could refer to the truth concerning Jesus' person and work (Rom. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:5-8).

Nevertheless calling the truth about Jesus a rock when Jesus had just called Peter a rock seems unnecessarily confusing. The addition of "this" only compounds the confusion. Finally the other New Testament passages that refer to the foundation of the church never identify that foundation as the truth about Jesus. They point to something else.

This leads us to the third and what I believe is the best solution to this problem. Many interpreters believe that Jesus Himself is the Rock in view.⁶²⁷ Peter himself identified Jesus as such in 1 Peter 2:5-8 (cf. Rom. 9:33). This interpretation explains the use of two different though related words for "rock." Jesus and Peter shared belief in the person and work of Christ. Third, this view accounts for the use of "this" since Jesus was present when He said these words. Fourth, the Old Testament used the figure of a rock to describe God (Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37; 2 Sam. 22:2; Ps. 18:31, 46; 28:1). Since Peter had just confessed that Jesus was God, it would have been natural for Jesus to use this figure of God to picture Himself.

Critics of this view point out that this interpretation makes Jesus mix His metaphors. Jesus becomes the foundation of the church and the builder of the church. However the New Testament refers explicitly to Jesus as the church's foundation elsewhere (Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:5-8), and Jesus referred to Himself as the church's builder here. Second, Paul's statement that God builds the church on the apostles and prophets has ruled Jesus out as the foundation for some interpreters (Eph. 2:20). However, the apostles and prophets were the foundation in a secondary sense, Jesus being the chief rock (cornerstone) around which they built (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-11). Third, Peter's prominence among the disciples and in the early church seems to some to argue against Jesus being the foundation in view. Still Peter was only the first among equals. His leadership in the church was not essentially different from the other apostles as the New Testament writers present it.

The next key word in this important verse is "church." The only occurrences of this word (Gr. ekklesia) in all four Gospels are here and in 18:17. The Greek word refers to an assembly of people called out for a particular purpose. It comes from the verb ekkaleo, "to call out from." The Septuagint translators used it of Israel (Deut. 4:10; Josh. 9:2; Judg. 20:2; et al.; cf. Acts. 7:38).⁶²⁸ In the New Testament it refers to an assembly of citizens with no religious significance (Acts 19:39).⁶²⁹ However, Jesus used it here with a new meaning.

". . . ekklesia was the only possible word to express the Christian body as distinct from Jews. . . . He had just ended His public ministry in Galilee, had taken the disciples on a long journey alone, and was about to go to Jerusalem with the avowed intention of being killed; no moment was more suitable for preparing His followers to become a new body, isolated both from the masses and from the civil and religious authorities."⁶³⁰

Jesus used the term ekklesia to refer to a new entity that was yet to come into existence. He said He would build it in the future.

"The word build is also significant because it implies the gradual erection of the church under the symbolism of living stones being built upon Christ, the foundation stone, as indicated in 1 Peter 2:4-8. This was to be the purpose of God before the second coming, in contrast to the millennial kingdom, which would follow the second coming."⁶³¹

Furthermore Jesus claimed the church as His own in a unique sense by calling it "my church." Jesus revealed the existence of this new organism here for the first time in history. There is no Old Testament revelation of its existence. Jesus brought it into being because Israel had rejected her Messiah, and consequently God would postpone the kingdom. In the meantime Jesus would construct an entirely new entity. He Himself would be its foundation and its builder.

Jesus' "church" is not the same as His "kingdom."⁶³² Jesus would create a new entity (on the day of Pentecost), but He only postponed the kingdom, which will come into being at His second coming after He has taken the church to heaven (John 14:1-3). "Christians" (believers living in the church age) will return with Jesus Christ at His second coming and will participate in His messianic kingdom on the earth.

"Gates" in biblical usage refer to fortifications (Gen. 22:17; Ps. 127:5). "Hades" is the place of departed spirits (cf. 5:22; 11:23). Together these terms refer to death and dying (Job 17:16; 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18; Isa. 38:10).⁶³³ Jesus meant that the powers of death, Satan and his hosts doing their most powerful work of opposing life, would not prevail over the church. The church cannot die. This statement anticipated Jesus' resurrection and the resurrection and translation of the church. Even Jesus' death would not prevent His building the church.

This is all that Jesus revealed about the church here. He simply introduced this new revelation to the disciples as a farmer plants a seed. All of their thinking had been about the kingdom. To say more about the church now would have confused them unnecessarily. Jesus would provide more revelation about the church later (ch. 18; John 14-16).

16:19 Jesus resumed talking about the kingdom. In verse 18 His promise looked into the future when the messianic kingdom would exist on earth. He continued this perspective in verse 19. When Peter first heard these words he probably thought that when Jesus established His kingdom he would receive an important position of authority in it. That is indeed what Jesus promised. The kingdom in view is the same messianic (millennial) kingdom that Jesus had been talking about since he began His public ministry. It is not the church. Peter did receive a reward for his confession of Jesus as the divine Messiah. It was not superiority in the church but a position of authority in the kingdom (cf. 19:27-28). Jesus' reintroduction of the subject of the kingdom here helped the disciples understand that the church would not replace the kingdom.

"We must . . . be careful not to identify the ekklesia with the kingdom. There is nothing here to suggest such identification. . . . To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. . . . The ekklesia, on the other hand, was the society of Christ's disciples, who were to wait for it, and who would enter into it when it came. The Church was built upon the truth of the divine Sonship. It was to proclaim the coming kingdom. In that kingdom Peter should hold the keys which conferred authority."⁶³⁴

The keys in view may represent Peter's authority to admit or refuse admission to the kingdom. However this seems to be Jesus' prerogative as Judge (cf. 3:11-12; John 5:22, 30; Rev. 19:21). Probably the keys stand for the judicial authority that chief stewards of monarchs exercised in the ancient world (Isa. 22:15, 22; cf. Rev. 1:18; 3:7).⁶³⁵ They could permit people to enter the monarch's presence or give them access to certain areas and privileges.

The next problem in this verse is the binding and loosing. First, what is the proper translation of the Greek text? The best evidence points to the NASB translation: "Whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."⁶³⁶ The "whatever" seems to include people and privileges in view of how the Old Testament described the stewards' use of keys.

". . . the verse is a promise to Peter of a place of authority in the future earthly kingdom. With this promise the Lord gives Peter the basis of the decisions which he shall make. Peter is to discern what is the mind of God and then judge accordingly."⁶³⁷

Peter will evidently determine God's will in particular instances of rendering judgment in the messianic kingdom. Perhaps he will consult the Scriptures or get a direct word from Jesus who will be on earth reigning then. Then he will announce his decision. With his announcement Peter will give or withhold whatever may be involved in the judgment, but he will really be announcing what the divine authority has already decided. All the disciples will have similar judicial functions in the kingdom (19:27-28). Furthermore all Christians will have some judicial function in the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

16:20 This warning seems to run contrary to Jesus' purpose to manifest Himself as the Messiah to Israel for her acceptance (cf. Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21). Jesus wanted His disciples to keep a "messianic secret," namely that He was the Messiah. Jesus was not trying to conceal His true identity, but He was controlling how people would face His identity (cf. 12:38-39; 16:4). If the disciples had broadcast the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, some people would have believed them. However, Jesus wanted people to come to that conviction because of the words He spoke and the works He performed (cf. 11:4, 25-26). These were the tools God had ordained to give people divine insight into Jesus' identity (11:27), as Peter had experienced (v. 17).

"Contrary to common misappropriation of the messianic secret, it was not Jesus' purpose to conceal his messianic identity. It was his purpose to set before Israel symbol-charged acts and words implying a persistent question: Who do you say that I am?"⁶³⁸

Jesus wanted His disciples to stay within the means and limits that He had imposed on Himself for His self-disclosure. They should not appeal for people's acceptance of Jesus because of nationalistic zeal or misguided messianic expectations but because of faith rooted in understanding. Jesus' popularity on a superficial level could short-circuit the Cross. After Jesus' death and resurrection, the disciples could take a more unrestrained approach to calling people to repentance and faith (cf. 10:27). The disciples apparently grasped the danger of people accepting Jesus for superficial reasons, but they did not understand the threat of short-circuiting the Cross, as the next section shows.⁶³⁹

"Why this prohibition? Because although the disciples correctly understand who Jesus is, they do not as yet know that central to Jesus' divine sonship is death on the cross. Hence, they are in no position at this point to go and make disciples of all nations."⁶⁴⁰

"In the second part of his story (4:17-16:20), Matthew tells of Jesus' ministry to Israel (4:17-11:1) and of Israel's repudiation of Jesus (11:2-16:20). Sent to Israel, Jesus teaches, preaches, and heals (4:23; 9:35; 11:1). He also calls disciples, and commissions them to a ministry in Israel modeled on his own (4:17-11:1). Israel's response to Jesus, however, is one of repudiation (11:2-16:20). Still, even as Israel repudiates him, it wonders and speculates about who he is. Wrongly, the religious leaders think of him as one who acts in collusion with Satan (9:34; 12:24), and the Jewish public imagines him to be a prophet (16:13-14; 21:46). In stark contrast to Israel, the disciples, as the recipients of divine revelation, are led by Jesus to think about him as God thinks' about him, namely, as the Messiah Son of God (16:15-17; 14:33). Nevertheless, because the disciples do not know at this point in the story that the central purpose of Jesus' mission is death, Jesus commands them to silence concerning his identity (16:20)."⁶⁴¹

College: Mat 16:1-28

MATTHEW 16

G. REQUEST FOR A SIGN (16:1-4)

¹ The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

² He replied, ^a " When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' ³ and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. ⁴ A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

^a 2 Some early manuscripts do not have the rest of verse 2 and all of verse 3.

16:1. No sooner had Jesus arrived back on Jewish soil (note " withdrew" in 15:21) than he again finds himself the target of opposition. This time the Pharisees have joined forces with their bitter rivals, the Sadducees (cf. 3:7), in order to deal with one, who in different ways posed a threat to both sects. By linking the Pharisees and Sadducees together it need not be inferred that Matthew exhibits no awareness of their distinctive theological and political differences. His intent is to show the hardened obduracy characterizing " official Judaism." Although they are doctrinally miles apart, differences could be temporarily set aside in order to address such a formidable threat to their status and welfare.

For the second time the religious leaders request a sign to validate the divine origin of Jesus' ministry (cf. 12:38-39). They are not really interested in Jesus' providing compelling evidence to substantiate his claims. Matthew makes it clear that their request was simply a means to " test" (peiravzw, peirazô, cf. 4:1) him. Like Satan who demanded that Jesus orchestrate a situation whereby God is forced to miraculously confirm his Sonship (4:1-11), so the religious authorities expect Jesus to compel God to show a miraculous sign on his behalf. Obviously, they do find Jesus' healings and exorcisms as sufficient evidence that God is at work in him. The fact is, no matter what the evidence, unbelief can readily distort its significance so as to justify even the most outlandish conclusions (cf. 12:24-27). Jesus therefore refuses to countenance the demands of unbelief by performing some extraordinary feat.

16:2-3. There are some questions about the exact wording of Jesus' response in verses 2b-3. As noted in the NIV footnote, " some early manuscripts do not have the rest of verse two and all of verse three." Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament , observes that " the external evidence for the absence of these words is impressive . . ." (cf. Luke 12:54-56). The passage is, however, retained in the UBSGNT, but is found in brackets to indicate the uncertainty of the text. It has been argued that the absence of these words in a small but important group of textual witnesses may be explained by their being deleted by scribes who did not live in climatic conditions where a red sky in the morning was a reliable precursor of approaching stormy weather. Since the evidence against the words being original is not conclusive, and given the many texts that have the saying, it is probably best to include them, but with some indication of their uncertainty.

Jesus chides his opponents for their ability to discern and anticipate certain climatic changes, while being totally void of discernment when it comes to interpreting the signs of the times . Jesus is referring to the many " signs" accompanying his ministry, powerfully testifying to the dawn of the messianic age. Their failure to interpret (diakrivnein, diakrinein ) the signs of the times is sufficient evidence that they are " blind guides," totally lacking in spiritual discernment.

16:4. Jesus concludes his denunciation of the Jewish leaders with language virtually identical to his earlier response to their request for signs (12:39-40). They are representative of a generation perverse and hardened in unbelief. Hence, as he said earlier, there remains only one sign to be given this generation, i.e., the sign of Jonah (see comments 12:40). Following these words Matthew informs the reader that Jesus then left them and went away . Discussion is brought to an abrupt halt, and Jesus seeks to distance himself from Israel's leadership by retreating once again into Gentile territory (v. 5).

H. THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES

(16:5-12)

⁵ When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. ⁶" Be careful," Jesus said to them. " Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

⁷ They discussed this among themselves and said, " It is because we didn't bring any bread."

⁸ Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, " You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? ⁹ Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? ¹⁰ Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? ¹¹ How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." ¹² Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Like the earlier conflict scene (15:1-9), which led to specific instructions and warnings given to the disciples (15:10-20), so the request of the Pharisees and the Sadducees for a sign (16:1-4) is followed by Jesus warning the disciples not to be swayed by the teachings of Israel's leaders (16:5-12). The repeated reference to the " Pharisees and Sadducees" (vv. 1, 6, 11, 12) serves to link the two scenes into an interwoven unit. Furthermore, the twice repeated warning to be on " guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (vv. 6, 11), followed by its literal interpretation (" yeast" = " the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees," v. 12) indicates that the dominant focus of verses 5-12 is to warn the disciples of the corrupting influence of the Jewish leaders. However, a secondary theme is suggested by the disciples' concern for having forgotten to bring bread on their journey (v. 1). Jesus rebukes their petty concerns with the words " you of little faith" (v. 8), and by reminding them of the provisions that God provided in the earlier feeding episodes (vv. 9-10). Their preoccupation with " bread" is indicative of their mundane concerns that Jesus expects them to rise above (cf. 6:25-33). These two themes are interwoven and explain the alterations between " bread," " leaven" (=" yeast" ), and " teachings."

16:5-7. As noted in verse 4 Jesus withdraws from hostility, coming once again to the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee. Having arrived on the other side of the lake (cf. Mark 8:14) the disciples realize they have forgotten to bring sufficient provisions (= bread ). It appears that it is their concern for literal bread that prompts Jesus to issue his warning about the dangers of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees . Although the disciples are consumed with their lack of physical provisions, Jesus points to an even greater threat to their welfare. The insidiously dangerous influence of the Pharisees and Sadducees undermines all that Jesus would have his disciples to be and do. However, Jesus' point seems to go right over their heads. They remain fixated on their lack of bread, and therefore conclude that Jesus' remarks about " leaven" must have something to do with their lack of provisions.

16:8-11. Jesus, being fully aware (gnouv", gnous ) of their discussion rebukes them for their trivial concerns, addressing them with the words you of little faith (ojligovpistoi, oligopistoi , cf. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31). Jesus then asks a series of questions (vv. 8b-11a) designed to remind them of the important lessons they should have learned with the two feeding episodes. First, the disciples should have learned to trust God to meet their physical needs and not have allowed their preoccupation with securing physical provisions to have caused them to fail to comprehend Jesus' spiritual warnings. Second, the specific emphasis on the numbers fed and the number of baskets needed to contain the surplus of leftovers, should have reminded the disciples that God's provisions were both abundant and not ethnically motivated. In both feedings Jesus is moved by " compassion" (cf. 14:13; 15:32), and ministers to the needs of the people. If the disciples are swayed by the teachings of " official Judaism," their involvement with people will be greatly curtailed. Although the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees differed in their " teaching" about a lot of matters, they were pedagogically united in their opposition to the ministry of Jesus. For the disciples to give their teachings any credence whatsoever is to seriously undermine their relationship to Jesus, and thereby to jeopardize their involvement with his mission.

16:12. The section closes with Matthew informing the reader that the disciples have come to understand (sunh'kan, synçkan) Jesus' metaphoric use of " leaven." Once again Jesus has assisted his disciples to understand his parabolic sayings (cf. 13:10, 36; 15:15). Even though they are at times obtuse and unperceptive (cf. 17:14-20; 29:17), the disciples are portrayed in the end as making some progress.

I. CONFESSION AT CAESAREA PHILIPPI (16:13-20)

¹³ When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, " Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

¹⁴ They replied, " Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

¹⁵" But what about you?" he asked. " Who do you say I am?"

¹⁶ Simon Peter answered, " You are the Christ, ^a the Son of the living God."

¹⁷ Jesus replied, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. ¹⁸ And I tell you that you are Peter, ^b and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades ^c will not overcome it. ^{d 19} I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be ^e loosed in heaven." ²⁰ Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

^a 16 Or Messiah ; also in verse 20 ^b 18 Peter means rock . ^c 18 Or hell ^d 18 Or not prove stronger than it ^e 19 Or have been

The scene at Caesarea Philippi brings to a dramatic closure the long central portion of Matthew's story detailing Jesus' active mission to call Israel to repentance in view of God's impending reign (4:17-16:20). Jesus' activity produced amazement and wonder among the crowds (7:28-29; 9:8, 26, 31, 33; 13:54; 15:31), leading to speculations about his identity and the significance of his deeds (12:23; 16:1-4). Israel's leadership responded with suspicious skepticism (cf. 9:3, 11), leading to vitriolic confrontations and hostile repudiation (9:34; 12:1-14, 22-45; 15:1-9; 16:1-4). In contrast to both the crowds and Israel's leaders, Jesus calls disciples to be " trained in the kingdom of God" (4:18-22; 9:9; 10:1-4; 13:52; cf. 8:18-22), in order that they might embark upon a mission similar to his own (cf. 4:17; 9:36-38; 10:5-42; 14:14ff.; 15:32ff.). They constitute the true messianic community (12:46-50), and thus several scenes comprising 11:2-16:20 are exclusively devoted to depicting Jesus stretching and shaping their faith and understanding (cf. 13:13-17, 36-52; 14:13-21, 22-33; 15:10-20, 24-33; 16:5-12). Although the disciples often exhibit a lack of understanding (13:10, 36; 14:15; 15:16, 23, 33; 16:8-13), and are chided for their " little faith" (14:31; 16:8), they do on occasion exhibit a flash of insight (13:51; 14:33; 16:12).

But now, in a setting far removed from the crowds and the pressure of popular opinion, Jesus elicits from the disciples a thoughtful and carefully reasoned personal assessment of their understanding concerning his identity (16:13-15). Peter, on behalf of all the disciples, articulates a confessionary stance which constitutes the most insightful appraisal of Jesus' person by any character so far in the narrative: " You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (16:16). Although Peter's confession is correct, the disciples are prohibited from telling anyone (v. 20) until they learn to properly integrate Jesus' transcendent glory and status with his humble sacrificial mission on behalf of his people. Since identity and mission are integrally related, one cannot truly understand Jesus' Sonship and messianic status until they are defined in terms of his mission. In the next section (16:21-20:34) the disciples will be challenged to understand Jesus' person in terms of his suffering and death.

16:13. Jesus travels once again into Gentile territory, this time heading north of the Sea of Galilee approximately twenty-five miles, to the largely Gentile-populated city of Caesarea Philippi . It is here that Jesus poses the decisive question to his disciples: " Who do people say the Son of Man is?" The question is not intended to gather information about popular assessments about his person, but to stimulate reflection among the disciples about his identity. The disciples evidently had no problem in understanding the designation " Son of Man" as Jesus' personal reference to himself (cf. Mark 8:27). The usage here reminds the reader of Jesus' humble earthly service (8:20; 10:23; 12:8, 32; 13:37, 41). Jesus, therefore, questions the disciples concerning how the general populace has assessed his active ministry in Israel.

16:14. The disciples respond by cataloging four evaluative viewpoints of popular opinion. Notably the disciples only mention those views which they deem to be complimentary. The equation of Jesus with John the Baptist probably owes its origin to Herod (cf. 14:2), whose guilt over the execution of John stimulated the notion that Jesus was the risen John. Perhaps Jesus' preaching and miracles encouraged some to speculate that Jesus may be the returned Elijah , come to herald the arrival of the messianic age (cf. Mal 3:1; 4:5-6; see Matt 111:9-10, 14; 17:12-13). Still others found certain similarities that seemed to link Jesus to Jeremiah . It may be Jesus' many allusions to sayings from Jeremiah or possibly the parallels in their respective ministries stimulated such an assessment. Finally, Jesus' prophetic character and activity produced the general assessment that one of the revered prophetic figures of Israel's past has returned to herald the end times (cf. 21:11). As flattering as all of these assessments may be, they are woefully inadequate in their appraisal of Jesus' person.

16:15-16. Jesus then asks the disciples for their perception concerning his identity. Although the question is directed to the group, Peter answers as their spokesperson, identifying Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God . Essentially, Peter has verbalized two conceptual expressions which capture the essence of Jesus' identity and mission. As the designation " Christ" implies, Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's messianic hopes, who has come to gather his people under the reign of God (cf. 1:1, 16-17; 11:2). The designation reminds the reader of Jesus' redemptive involvement with the people (1:21; 2:6; 3:11-12; 4:15-16, 21-25; 9:36-38; 11:2-6), and necessarily assumes the validity of other designations which cast Jesus as Israel's long awaited Messiah: e.g., " Son of David," " Son of Abraham," " King of the Jews," " Ruler," " Coming One," and " Shepherd."

While the confessional appraisal " Son of God" does carry with it elements of Jesus' royal messianic rule, it adds dimensions to Jesus' messiahship not immediately apparent within Davidic categories. Rather than the conquering victor, the title " Son of God" emphasizes that his extraordinary power and authority are ultimately tied to his humble obedience and dependency upon his Father. In fact, it is Jesus' unique Sonship, with its accent upon conformity to his Father's will, that validates the manner that his messiahship comes to expression. As God's Son, Jesus fulfills his messianic task as one chosen by God to fulfill a mission expressive of God's merciful presence in the midst of his people. It is his filial obedience to the plan of God which explains the unexpected " unmessianic gentleness" (cf. 11:2-6) of his role in Israel.

16:17. While it will become obvious that the disciples lack sufficient depth to appreciate the full force of these Christological titles, Jesus, nevertheless, accepts Peter's confession without qualification. In fact, Peter is to be congratulated (makavrio", makarios ), because such insight did not come through mere human agency ( man ; lit., flesh and blood), but by means of God's revelatory disclosure. Jesus' appraisal of the source of Peter's perception accords well with his earlier announcement that it is only by the Father's disclosure that " one knows the Son" (11:27). However, Peter's Christological insight should not be construed as a sudden flash of insight, but was fundamentally grounded in his observation of Jesus' performance in word and deed. As a matter of fact, Jesus' entire ministry was performatively God's revelation concerning the mystery associated with his person.

16:18. The next two verses have constituted some of the most difficult and certainly some of the " most controversial of all of Scripture." Two extremes need to be avoided. On the one hand, Roman Catholicism has read into these verses an elaborate doctrine of Papal succession and infallibility based on a supposed investiture of Peter with exclusive authority and status. Protestants have responded by downplaying Peter's importance and pivotal role by these texts. Peter is either viewed as the " typical disciple" or merely a representative of all the other disciples. However, it is difficult to ignore the intensely personal focus of verses 18-19. After Peter makes his evaluative affirmation concerning Jesus, Jesus in turn addresses Peter personally (note singular pronouns, soi [ soi ] and suΙ ei [ su ei ], cf. v. 16), making a play upon his name (" you are Peter" =pevtro", petros ). Peter's name in Greek is probably derived from the Aramaic apyk (kçypha), meaning a " rock" or " crag." Since Jesus probably originally responded to Peter in Aramaic, the wordplay suggested in verse 17 becomes readily apparent: " you are kçypha and upon this kçypha I will build my church." In Greek the wordplay is not as apparent since the feminine noun pevtra ( petra ) must become masculine ( petros ) when referring to a man's name. Hence the argument that the rock upon which Jesus builds his church could not be Peter because the genders fail to match cannot be grammatically sustained. There does not appear to be good reason to see the " rock" ( petra ) upon which Jesus builds his church as anything other than Peter ( petros ). But as Kingsbury has pointed out, Peter should be seen as " first among equals, and his 'primacy' . . . is 'salvation-historical' in character." This means that Jesus' words are intended to assign to Peter a pivotal role in the new phase of redemptive history involving the church (cf. Acts 1-12), not to give him special status with respect to some ecclesiastical office. In this respect France's words are particularly cogent:

It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim (which of course has no foundation in the text), that what is said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The wordplay and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus.

So Jesus promises Peter that he will have a foundational role when he (i.e., Jesus) builds (oijkodomhvsw, oikodomçsô) his " church" (ejkklhsiva, ekklçsia). The imagery of " building" the " church" upon a foundational " rock" comes from the background of perceiving God's people as a " temple" or " house of God." This is the first use of the term church (cf. 18:17), and many would dispute that Jesus actually used the term, claiming that its usage in Matthew was a later insertion. However, there is no need to read into the term ekklçsia elaborate church structures and organizational patterns typical of a later period. The term ekklçsia is found throughout the LXX (translating the Hebrew lhq, qa¯ha¯l ), and means nothing more than an " assembly or community" of people, gathering for a particular purpose. It is not at all surprising that Jesus intends to establish a fellowship of believers who assemble in his name; after all, " a messiah without a messianic Community would be unthinkable to any Jew . . ."

After announcing Peter's important role in the " building of the church," Jesus then assures Peter that the gates of Hades will not overcome it . Although the antecedent of aujth'" (autçs, " it" ) has been much debated, it seems that the most natural referent is the church, not Peter. However, the imagery of " gates" actively seeking to " overpower" (katiscuvsousin, katischysousin , active, not passive) the church is conceptually difficult to understand. Probably the metaphor " gates of Hades" is intended to stand for the abode of the dead, not to a place of punishment, as suggested by the KJV translation hell . Many have extended the metaphor by understanding " Aidh" (Haidçs) as the realm of evil powers of the underworld. The church will emerge victorious in the end. While it is true that the church will have to endure evil assaults, and in the end will be victorious, it is difficult to find such suggestions in the imagery of " gates." The metaphor does not conjure up imagery of aggressive assaults, but rather gates are most naturally seen as defensive, keeping people either in or out. As noted by C. Brown, " the gates themselves do not attack, they serve as vivid reminders that those who go to the realm of the dead do not return to the land of the living." Therefore the gates of Hades, meaning " death," will neither be successful in prohibiting Christ from " building his church," nor will the death of its members signal its ultimate defeat. In view of Jesus' efforts in 16:21-20:34 to prepare his disciples for his fate in Jerusalem, Jesus' words may be a subtle allusion to his eventual overcoming of Hades by his resurrection.

16:19. Jesus now defines in what way Peter plays an active role in the " building" of the new community of God. Peter receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven , a symbol of power and authority (cf. Isa 22:22; Rev 3:7; 9:1; 10:1). However, the imagery is not intended to portray Peter as a kind of gatekeeper who controls admission into heaven. Rather, his authority is exercised by bringing God's heavenly reign to bear on matters pertaining to the church. The " kingdom" is therefore not to be equated with the " church." Reference to the " kingdom" is always a focus on God who actively reigns over his people, while the " church" refers to the people over which God reigns. Hence, although the terms overlap, the arbitrary equation of the two concepts is not justified.

Peter's authority is forcefully brought out by the use of the terms " binding" and " loosing." These terms have a technical background in rabbinic Judaism, and refer to pronouncements made concerning conduct allowed and that which is forbidden, based upon rabbinic interpretations of the Law. There is no reason to understand the terms " binding" and " loosing" in the sense of " excluding" or " admitting" certain people from participation in the Christian community (note " whatever" is neuter). The saying clearly means that Peter is authoritatively endowed (as are the other disciples, 18:17-18) to declare what things are forbidden and what things are acceptable in view of God's sovereign reign (cf. 6:10).

Although the syntactical force of the periphrastic perfect participles (e[stai dedemevnon [ estai dedemenon ]/e[stai lelumevnon [ estai lelymenon ]) has been much debated, there seems to be no contextual reason why they should not be given their full perfect force. Hence the translation, " will have been bound" /" will have been loosed" is a viable rendition of the terms. Thus the texts envision authoritative teachings that are not grounded in some sort of inherent authority or the arbitrary initiation of Peter (or the rest of the disciples). Rather, their authoritative instructions and decisive decrees are in accord with what is already settled in heaven, and are therefore reflective of God's sovereign will. In contrast to the Pharisees who " shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces" (23:13-24), the disciples are " trained in the kingdom" and will eventually go forth to summon both Jew and Gentile under the reign of God (28:18-20). The early believers recognized their authority and " devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42). In this way it can legitimately be said that " God's household [was] built on the foundation of the apostles . . ." (Eph 2:19-20). With respect to Peter, an examination of Acts 1-12 will confirm his important leadership role in the early history of the church.

16:20. It may come as a surprise, in view of Jesus' positive remarks and promises to Peter, that he and the rest of the disciples are forbidden to tell anyone that Jesus is the Messiah. The best explanation for Jesus' prohibition is the likelihood that while the disciples have come to understand Jesus in terms of his transcendent authoritative status, his identity as Messiah must be integrated into a mission that involved suffering and death. Beginning with 16:21 Jesus will attempt to lead the disciples into an understanding of his messianic fate.

V. THE WAY OF THE CROSS (16:21-20:34)

As was observed in 4:17 the phrase, " From that time on Jesus began" (ajpoΙ tovte . . ., apo tote . . . ) clearly introduces major story developments, as a new phase of Jesus' ministry is introduced. The first time the phrase occured (4:17), it signaled the beginning of Jesus' Galilean ministry, and succinctly summed up the content of his proclamation in Israel (i.e., " Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near" ). The second occurrence signals the closure of Jesus' Galilean ministry (4:17-16:20), and subsumes subsequent material under the dominant motif of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, culminating in his suffering, death, and resurrection (16:21-28:20). As Kingsbury notes, the travels prior to 16:21, " have the character of withdrawal in the face of danger (cf. 12:15; 14:13; 15:21; 16:4)," while " from 16:21 on, Jesus' travels assume the character of a 'divinely ordained' journey to Jerusalem (cf. deiv, dei " it is necessary" )." If one simply notes major thematic developments, the following pattern emerges:

A Conflict 11:1-14:12 (In Galilee)

B Education of the Disciples 14:13-16:20 (Identity)

B Education of the Disciples 16:21-20:34 (Mission)

A Conflict 21:1-25:46 (In Jerusalem)

Like the scenes comprising 14:13-16:20, in 16:21-20:34 the disciples are present in every scene and are the major focus of Jesus' instruction. Jesus begins to " show" them (16:21) that humble compliance to the will of God demands his journey to Jerusalem to suffer and die. On three occasions (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19) Jesus explicitly foretells his fate in Jerusalem. This disclosure becomes the major backdrop against which Jesus challenges his disciples to adopt values and priorities that will enable them to emulate his sacrificial mission.

The disciples must come to see the way of the cross as the fulfillment of Jesus' messianic mission, and as the ultimate expression of his divine Sonship. They must deny themselves and resolve to follow Jesus in selfless devotion to God's will (16:24). Such a commitment demands a radical shift of values where one's spiritual life takes priority over the loss of one's physical existence (16:25-26). If they are to " have in mind the things of God" and " not the things of man" (16:23) they need to " listen" to Jesus (17:5), as he confronts them with a radical vision of his messiahship. Their dependency must be upon God, who through faith will empower his servants so that " nothing will be impossible" (17:21). They must not insist on their own rights, but make every effort not to carelessly alienate others (17:24-27; 18:5-9). Like " good shepherds" they must come to value even one " sheep" that has wandered from the fold (18:15-20). Regardless of how they are treated, they cannot harbor ill-feelings, but must respond to personal hurt with a forgiving spirit (18:21-35). Such an attitude demands a childlike dependency upon God (18:1-4; 19:13-15), and not in earthly securities of wealth and status (19:16-26). The disciples are therefore not to insist on their own authority over others, but are rather to emulate Jesus' sacrificial service on behalf of others (20:20-28). Although the disciples exhibit some understanding (17:13), and remain devoted to following Jesus, their reactions and questions indicate that they do not fully perceive the nature of Jesus' mission and the demands it entails (cf. 16:23; 17:10, 17, 23; 18:21; 19:10, 25; 20:24-25, 27).

Even though the disciples struggle to accept the way of the cross, Jesus is resolved to exhibit before them its necessity (16:21). If they are to " think the things of God," they must " listen" to Jesus as he confronts them with the ultimate values, priorities, and intentions that govern his messianic mission.

A. THE THINGS OF GOD VERSUS THE THINGS OF MEN (16:21-28)

²¹ From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

²² Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. " Never, Lord!" he said. " This shall never happen to you!"

²³ Jesus turned and said to Peter, " Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

²⁴ Then Jesus said to his disciples, " If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever wants to save his life ^a will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. ²⁶ What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? ²⁷ For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. ²⁸ I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

^a 25 The Greek word means either life or soul ; also in verse 26.

16:21. Following Peter's confession that Jesus is " the Christ, the Son of the living God," Matthew now highlights a new stage in the life of Jesus. The term began (h[rxato, çrxato ) definitely signals the beginning or start of a new emphasis in Jesus' ministry. Not only does Jesus speak emphatically concerning his fate in Jerusalem, he also impresses upon his disciples the absolute necessity ( dei ) for his course of action. The events in Jerusalem should not be construed as a tragic twist of impersonal fate or the mere haphazard working of blind chance. Jesus intends to explain (deivknumi, deiknymi , lit., " show" or " exhibit" ; cf. 4:8; 8:4), or vividly demonstrate not only by what he says, but also by what he does, that it is in accordance with God's will that he suffer and die. It is precisely this dimension of Jesus' messianic mission and divine Sonship that Peter's confession (16:16) lacked.

Jesus' passion predictions (16:21; 17:22; 20:17-19) exhibit a progression of specificity and detail. In verse 21 the reader learns that it is of divine necessity ( dei ) that Jesus " suffer many things." Three groups are identified as responsible for what Jesus will suffer: " elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law." It is probable that the three groups are representative of the Sanhedrin, Israel's highest judicial and legislative body. Hence, although Jesus' suffering and death were according to God's divine plan, his suffering and execution were inflicted upon him by the highest Jewish court in the land. Nevertheless, God's divine sovereignty never diminishes either moral responsibility or human culpability. But God does vindicate his Son by raising him from the dead (note passive ejgerqhvnai, egerthçnai). It is significant that in all three passion predictions Jesus' view of what lies ahead concludes with confidence that God's vindication will take the form of his restoration to life. Hence, the performance of God's will should never be compromised by the fear of death.

16:22. Peter found Jesus' words totally incongruent with his understanding of Jesus' messianic mission and divine Sonship. His consternation with Jesus' prediction compelled him privately, but sternly, to reprove Jesus for such a thought. Remarkably, Peter is so fixed on his own understanding of Jesus' mission, that even though he confessed him to be the Messiah, Son of God (v. 16), and addresses him as Lord , he thinks Jesus must be mistaken concerning the fate awaiting him in Jerusalem. The words, Never, Lord translate a Septuagintal idiom meaning something like " far be it from you, Lord." This is followed by the strongly emphatic, This shall never happen to you (note the double negative ouj mhΙ, ou mei ). Even though well intentioned, Peter has taken a stance that both put him at odds with God's will and placed him as a major obstacle in the path that Jesus is resolved to walk.

16:23. The seriousness of Peter's assertion (v. 22) becomes evident with Jesus' response. Peter had unwittingly assumed the role of Satan who earlier sought to deter Jesus from walking the path of true Sonship (4:1-11; esp. v. 10). Jesus' rebuke stands in stark contrast to his earlier " blessing" pronounced upon Peter (v. 17). While his earlier confession was inspired by God (v. 17), his present effort to thwart the plan of God emanates from Satan. Peter was susceptible to being used by Satan because he did not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men . Like many of his contemporaries, Peter's agenda and aspirations for the Messiah involved triumphant glory, not a seeming defeat at the hands of his enemies. If Peter is to understand the " wisdom of the cross" he must set aside personal ambitions driven by natural inclinations, and set his mind on " the things of God." In order for Peter and the other disciples to emulate Jesus' sacrificial ministry they must come to see his mission of suffering and death as a positive expression of God's will.

16:24. Jesus then addresses all the disciples and insists that just as he " orients his life around the cross, so the disciples are to orient their lives around the cross." In fact, it is incumbent upon all who would be a committed follower of Jesus (=disciple) to renounce self-oriented ambitions and personal interests, and give absolute priority to the doing of God's will. The ultimate expression of self-denial involves a willingness to emulate Jesus in the way of the cross; i.e., to embark upon a ministry of selfless devotion and service on behalf of others. Jesus' words are obviously descriptive of a lifestyle driven by a radically different worldview. He was not talking about minor inconveniences or enduring the common maladies of life. The metaphorical expression " to take up one's cross" graphically recalls the actions of a condemned man who must bear his cross to the place of execution. Jesus thus calls upon his followers to assume the mentality of a man who is already condemned to die. Rather than preserve one's life at any cost, Jesus' disciples must assume an attitude of self-denial, voluntarily surrendering his/her life for the sake of the kingdom (=God's will). This sort of discipleship is not a matter of convenience, but a way of life, that faithfully and humbly walks the same path of sacrificial devotion and service first walked by Jesus.

16:25. As indicated by the conjunction gavr ( gar ), verse 25 is intended to further clarify and elucidate verse 24. The reason that Jesus' followers must live sacrificially, even renouncing their own lives for the sake of others, is that true spiritual life can only be realized by such devotion. Paradoxically, those who seek to preserve their physical lives at any cost, forfeit an existence that transcends the physical. As Meier aptly observes, " The paradox of temporal loss for eternal gain is the law of Christian existence."

Jesus makes it clear that it is not sacrificial devotion to any cause that results in true spiritual life. It is service based on and motivated by one's allegiance to Jesus ( for me , e{neken ejmou', heneken emou , lit., " on my account," cf. 5:11; 10:18, 39; 19:29) that results in life that transcends death. The disciple belongs to Jesus and obediently submits to his will. Jesus certainly exhibits a remarkable self-appraisal when he locates the fullness of spiritual life in service on his behalf. In contrast to those who would preserve their lives at any cost, it is the person who dies to self, and loses selfish concerns in service to Christ that discovers the true essence of life.

16:26. The supreme importance of spiritual life is next driven home (note gar ) by two rhetorical questions. The first question assumes the primacy and ultimate value of one's soul (yuchv, psychç) over even the possibility of taking possession of the entire world. When weighed in the balance, possession of all the world has to offer cannot possibly transcend the value of one's " life." The supreme value of one's life over all the world is forcefully brought out by the second question. There is virtually nothing in the world that could be given in exchange for one's life. Given the value of the soul (i.e., the essence of one's being), there is no earthly possession that could possibly warrant a tradeoff. These truisms are intended to cultivate a sense of values and priorities so that the disciples will come to perceive that self-denial and the way of the cross is an ultimate good to be pursued.

16:27. The third reason ( gar ) why the disciples should deny themselves and take up their crosses is that life in the human realm should take into account the return of the Son of Man as eschatological judge. The Son of Man who experienced humiliation in this world (8:20), and who will suffer and die at the hand of his enemies (v. 21) will also return and hold each person accountable for what he has done . This time he will come in transcendent glory and authority, accompanied by his angels (cf. 13:41; 24:31; 25:31), and all those who despised and rejected him must then have their eternal destiny decided by him. Indeed, Jesus will participate in the eschatological judgment of all humanity, deciding the value and worth of every deed. It therefore behooves the disciples to devote the entirety of their lives to a ministry patterned after Jesus' selfless devotion.

16:28. Jesus closes his remarks to the disciples with an especially important promise, introduced with the words, I tell you the truth (ajmhvn, amçn, " truly" ). Jesus announces that some among his present audience (i.e., the disciples) will not die before they witness the Son of Man coming in his kingdom . In verse 27 Jesus foretells his coming as the Son of Man in judgment; now he promises that some of his disciples will see his coming in kingly power. Like 10:23 this text has been interpreted to mean that Jesus anticipated the end-time and the final triumph of the kingdom in the lifetime of at least some of his disciples. But elsewhere Jesus refuses to set time parameters for his return (24:42f.), and even affirmed that he did not know when the end would come (24:36). It is doubtful, therefore, that the text should be understood as predicting the parousia sometime in the first century.

But what event took place within the lifetime of some of his disciples that could be construed as a manifestation of Jesus' kingly presence? Some point to the very next scene, a mere six days later (17:1-8), when Jesus is transfigured before " some" of the disciples, and his awesome glory was manifested, as the fulfillment of Jesus' words. But the language of v. 28 does not fit well with an event that occurs just six days later. Other options proposed include, (1) the resurrection and ascension; (2) the day of Pentecost; (3) the empowering of the church for a worldwide mission; (4) the destruction of Jerusalem; (5) the second coming of Jesus; (6) or possibly some combination of the various proposals. It is difficult to decide on any one event since the manifestation of the Son of Man in kingly glory and power can come in a variety of ways and events. In my judgment options 1, 2, and 4 have the greatest likelihood of being what Jesus meant by the " coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom." But be that as it may, Jesus' words were ultimately intended to cultivate among the disciples a lifestyle that takes seriously Jesus' sovereign authority and his path of selfless service.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mat 16:13-20

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]

Lapide: Mat 16:1-20

1-28

CHAPTER 16

And there came unto Him Pharisees, &c. They had previously asked for a sign (Mat 12:38). But here again they asked for one because of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. For when they perceived that this miracle was celebrated by the multitudes who had been partakers of the bread, they called it an earthly sign, and insinuated that Christ was a magician, and by the help of the devil (who rules on the earth) had multiplied the loaves, and performed His other miracles. This may be gathered from chapter xii. 24 (Mat 12:24). They ask, therefore, of Christ a sign from Heaven—that God, Who reigns above, would by it give attestation that Christ was sent by Him. And that if He did it, they would believe Christ to be the Messiah. But the Sadducees, who were atheists, thought no sign could be given from Heaven by God, who in their opinion had no existence. Lyra explains otherwise. He is of opinion, that the Jews were given to judicial astrology, and asked a sign of Christ, whereby He should show from the stars that He was Messiah. They thought that God had pointed out, and as it were written in the stars, all His providence about human affairs, and the whole order of the universe. But Matthew here intimates nothing of the kind. The Pharisees really seem to have alluded to the manna, as may be collected from Joh 6:30-31. As though they said, "0 Jesu, Thou hast indeed multiplied bread upon earth, but give a sign from Heaven. Rain down manna from the sky, as Moses did; so shalt Thou show Thyself like unto Moses, and the new Law-giver sent by God." So Remigius, Bede, Abulensis.

But he answered, &c. The physical reason of this is, that the redness of the sky or the atmosphere indicates that the clouds are not dense, and therefore will be dissipated during the night, and consequently the following day be serene or free from clouds. For red is an intermediate colour between black and white. The blackness of the clouds signifies that they are thick and dense, so that the rays of the sun cannot pierce through them. Their whiteness shows that they are of very great rarity, so that the sun's rays shine through them. The redness of the clouds indicates that they are not altogether dense, or rarefied, but are becoming so.

And in the morning, it will be foul weather— rain or wind—for the sky is red and lowring. The Greek word is the same as in the preceding verse—πυρράζει, i.e., is ruddy, στυγνάζων, i.e., a sky bringing sorrow. The physical reason is that if the sky be red in the morning, it indicates that there are indeed only a few clouds, but that they are so dense that they cannot be dispersed by the rising sun. Wherefore, when the sun ascends and waxes hot they are resolved into rain or wind, rather than are driven by Him elsewhere. Hear what Pliny says about the signs of the weather ( lib. 18, c. 35): If the sun set clear, it is a sign of fine weather. If he set with a clear sky, and rise in the same way, it is a certain sign of fine,weather. If the sun appear larger, at sunrise thin at sunset; if he rise with a bluish tinge, or set in the same way, it is a sign of rain; if of a fiery colour, it betokens east wind. When the clouds are red before sunrise, there will be wind. When they are grey, or dark intermingled with red, it is a sign of rain.

Symbolically: Abulensis says ( quæst. 9.) In the first advent of Christ there was the serenity of grace: in His second advent there shall be the storm of vengeance and of hell, which God shall cause to thunder against the reprobate.

Ye can discern the face of the sky, i.e., its external form and appearance. The signs of the times. These are the signs of the time of Messiah's advent, or of the times, i.e., of the seventy weeks of Daniel, of the prophecy of the Patriarch Jacob (Gen 49:10.), and the rest of the Prophets. For these prophecies, together with the miracles, which Christ was working every day plainly proved that Messiah was already come, and that He was Messiah. This verse must be read as an interrogation, not as Lyra reads as a negative assertion. He explains thus, ye Jews are given to astrology, and ye wish by means of the stars to discern the time of Messiah's advent. But ye are in error. For by the stars may be derived presages of fine weather, or of storm, but not of the advent of Messiah. But this is a mistake. The argument in this place is from a minor to a major, thus, "If from the signs of Heaven ye know how to discern coming fine weather, or a coming tempest, much more can ye and ought ye from the oracles of the Prophets and My miracles to recognize Me to be Messiah." So SS. Hilary, Jerome, Euthymius. It is also plain from Luk 12:56, where Christ says, Ye hypocrites ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth : how is it ye cannot discern this time? i.e., of My advent. Thus in like manner there are many in the present day who are lynxes in earthly things, moles in things Divine: prudent in the world, foolish for Heaven, of piercing sight in heaping up money, most ignorant in the worship of God. Their wisdom is in their purse, they are very dull in matters of conscience. S. Chrysostom gives another explanation ( Hom. 54.) "There are signs of the present time, and there are other signs of what is to come. The signs of healing which I show are of time present: but the signs of the future shall be the signs in Heaven for which ye are now asking, 0 ye Scribes. For then there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon, and in the stars. (Luk 21:25.) Ye therefore act like Thales, who gazing at Heaven whilst he was walking, fell into a ditch. Thus also ye gazing at the future, and neglecting the present time of grace, are going headlong to destruction."

An evil generation, &c. Christ repeats this verse, which we have already explained in chap. 12  (Mat 12:39).

And having left them, &c. From Magedan He passed over the Sea of Galilee, and returned to its hither bank, as appears from the following verse. Again and again did Christ pass over this sea, that He might teach the Galileans who dwelt on either side of it, according to the prophesy of Isaiah ix. 1.

And when His disciples, &c., had come, Gr. ε̉λθόντες, i.e., when they had gone, meaning when they had ascended into the ship to cross over; for it is plain from the circumstances that this happened in the ship. For in the ship, and in sailing they would require food, of which they would find abundance in the harbour. The expression is a Hebraism. For the Hebrew verbs often denote an action not completed, but begun, or intended. So here, when they had come, i.e., when they had begun to come, when they were going they forgot, because the need of bodily refreshment had escaped their memory, through dwelling upon the company of the Lord, and the sweetness of the true bread, which was with them, i.e., Christ. So says Anselm.

Beware, Gr. όρα̃τε, i.e., see of the leaven, i.e., of the doctrine as He explains verse 12 (Mat 16:11-12). Of this leaven He bids them beware, not in that the Pharisees taught and expounded the law of Moses: for in that respect He says they were to be heard and obeyed. But so far as they corrupted it with their own vain traditions, contrary to the law of God, and which were like sour leaven. By these traditions they infected the minds of their hearers. Luke (Luk 12:1.) calls it hypocrisy, take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For they had regard only to outward ceremonies and apparent sanctity, and neglected the purity of the heart. S. Jerome says, this is the leaven, of which the Apostle speaks. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Thus heretical doctrine, if it once cast the least spark into thy breast, will in a short time grow into a mighty flame, and take possession of the whole man.

But they reasoned, &c. Hugo and Dionysius expound thus: Christ said, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, because we have not taken bread, and He does not wish us to accept bread from them. Others take it more simply, thus: When the disciples heard Christ speak of leaven, they remembered that they had not taken any bread into the ship; and being afraid lest Christ might sail as he was accustomed, to some desert place, they were anxious to procure some loaves, and were disputing about it among themselves, perchance one throwing the blame of forgetfulness upon another. In this they committed two faults. First they were too anxious about the bread, and did not sufficiently trust in Christ, whose power and providence they had experienced but a little while before. The second fault was that they thought Christ was speaking of earthly leaven and bread, when He was speaking of what was spiritual.

But when Jesus knew it, &c. He knew this by the power of His Divinity; for He had not heard them speaking about this thing. Of little faith, as if I were speaking of earthly bread, for which I would have you anxious; or as if I were unable or unwilling to provide bread for you, either on board the ship or in the desert.

How many baskets ( sportas ), &c. Since Matthew as well as Mark invariably calls these baskets sportsæ, and the baskets of' the former miracle cophini it is clear that sportæ were a different kind of vessel and measure from cophini.

That I spake not to you concerning bread, &c. For from leaven bread is commonly made. Ye ought to have known from My words and deeds that I was not speaking of earthly bread but of spiritual, that is to say, of doctrine.

Then they understood, &c. Christ's reproof sharpened their understanding.

When He was come . . . Cesarea Philippi. This was a town of Phœnicia, situated at the foot of Lebanon. It was previously called Dan, because it had been captured by that tribe: and because two streams, named Jor and Dan, there unite and form the river Jordan. But because the name of Pan, the god of shepherds, was better known to the Gentiles than the Hebrew tribe Dan, the place was called by them Paneas. Afterwards, Philip, the son of Herod of Ascalon, who was tetrarch of Ituræa and Trachonites, enlarged it and made it the capital of his tetrarchy, and called it Cesarea, in honour of Tiberius Cæsar. It must be distinguished from the Cesarea between Dor and Joppa, which is called in the Acts absolutely Cesarea of Palestine. It was the boundary of Canaan, as promised by God to the Israelites towards the north, as Beersheba was its boundary on the south. Many of the neighbouring Gentiles flocked to this city. Therefore Christ retired to it upon this occasion, that He might teach the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that He might speak with more freedom about the Messiah. For in Judea it was perilous to speak upon this subject; since the Scribes were ready to accuse Him to the Roman governors of aiming at royal power, and of treason against Cæsar. Again this city had been a seat of idolatry, (Jdg 18:29, &c.). Christ therefore wished to cleanse it from this stain, and to bring it to the worship of God, yea to be the beginning and the matrix of Gentile Christian nations. It is now in the possession of the Turks, and is called Belima.

When do men say, &c. i.e., whom do they say that I, who out of humility, am wont to call Myself the Son of Man, am? And, especially I now so call Myself, that I may examine your faith concerning Me, 0 ye Apostles. The Syriac less correctly divides the sentence, in this manner, What do men say concerning Me, that I am the Son of Man? For Christ does not here ask whether He be so called, but asserts that He is the Son of Man, and goes on to ask what further men think about Him.

But some said . . . or one of the Prophets. The common people among the Jews were aware that for several hundred years Prophets had failed to be amongst them, together with the ark of the covenant and the oracles from the mercy seat. Thus they thought that Christ was not a new Prophet, but one of the ancient Prophets. For in Christ they beheld their virtues: their miracles and their doctrine. Few indeed were they who believed with certainty that He was the Messiah. By far the greater number did not believe. They were offended at His humility and His poverty. They thought Messiah would come with regal pomp as the Son of Solomon; as the Jews still think and expect. Wherefore although some of the people had recently said, when they saw so many miracles done by Christ, "Is not this the Son of David?" and, "This is indeed that Prophet which should come into the world;" yet this was a sudden and transient cry, elicited by beholding a miracle, not a firm and settled opinion: thus Abulensis. They thought that the soul of one of the Prophets had passed into Christ by metempsychosis. So Jansen and Baronius. Or more probably they thought one of the prophets had risen again, and Jesus was he; as though Jesus were really John the Baptist, Elias, or Jeremias: For the Pharisees and the Jews generally believed in the resurrection of the dead. This indeed is plain from what Herod said of Christ: This is John himself who is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show themselves in Him. Some thought Jesus to be John the Baptist, because he appeared to be very like him in age, in sanctity and in his preaching. And since John had been shortly before put to death by Herod, he was fresh in their memory, and seemed to be worthy of rising again. Others thought Christ was Elias, on account of the like zeal in both; and because Elias was not yet dead, and was expected by all the Jews to return according to the prophecy of Malachi (Mal 4:5): "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet." They thought therefore that Elias had returned, and that Jesus was he. Others were of opinion that Christ was Jeremiah, because Jeremiah was a most holy man, and a mirror of patience and charity; and because some thought Jeremiah would return with Elias to preach to the Jews, being moved by those words, "I have given thee for a prophet to the Gentiles." (Jer 1:5.)

Jesus saith to them, but whom do ye, &c. From the words but you, S. Jerome gathers that Christ here tacitly, as it were, calls the Apostles gods. "They indeed, because they are men have human ideas, but ye, who are gods, whom do ye think that I am?" But S. Chrysostom says with regard to the subject itself, "The Lord by His second question admonishes His disciples to think more loftily concerning Him. By the very manner of His interrogation, He shows that those common opinions fell far short of His dignity. You, He says, who have been always with Me, and who yourselves have done so many miracles in My name, whom do ye say that I am?"

Simon Peter answering, &c He who was called Simon when he was circumcised, was by Christ named Cephas, i.e., Peter. Some think Peter, as it were the mouth of the Apostles, answered not for himself alone, but for all. So S. Jerome, also Anselm, S, Thomas, the Gloss, Dionysius, Lyra, Jansen, and S. Augustine. Also S. Ambrose ( l. de Incarn. c. 4). With more probability S. Hilary, Abulensis, Maldonatus, Francis Lucas, Barradi, and others think Peter spoke for himself, and his own feeling. For the other Apostles being silent, and hesitating what reply to give, Peter being wiser than the rest, forasmuch as he was taught of God, and being more fervent, lest any one should answer unworthily concerning Christ, dashed in with his answer, and replied on behalf of all: not because he knew the mind of all, for he had not spoken with them concerning the matter, but because he wished that his own opinion should be common to them all. This was what S. Jerome and the others who have been cited really meant, namely, that Peter, as about to be constituted after the resurrection the Prince of the Apostles and of the whole Church, being more deeply taught and inspired by God, recognized the Divinity of Christ, and answered concerning it what all the rest would have answered. This is plain, because to Peter only, as the reward of this confession, Christ promised the most ample reward and prerogative. For he says to him by name above the rest of the Apostles, " Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona," &c.

Thou art the Christ, &c. Gr. ό Χριστός, with the article. Thou, I say, art the Christ, or Messiah, i.e., anointed by God with the unction of the grace of the hypostatic Union with the WORD, and by this consecrated the Chief Doctor, High Priest, Prophet, and King of the world. Doctor, that Thou mayest teach men the will and law of God: High Priest, that by offering Thyself a sacrifice to God, Thou mayest reconcile the world to God; a prophet, that Thou mayest declare the secret things of God, and foretell things to come: a king that Thou mayest rule over Heaven and earth, and all the things which in them are.

Son of God : Not by grace and adoption, as all the saints are sons of God, but by nature and the Deity communicated to Thee by God the Father, by eternal generation. Wherefore the Greek has the definite article, ό υίὸς, i.e., that Son, viz., the only natural son, of one substance with the Father. Living, who thus, formaliter lives the Divine, uncreated and beatific life, that causaliter, He breathes into all things created by Him, His own strength and vigour, and into living things, life and a soul. For from Him, as from a fountain and a sun of life, there floweth all the light and life of all angels, men, animals and plants. See what I have said on S. Joh 1:4. Thus S. Leo ( Serm. de Transfig.): "The divine Peter, by the revelation of the Heavenly Father, overcoming corporeal things, and transcending things human, beheld the Son of the Living God, and confessed the glory of the Deity." Thus too S. Chrysostom, Hilary, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Augustine, and Athanasius ( Serm. 3. c ontra Arian.), and others, passim, who from this passage prove the Divinity of Christ.

Moreover SS. Hilary and Chrysostom and others are of opinion that S. Peter first of all men confessed the Divinity of Christ. Others deny this, saying that Nathanael confessed it before Peter, when he said, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou are the King of Israel. Nevertheless it is plain that before this confession of Peter the Apostles acknowledged Christ to be God from His very words, and from the many and great miracles which He wrought to prove it. We see this from the words of Peter (Joh 6:65 ), "Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ the Son of God." Also from the words of the Apostles themselves, "Verily Thou art the Son of God." (Mat 14:33.) But the Apostles, inasmuch as they were uninstructed, had formed a very confused and poor conception of this doctrine, and believed, after a sort, that Christ was truly the Son of God, above other Prophets, yea that He was God. But after what manner this was so, whether by eternal generation, or by some other way they were ignorant. But Peter being enlightened by God, recognized it distinctly, clearly, and sublimely, and first being asked concerning this thing, openly and constantly confessed the same and testified in this place, that verify, Christ was peculiarly the Son of God, that is, begotten of God the Father by eternal generation, and therefore consubstantial with Him, and very and eternal God. Christ required this faith concerning Himself from Peter and the Apostles—for the Apostles tacitly approved Peter's confession, and tacitly confessed the same—as well because that faith is the foundation of our justification, as because the Passion and Death of Christ were at hand, in which it was needful that the Apostles should be sustained by this faith in the Divinity of Christ; lest when He was dead, they should think faith and all other things were dead with Him. This is plain from verse 21, &c.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. That is to say, blessed and happy art thou, 0 Peter, on account of this new faith concerning Me; for this is a mighty gift and benefit, not of flesh and blood, that is, not of nature, but by the grace of God inspiring and revealing to thee this very thing. For this faith is the beginning and the foundation of all grace and glory, and therefore it shall lead thee, and many through thee and thy example and preaching, to eternal blessedness. For blessedness in the journey standeth in the faith and love of Christ: but the blessedness of the country is the vision and fruition of the same, according to those words of S. John for "this is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." Hence the synod of Ephesus (Act III.) says, "Thrice most blessed and worthy of all praise is the Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the base of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the true faith." Hence also has arisen the custom of the faithful of addressing the Pontiff "Most Blessed Father." Hence S. Jerome saith to Pope Damasus, "I am united to thy Blessedness," that is, to the Chair of Peter.

Simon Bar-jona. For the father of Simon Peter was called Johanna, that is John, as is plain from S. Joh 21:15, meaning "God hath given: or God hath pitied: or the gift of God, from ' Ia ' which is contracted from Jehovah, and ' chanan,' that is, he hath visited, he hath given." Peter, then, was the son of John, or the grace of God, because he was most pleasing to God, and full of His grace. S. Chrysostom observes, that Christ gave the addition "Bar-jona," not only according to the Hebrew custom, which always adds the name of the father to the children, but with a special reference to Peter's answer, as though Christ confirmed it and said, "Thou hast spoken truly, 0 Peter, that I am the Son of God, for as thou art the son of Jona, a man from a man, according to natural generation, so am I the Son of God the Father, but begotten of Him from eternity—God of God, of one substance and Godhead with Him." Symbolically Jona, that is "a dove," is the emblem of the Holy Ghost, who in the form of a dove came down upon Christ. In this place also he descended upon Peter, and revealed to him that Christ was verify and indeed the Son of God. Thus S. Jerome—"Peter obtains a name from his confession, because he had a revelation from the Holy Ghost, whose son he was to be called." Bar-jona in our language signifies " the son of a dove. " "For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee"—that is, not earthly parents nor friends nor any man who consists of flesh and blood has revealed unto thee that I am the Son of God—forasmuch as this knowledge far transcends all nature, and the natural knowledge of all men, but My Heavenly Father hath made it known to thee by the illumination of His grace. "What flesh and blood could not reveal, has been revealed by the grace of the Holy Ghost," saith S. Jerome. By flesh, S. Hilary understands the bodily eyes of S. Peter, for they had told him that Christ was a man, but the revelation of the Father alone had made known to him that He was God.

And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. "And I," in Greek, "κα̉γὼ" i.e., but I, or now I, give back to thee as a reward, and I in turn say and promise: for as S. Jerome saith. "Christ pays back the testimony of the Apostle concerning Himself." Peter had said, " Thou art the Christ—the Son of the living God :" this true confession received a reward, namely, " Thou art Peter. " I therefore who am the very Son of God as thou hast confessed, I the Son of God tell and assure thee, and by saying it, I make and constitute thee, Peter, so that after Me thou mayest become the rock of the Church. Christ had promised this name to Simon (S. Joh 1:42), Saying, "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter:" but in this place He fulfils the promise, and gives him the name of Peter in fact. S. Leo ( Ser. III, Anniver. Ascens.) thus expounds: "And I say unto thee, that even as My Father hath made known to thee My excellence, so do I also make known to thee that thou art Peter, i.e., inasmuch as I am the inviolable Rock, &c., so likewise thou art a rock, because thou art strengthened by My strength, and the things which are Mine by My own power are thine by participation with Me."

Thou are Peter, and upon this role I will build My Church. The meaning is, thou art Peter; that is, the rock of the Church: for upon thee as upon a most solid rock I will build My Church: for the WORD declares and gives the reason why he is Peter, that is to say, "Thou art Peter, because upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church." S. Augustine ( Tract 27, upon John, and.B. 1 Retract, C. 1) says, "Upon this Rock, that is upon Myself, because the rock was Christ," 1Co 10:4. Calvin, ( B. 4, Inst. c. 6), and the heretics eagerly follow this interpretation, that they may overthrow the authority and the primacy of Peter and the Pope. But that Peter himself is here called the rock, the rest of the Fathers almost universally agree. Maldonatus and Bellarmine ( B. 1 , concerning the Roman Pontiff, e. 10) quote them at large. The meaning then is this, thou art " Kepha," or " Cephas," i.e., a rock or a very hard and very firm stone, for this is the signification of the Hebrew " Keph," and of the Chaldee and Syriac " Kepha," marked out and ordained by Me, that after My death, and the gift of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, having been entirely solidified and made strong, thou mayest become the foundation of the Church which I will build upon thee. For before the coming of the Holy Ghost, Peter was very far from being the rock of the Church; yea through fear he denied Christ in His Passion. So then the word "Peter," and "Petra," denotes the firmness of S. Peter as a prince of the Church, and of his successors the Pontiffs, and their constancy in the faith and religion of Christ. Thus among others, Angelus Caninius on the Hebrew names of the New Testament c. xu 1.

Moreover, that Peter is here called the Rock, is proved first, by the pronoun "this," upon " this rock;" for since "this" is demonstrative it ought thus to be understood, viz.:—this rock of which I have spoken, and to whom I speak, i.e., thou art Peter the rock of the Church, and upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church. For there had been no mention made of any other rock to which the pronoun "this" could refer, except Peter. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. x., for there it is said "they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ." Here the word rock precedes, which he explains by saying, that it was so, typically, that is to say, represented Christ: as if Christ had spoken in French He would have said " Tu es Pierre, et sur cest pierre je bastiray mon eglise."

You may say, Christ said not thou art petra, but thou art Petrus, and so deny that the pronoun this refers to Peter. I answer, that Christ is said to have spoken in Syriac, thou art kepha, and upon this kepha I will build, &c. For kepha means a rock, and hence Peter in Syriac was called kepha. But the Greek translator, who is followed by the Latin, gave the masculine form of the noun—namely petrus rather than petra, which is feminine: but πέτρος and πέτρα in Greek equally signify a rock or a stone. Peter therefore is the same word as petra, but the translator made a variation for the sake of elegance, and rendered it thou art Peter and upon this petra, not upon this Petros, as in a true and proper sense he might have done, both because petra in Greek is more frequently used for a rock or a stone than petros, and because houses are properly built upon stones, not upon men. Beza allows this when he says "the Lord speaking in Syriac did not make use of a surname, but said cepha in both places, as in the vernacular the word pierr is used both as a proper and a common noun. In Greek, likewise, πέτρος and πέτρα differ only in their termination, not in their meaning." Thus far correctly, but mistakenly he adds, "Matthew, or whoever was his translator, seems by this difference of interpretation to have intended that Peter, who is a part of the building, should be distinguished from the rock itself on which the building stands, that is from Christ; likewise that Peter himself should be distinguished from the promise of the faith which is common to the whole Church, as ancient writers also clearly prove, in order that Antichrist (so the heretics calls the Roman Pontiff) may become most ridiculous when his followers endeavour to establish his tyranny from this passage." How petulantly and falsely Beza writes may be seen and learnt from the original passages of the Fathers which Bellarmine and Maldonatus cite, as I have already said. Besides, the text of Scripture itself is to be preferred to the translator: nor had the Greek translator a meaning different from the Syriac text, as I have previously said. I omit many other proofs, which either from what has been said, or from what will be said, will show the falsity of Beza's conclusion.

Secondly—The same thing is plain from this, that there would be a want of connection to say thou art Peter and upon Myself the Rock I will build My church. In this indeed there would be a lessening of the speech, and an overthrow of the benefit bestowed. For Peter might say to Christ, "I am Peter, that is the rock of the Church, how then dost thou build Thy Church not upon me but upon Thyself?"

Thirdly—Because all that goes before and that follows refer to Peter alone: "and I," he saith, "say to thee, 0 Peter, that is, I give and assign to thee as the reward and prerogative of thy great faith and confession, that after Myself, and after My death and resurrection, I will make thee the rock and foundation of the Church;" for this is the meaning of I will build My Church.

Fourthly—Because the original oriental versions agree together in this, that petrus is the very same word as petra, and petra as petrus, whence they give the same name Kepha to Petrus and Petra. Christ therefore as Angelus Caninius says, spoke thus in Syriac: ant kepha, veal kepha hadden ebne iat tsibbuti ; or as the Syriac Gospel has it, ant hu kipha, veal hada kipha ebne leidti, that is, thou art Cepha, that is a rock, and upon this Cepha, that is petra, meaning upon thee, who art Peter or a rock, " I will build my Church." Moreover, the Hebrew Gospel, which Sebastian Munster has edited as authentic, and as written by S. Matthew himself, has in like manner atta kepha, veal kepha hazzot ebne eth macpeli. So also the Armenian Gospel: Is bim, he saith e vera ais bim, that is, thou art a rank, and upon this rock I will build, &c.; and the Arabic Gospel, ant alsachra va ala hada, alsachra abni baidti, thou art a rock, and upon that rock I will build my Church. The Æthiopic Gospel has Anta quoqueh va dibazati, quoqh annesa lebeita Christianei, that is, thou are a rock and upon this rock I will build the Christian house— that is the Church. The Coptic also has, but I say unto thee that thou art this Peter, I will found my Church upon this rock, which is none else than this Peter, otherwise there would be no connection, for he gives the reason, the because, why he will build the Church upon a rock, because indeed Peter will be a solid rock on which the whole Church being founded may rest securely as upon a strong foundation. The Persian is, "I say unto thee that thou art sanac," i.e., a rock, "and upon this sanac," that is, rock, "I will build my Church." Moreover, the Persian paraphrase explains sanac as a rock, adding, thou art the rock, that is, foundation and judge. ( Vide Peter Victor in Annotat. ad N. T. pp. 105, 102, where he gives at length all these versions.)

To S. Augustine it is replied that he was misled by his ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, and therefore thought that petrus was something different from petra, and that Peter was as it were called appellatively from it Petreius, although it appears from the Syriac that Petrus and Petra are the same. Again, S. Augustine admits as probable the explanation of those who say that Peter is the rock of the Church; and in this respect he is at issue with Calvin, who is of opinion that such an explanation is blasphemy against Christ. Listen to S. Augustine in his sermon on the Chair of Peter. "Lastly, for strengthening the devotion of the churches he is called the rock; as saith the Lord, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;' for he is called the rock because he first laid the foundations of the faith for the nations, and like an immovable rock he holds the joints and the superstructure of the entire Christian edifice. Peter then is called a rock on account of devotion, and the Lord is called a rock on account of strength; as saith the Apostle, 'they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.' Rightly does he deserve an association in name who had obtained an association in work. Peter lays the foundation, Peter plants; the Lord gives the increase, the Lord waters." The same Augustine ( Serm. 16 de Sanctis ) says, "Worthy was Peter to be a foundation for building up the people of God, to be a pillar for support, a key to the kingdom."

In fine, even if that exposition of S. Augustine were allowed, although it is not the true one, still it may thence be proved that Peter, after Christ, who is the Rock and Corner Stone of the Church, is still the next foundation, rock, or stone of the Church. For then the sense would be, I am the Rock upon which I will build the Church; but thou, 0 Peter, art next unto Me, and the next rock of the Church, upon whom immediately after Myself I will build My Church, and therefore thee only I call Peter, who before wast called Simon. By the same arguments the Magdeburg Centuriators ( l. 1. cent. 1, chap. 4.) are refuted, and the Genevan ministers who in their Bibles expound thus—"upon this rock, that is, upon this confession or faith—viz.: that I am the Son of God." For nowhere previously has this confession been called a rock, as Peter immediately before was called Cephas, that is, a rock.

You may say, some of the Fathers, by the rock, understand the faith which Peter confessed and set forth. So S. Chrysostom, S. Hilary ( l. 6 de Trinit.), S. Cyril. ( l. 4 de Trinit.), S. Ambrose ( l. 6 in Luc. c. 9). I answer, these Fathers do not mean the faith abstractedly, but the faith as it was in Peter, and consequently they take Peter himself to be the rock of the Church, as they themselves afterwards fully explain. They hold that Peter, for the merit of his faith received the dignity of a rock in the Church. As SS. Hilary and Chrysostom say expressly; for on account of that faith he had deserved to be himself the foundation of the Church, and that his faith should never fail, but that he should confirm and strengthen others in the faith. (S. Luke xxii. 32.) For the Church is fashioned and renewed not of faith, but of faithful men, who are as it were its parts (for the Church is nothing else than the company of the faithful), wherefore, likewise, in order that the head of the Church may be of the same nature as the body, that head must be a faithful man—that is to say, Peter and the Pontiff. The faith then is the reason of the founding, but the foundation is Peter himself. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril ( l. 4 de Trinit.) and S. Ambrose, Bellarmine ( l. 1 de Pont. c. 10) where he refutes both Erasmus and Chytræus, who follow Origen, who allegorizes after his custom, and understands by the rock all the faithful. In this way indeed the whole Church would be the rock, for the whole Church consists of none other than the faithful; but where then would be the walls, the floors, and the roof of the Church? Of what then shall these be built? ( See also Gretser in defence of Bellarm, l. 3. c. 5.)

Lastly, Christ bestowed this gift upon Peter as the future Pontiff of the Church; wherefore He gave the same gift to all the other Pontiffs, his successors, and that for the good of the Church, that it might be strengthened by them as by a rock, in the faith and religion of Christ. Wherefore, S. Bernard ( l. 2, de Consid. ) saith to Pope Eugenius, "Who art thou? A great priest—the chief Pontiff. Thou art the prince of bishops, thou art the heir of the Apostles, thou art Abel in primacy, Noah in government, Abraham in the patriarchate; in order, thou art Melchisedeck, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judgeship Samuel, in power Peter, in unction a Christ. To thee the keys have been delivered, the sheep entrusted."

And upon this rock. From hence it is plain that like as Cephas is derived from cepha, so is Peter from petra, indeed that he is the same as petra, as I have already shown. Wherefore, when Optatus Milevit. ( l. 2, against Parmen.) and others derive Cephas from the Greek κεφαλή, that is, a head— they do it by a congruous allusion, not by a real etymology. By a similar allusion, S. Gregory Nazianzen ( Orat. on the Passover ) derives Phase or Pascha—which is a Hebrew word, as everybody knows (Exod. xii.), from the Greek πάσχειν, that is, to suffer. For in the Passover happened the Passion of Christ, and His immolation as the Paschal Lamb. Moreover, Christ gave this name of rock, rather than other names (such as pillar, tower, anchor, foundation, &c.), because this name of rock is given in Scripture to Christ Himself (Isa 28:16; Psa 118:22; Mat 21:42.) He communicated, therefore, a share in His own name, together with His dignity and office. Thus S. Jerome; and S. Gregory ( On the Seven Penitential Psalms ) says: "Christ is the rock, from which rock Peter received his name, and upon which He said that He would build." Listen to S. Leo ( Serm. 3, On the Anniversary of his Accession ), where he introduces Christ as speaking thus to Peter: "Since I am the rock, I the cornerstone, who make of both one; I the foundation, besides which no one can lay any other; nevertheless thou art a rock likewise, because thou art strengthened by My strength in order that what things are Mine by Mine own power, may be thine also through participation with Me: and upon this rock I will build My Church; upon this strength He says, I will construct an eternal temple, &c."

I will build My Church. That is to say, I therefore call thee Peter and the rock, because as a house is built upon a rock that it may rest firm and immovable upon it against every blast of the winds, so will I build upon thee, 0 Peter, as upon a most solid rock, My Church; that resting upon thee, it may abide firm against all the attacks of heretics and wicked men, and that thou mayest keep and sustain it in the true faith and worship of God, in like manner as a rocky foundation sustains and holds together the entire house which is built upon it. Thus S. Ambrose ( Serm. 4) saith: "Peter is called the rock, because—like an immovable rock—he sustains the joints and the mass of the whole Christian edifice."

You may say all the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, as is plain from Eph 2:20, and Apoc. xxi. 20  (Rev 21:20); so then Peter only is not the rock of the Church. I answer, that Peter is the rock and the foundation of the whole Church and of the entire body of the faithful, and therefore of the Apostles themselves. For the office of Peter—who is primate and chief—was to retain, direct, and strengthen the Apostles in faith, religion, and duty, and if at any time they should err, to correct them. Whence S. Jerome ( l. 1, contra Jovin.) says: "Wherefore among twelve one is chosen, that by the appointment of a head, occasion of schism might be taken away." And S. Cyprian ( Tract on the Unity of the Church ) says, "the primacy is given to Peter that it might be shown there is one Church of Christ and one Chair."

Observe, Christ in this place promises by two metaphors, as S. Jerome says, that after His death and resurrection He will give to Peter the principality of the Church. The first metaphor is that of a foundation or foundation rock. For that thing, which in a building is the rock and foundation, in a body is the head, in a state the ruler, in a kingdom the king, in a church the pontiff. The second metaphor is that of the keys: for keys are only given to kings and rulers.

Observe, secondly: to build the Church upon this rock, signifies two things. First, that upon this reasonable stone—namely, Peter, as the head of all the Apostles—the care and government of the whole Church devolve next after Christ. Thus S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 55), S. Ambrose ( Serm. 57), S. Gregory ( l. 4, Epist. 32). Secondly, that the Church rests upon and is strengthened by Peter as a foundation, as the Vicar of Christ, so that it cannot err in matters of faith. Whence Peter, on account of his lofty confession of faith, received grace from Christ to become and to be appointed this foundation rock.

And this is the meaning of SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Cyril—and Nyssen, in the end of his book ( Contra Judæos )—when they say that the Church was built by Christ upon the faith and confession of Peter, as I have explained above. Moreover, S. Chrysostom in this place lays stress upon the words I will build, and says: "They are similar to those words 'God said,' in the first chapter of Genesis, by which words all things were created and subsist." In like manner he says: " I will build, hath wrought all, even though tyrants oppose, soldiers fight, the people rage, custom struggles. For the word of God coming like a vehement fire, hath burnt up the thorns, hath cleansed the fields, hath prepared the ground, hath raised the building on high, &c." S. Jerome also ( Epist. 57), consulting Pope Damasus whether we may say there are three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity or only one—thus addresses him: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. I, following none first, except Christ, am united to your Blessedness; that is, in communion with the See of Peter. I know that upon that rock the Church is built. Whosoever eateth the Lamb outside of this house is profane; if any man be not in the ark of Noah, he shall perish in the swelling of the deluge."

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Namely, against the Church, because it has been founded upon Peter and his successors, as upon a most solid rock.

The gates of hell, i.e., the infernal city, meaning all hell, with its entire army of demons, and with the whole power of Lucifer its king. For hell and the city of God, i.e., the Church, are here put in opposition. When S. Augustine wrote his work de Civitate Dei, in the beginning of which he speaks of the two opposite cities; the one of God which is the Church; the other of the devil, i.e., of demons and wicked men: he takes the gates of hell to mean heresies, and heresiarchs; for they fight against the faith of Peter and the Church, and they proceed from hell and are stirred up by the devil. So S. Epiphanius ( in Ancoratu ), not far from the beginning. There are here the two figures of speech—synecdoche and metonymy; for by the gates he means the whole city, both because the gate is the entrance into a city, and because the chief defences and strength of a city are wont to be at the gates, because if they and the adjoining walls are safe, the city is safe, if they are taken, the city is taken.

Shall not prevail. Heb. lo juchelu la, i.e., shall not be able to stand against it—namely, the Church. So S. Hilary and Maldonatus. More simply, shall not prevail, i.e., shall not conquer or overcome, or pull down the Church. For this is the meaning of the original Greek. We have here the figure of speech, miosis: for little is said but much is meant; not only that the Church shall not be conquered, but that she shall conquer and subdue under her all heretics, tyrants, and every other enemy, as she overcame Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Nero, Decius, Diocletian, &c. Therefore by this word Christ first animates his Church that she should not be faint hearted when she sees herself attacked by all the power of Satan and wicked men. In the second place, He as it were sounds a trumpet for her, that she may always watch with her armour on against so many enemies, who attack her with extreme hatred. Thirdly, He promises to her, as well as to her head, Peter, i.e., the Pontiff—victory and triumph over them all. Again, Christ and the Holy Ghost assist with special guidance her head, the Roman Pontiff, that he should not err in matters of faith, but that he may be firm as an adamant, says S. Chrysostom, and that he may rightly administer and rule the Church, and guide it in the path of safety, as Noah also directed the ark that it should not be overwhelmed in the deluge. Wherefore S. Chrysostom ( Hom. de Verb. Isaiah ) says: "It were more easy for the sun to be extinguished than for the Church to fail;" and again, "what can be more powerful than the Church of God: the barbarians destroy fortifications, but not even the devils overcome the Church. When it is attacked openly, it conquers; when it is attacked by treachery, it overcomes." S. Augustine on the Psalms against the Donatists, says: "Reckon up the Bishops even from the very Pontificate of Peter. That is the very rock which the proud gates of hell conquer not." This has been made especially plain in the conversion of all nations, specially of Rome and the Romans. For Rome being the head, both of the world and of idolatry, where the idols of all nations were worshipped, has been converted from them by S. Peter and his successors, and has bowed down her proud head to the cross of Christ, which thing is of all miracles the greatest.

And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Thee—who art one person—namely, Bar-jona, or the son of Jona, as is plain from everything which precedes and follows. Not therefore in this place were the keys of Heaven promised to Peter in the person of the Church, or primarily to the Church herself, as the heretics take it, but to Peter himself as the head of the Church; and through him to the Church and her ministers, in like manner as to the same Peter they were specially given and consigned by Christ after His resurrection, when He said: "Feed My sheep." Thus the Greek and Latin Fathers explain, passim, whose words Bellarmine recites ( l. 1 de Pontiff, c. 12), where in like manner he proves at length that this is the meaning of S. Augustine, when he says that Peter bore the figure of the Church because indeed Peter was a representative of the Church as a king of a kingdom: for so indeed S. Augustine explains himself ( Tract. ult. upon S. John ), where he says: "Of this Church the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his Apostleship, was a kind of general representative." And on Psalm 109, "Of which Church he is acknowledged to be the representative, on account of the primacy which was his among the disciples." Wherefore for the good of the Church Peter, as her head, received the keys from Christ; from which it is also plain that Christ promised the keys to Peter as a future Pontiff, and consequently promised the same keys to the other Roman Pontiffs, successors of Peter. For Christ in this place had regard to a most necessary matter, and of the highest moment to His ever-abiding Church—that is to say, to its perpetual head; and He ordained the best and most abiding constitution for her, namely, the monarchical, that the one Church of Christ should be ruled by the one Roman Pontiff, as S. Cyprian teaches on the Unity of the Church ; S. Jerome ( l. 1, contra. Jovin.), and others, passim. Our Gretzer, and after him Adam Contsen, ably refute the cavils of Calvin and his followers about this passage. The keys— you will ask what the keys here signify. Calvin answers ( l. 4, Inst. c. 6, sec. 3), that they signify both the power to preach the Gospel, as well as the forgiveness of sins to him who believes the Gospel which promises forgiveness. But this is a jejune and worthless explanation. For by keys doors are opened, not the mouths of preachers. Whence keys specially belong to kings and rulers; not to doctors, and teachers, and preachers; wherefore the keys here signify properly the right to rule; whereunto pertains not only power to preach the Gospel, but also to absolve sins, to admonish, to ordain priests, to interpret Holy Scripture, to excommunicate, and to do all other things which pertain to the good government of the Church.

I say therefore, by the keys is here signified the chief power, both of order and jurisdiction, over the whole Church, promised and delivered in this place by Christ to Peter. For with such an object in view the keys of the cities are delivered to kings and princes. And Christ thus explains the keys in what follows, when He says: Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, &c. For he who hath the keys of a house, or of a city is its lord, to open or shut it at his pleasure: to admit into it, and to shut out of it whom he will. There is an allusion to Isa c. xxii.(Isa 22:20-23), where God promising the principality of the synagogue to Eliakim, the Pontiff of the Old Testament, says: "And I will lay upon his shoulder the key of the house of David, so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open." Moreover, Eliakim was a type of Christ as a priest, of whom it is said (Rev 21:10), "I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." The sense then is this—I, Christ, will give to thee, Peter, as a Pontiff, and consequently to all the other Popes who come after thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by which I mean supreme authority to rule the universal Church dispersed throughout the whole world, that by the keys, i.e., by thy power in opening or shutting the Church to men, thou mayest open or shut heaven to them. Where observe Christ said not, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of earth, lest an earthly and temporal power should be thought to be meant, but of the kingdom of heaven, that this power might be properly and directly exercised in spiritual things, which are those that pertain to the kingdom of heaven ; but that it should be exercised only indirectly with reference to temporal things, being such as are necessary, or at least very profitable to spiritual matters. Thus S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 55) teaches that by the delivery of these keys by Christ to Peter there was committed to him the care and government of the whole world, and that he was created pastor and head of the entire Church. Thus also S. Gregory ( l. 4, ep. 32) says: "It is plain to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church has been committed to S. Peter, the chief of all the Apostles." And he immediately adds the reason, "for to him it is said, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Thus also S. Hilary on this passage, and S. Leo, ( Serm. 2 in Anniv. Assum.), and others, passim. Listen also to S. Augustine ( Serm 28 de Sanct.) "Peter alone among the Apostles had grace to hear, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." Worthy indeed was he to be a foundation stone for building up the people in the house of God; to be a pillar to support them, a key for the kingdom. Hence also S. Ambrose ( l. 2, ep. 13) to his sister Marcellina—when he records the contest which he had with the Arians, who had demanded that the keys of the Cathedral of Milan, over which he presided should be delivered to them, and that by the command of the Emperor Valentinian the younger, who was ruled by his mother Justina, an Arian—said: "The order is given,—'Deliver up the Cathedral.' I answer, it is neither lawful for me to deliver it, nor is it fitting for thee, 0 Emperor, to receive it. Thou hast no right to intrude upon the house of a private person, dost thou think, that God's house may be taken away? It is alleged, all things are lawful to the Emperor, for all things are his. I answer, Do not burden thyself, 0 Emperor, to think that thou hast any imperial right over those things which are Divine. Do not lift up thyself, but if thou wouldst reign long, be subject to God, for it is written, Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's. To the Emperor pertain palaces, but churches to the priesthood. To him has been committed the power over the public fortifications, not of sacred buildings." Thus Hosius, bishop of Cordova, president of the Nicene Counsel, steadfastly replied to the Arian Emperor Constantius, when he made a similar demand; that to him belonged the keys of the cities, but the keys of the church to the Pontiff alone. "To thee" he says, "God has committed the empire, to us he has entrusted what belongs to the Church."

Tropologically, the keys denote the industry, skill and wisdom in ruling which ought to exist in a Pontiff; for a key ought to be skilfully placed, fitted to, and turned in the lock, that the door may be opened; so "the art of arts is the government of souls," says S. Gregory in his Pastoral.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whatsoever, i.e., whomsoever, but he says whatsoever, because the neuter gender is fuller and of more universal application than the masculine. For the Pontiff binds and looses not men only, but sins, vows, oaths, &c. There is a transition from the metaphor of the keys to the kindred metaphor of binding and loosing; for to open and shut, to bind and loose, are akin. Whence, by it, he signifies the same thing—that by the keys and by the rock are meant the supreme authority of Peter and the Pontiffs in ruling the Church. The power therefore of binding is a very ample one, and is exercised by Peter and the Pontiff in various ways. First, by not absolving but retaining sins and offences, and by refusing sacramental absolution in the sacrament of penance to such as are unworthy, and without the proper dispositions, so likewise by refusing the Eucharist and other sacraments. (S. Joh 20:23.) Second, by enjoining penance to the lapsed. Third, by binding such as are guilty with excommunication and other ecclesiastical censures. Fourth, by enjoining laws and precepts with respect to feasts, fasts, tithes, &c., upon the faithful. Fifth, by binding Christians with definitions of faith, when the Pontiff, ex cathedra, defines and declares what is to be believed, what is to be rejected, as erroneous and heretical, what monastic orders are good, what are not—what estate of life is honourable and lawful—what is not, &c. Hence, from the contraries, it is plain what is meant by loosing ; namely, to absolve and to release from the aforesaid obligations. Christ therefore here explains the power of the keys through the metaphor, not of opening and shutting, which are the two proper offices of keys, but by one more powerful, that is of chains, by binding men with them, or loosing those that are bound; which power S. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs, his successors, have received from Christ over all men whatsoever, throughout the whole world. The Pontiffs, nevertheless, give a share of this power, as they think good, to bishops and pastors and other ministers of the Church subordinate to them; and therefore Christ said to the other Apostles also (Mat 18:18): Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall 1oose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven ; by which words the same power is given to the Apostles by Christ over the whole world which is here given to Peter; but the same power is here given in an especial manner to Peter only, to signify that he has the primacy and the principality in this power, so as to be able by it to be direct, constrain, correct the other Apostles, as it were subordinate to him, and committed to his care, and hence that he might, if indeed it were needful, deprive them of it. Whence the Synod of Alexandria, over which S. Athanasius presided, agreeable to the council of Nice, writes to Pope Felix that the power of binding and loosing has been, by a special privilege granted, above others, to the Roman See by the Lord Himself.

Upon earth : (Following upon these words à Lapide enters upon a discussion as to how far, and in what manner the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff extends over souls in hell or purgatory. He gives various opinions of theologians, not apparently of the very highest authority, which it would be wearisome to translate, and then concludes the discussion, summing up as follows: Translator.) In fine it is more agreeable to truth that the Pope possesses judicial power to bind and loose those only who are living upon the earth, but not the dead. When therefore he gives indulgences applicable to the departed, it is not in the way of judicial absolution, because the dead are no longer under his jurisdiction, but by way of suffrages, as he is accustomed fully to express in his Bulls—namely, by expending for the dead so much of the treasure of the Church, of which he is the steward, as the departed owe of penalties to God. For this treasure is upon earth, and is at the disposal of the Pontiff. This is the opinion of S. Thomas, Bonaventura, Alensis, Gabriel, Major, Richardus, Cajetan, D. Soto, Navarre, and Bellarmine ( Tract. de Indul.), whom Suarez cites and follows ( de Pœnit: Disp. 53, s. 2. n. et seq.), who also adds, that properly and directly the Pontiff can neither excommunicate the dead, nor absolve them from excommunication, but only indirectly, in so far as he may directly forbid, or permit the living to pray for one who is dead, and by so doing may deprive the dead indirectly of the suffrages of the Church, as though they had been excommunicated—or, on the other hand, may give them a share in those suffrages, in the same manner as if he absolved them from excommunication. When, therefore, Christ saith here to Peter Whatsoever thou shall loose, &c., by loosing is to be understood not only judicial absolution, but every dispensation, favour and grace as well, which, by the efficacy of that power, has been conferred upon him by Christ, and of this kind is that dispensing of the treasure of the Church which, by way of suffrages, the Pontiff expends and applies for the benefit of the faithful departed. This then is the meaning of the words upon earth.

Then He commanded . . . Jesus the Christ. Some Greek MSS. and the Syriac omit the word Jesus. Then the sentence flows more clearly; for all men knew that He was called Jesus, but they did not know that He was Messiah, or Christ, the true Son of God. Christ did not wish the Apostles to preach this doctrine to others, for two reasons; first, because they themselves were not as yet sufficiently instructed and confirmed in it. Secondly, because Christ was about to be put to death by the Jews. Wherefore the Jews would have been scandalised if the Apostles had preached that He was Messiah and God, and would have said to them, Away with your Christ to destruction, Who would make us Deicides—even as the Jews say to Christians now; wherefore, had they once cast away faith in Christ, they would not have hearkened to it any more, even though it had been attested afterwards by miracles. Thus they were to wait for the death, the glory, and the resurrection of Christ; that then they might proclaim Him to be Messiah and the Son of God, and confirm this doctrine by miracles, and persuade the people, as they did at Pentecost (Acts ii.), according to the words: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." (Phil. ii. 9, 10.) Thus S. Jerome: "Preach Me when I shall have suffered those things, since it is not expedient that Christ should be publicly proclaimed, and His majesty made commonly known among the people, when they are about shortly to behold Him scourged and crucified."

From that time forth began Jesus, &c. Gr. α̉πὸ τότε, i.e., from this time in which He had made known to them His Divinity, He began to teach them concerning His Passion and Death. For there are two chief points of faith—namely, Christ's Divinity, and His Humanity, together with His Cross and Passion, by which He redeemed the world. There was also another reason—lest when the Apostles beheld Christ put to death, they should doubt concerning His Divinity; and He would show them that the two things were not inconsistent. For in this way only could He make perfect sa

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

By Way of Introduction

The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic Logia along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic Logia and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark’s work on a par with his own. But Mark’s book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently (1927) published An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel . We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.

If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between a.d. 50 to 60, then Matthew’s book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that a.d. 60 is as good as any.

In the Gospel itself we find Matthew the publican (Mat_9:9; Mat_10:3) though Mark (Mar_2:14) and Luke (Luk_5:27) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles, a business man called into the ministry as was true of the fishermen James and John, Andrew and Simon. In the lists of the Apostles he comes either seventh or eighth. There is nothing definite told about him in the Gospels apart from the circle of the Twelve after the feast which he gave to his fellow publicans in honor of Jesus.

Matthew was in the habit of keeping accounts and it is quite possible that he took notes of the sayings of Jesus as he heard them. At any rate he gives much attention to the teachings of Jesus as, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters Matthew 5-7, the parables in Matthew 13, the denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the great eschatological discourse in Matthew 24 and 25. As a publican in Galilee he was not a narrow Jew and so we do not expect a book prejudiced in favor of the Jews and against the Gentiles. He does seem to show that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation and hope and so makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament by way of confirmation and illustration. There is no narrow nationalism in Matthew. Jesus is both the Messiah of the Jews and the Saviour of the world.

There are ten parables in Matthew not in the other Gospels: The Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Net, the Pearl of Great Price, the Unmerciful Servant, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, the Talents. The only miracles in Matthew alone are the Two Blind Men, the Coin in the Mouth of the Fish. But Matthew gives the narrative of the Birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph while Luke tells that wonderful story from the standpoint of Mary. There are details of the Death and Resurrection given by Matthew alone.

The book follows the same general chronological plan as that in Mark, but with various groups like the miracles in Matthew 8 and 9, the parables in Matthew 13.

The style is free from Hebraisms and has few individual peculiarities. The author is fond of the phrase the kingdom of heaven and pictures Jesus as the Son of man, but also as the Son of God. He sometimes abbreviates Mark’s statements and sometimes expands them to be more precise.

Plummer shows the broad general plan of both Mark and Matthew to be the same as follows:

Introduction to the Gospel Mar_1:1-13 Matthew 3:1-4:11. Ministry in Galilee Mark 1:14-6:13 Matthew 4:12-13:58. Ministry in the Neighborhood Mark 6:14-9:50 Matthew 14:1-18:35. Journey through Perea to Jerusalem Mark 10:1-52 Matthew 19:1-20:34. Last week in Jerusalem Mark 11:1-16:8 Matthew 21:1-28:8. The Gospel of Matthew comes first in the New Testament, though it is not so in all the Greek manuscripts. Because of its position it is the book most widely read in the New Testament and has exerted the greatest influence on the world. The book deserves this influence though it is later in date than Mark, not so beautiful as Luke, nor so profound as John. Yet it is a wonderful book and gives a just and adequate portraiture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The author probably wrote primarily to persuade Jews that Jesus is the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes as pictured in the Old Testament. It is thus a proper introduction to the New Testament story in comparison with the Old Testament prophecy.

The Title

The Textus Receptus has " The Holy Gospel according to Matthew" ( to kata Matthaion hagion Euaggelion ), though the Elzevirs omit " holy," not agreeing here with Stephanus, Griesbach, and Scholz. Only minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts) and all late have the adjective. Other minuscules and nine uncials including W (the Washington Codex of the fifth century), C of the fifth century (the palimpsest manuscript) and Delta of the ninth together with most Latin manuscripts have simply " Gospel according to Matthew" ( Euaggelion kata Matthaion ). But Aleph and B the two oldest and best Greek uncials of the fourth century have only " According to Matthew" ( Kata Maththaion ) (note double th) and the Greek uncial D of the fifth or sixth century follows Aleph and B as do some of the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the Curetonian Syriac. It is clear, therefore, that the earliest form of the title was simply " According to Matthew." It may be doubted if Matthew (or the author, if not Matthew) had any title at all. The use of " according to" makes it plain that the meaning is not " the Gospel of Matthew," but the Gospel as given by Matthew, secundum Matthaeum , to distinguish the report by Matthew from that by Mark, by Luke, by John. Least of all is there any authority in the manuscripts for saying " Saint Matthew," a Roman Catholic practice observed by some Protestants.

The word Gospel ( Euaggelion ) comes to mean good news in Greek, though originally a reward for good tidings as in Homer’s Odyssey XIV. 152 and in 2Ki_4:10. In the New Testament it is the good news of salvation through Christ. The English word Gospel probably comes from the Anglo-Saxon Godspell, story or narrative of God, the life of Christ. It was early confused with the Anglo-Saxon godspell, good story, which seems like a translation of the Greek euaggelion . But primarily the English word means the God story as seen in Christ which is the best news that the world has ever had. One thinks at once of the use of " word" ( Logos ) in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14. So then it is, according to the Greek, not the Good News of Matthew, but the Good News of God, brought to us in Christ the Word, the Son of God, the Image of the Father, the Message of the Father. We are to study this story first as presented by Matthew. The message is God’s and it is as fresh to us today in Matthew’s record as when he first wrote it.

JFB: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mat 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is "in every case" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mat 24:15) --a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Luk 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mat 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mat 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by GROTIUS, MICHAELIS (and his translator), MARSH, TOWNSON, CAMPBELL, OLSHAUSEN, CRESWELL, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, DAVIDSON, CURETON, TREGELLES, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. MICHAELIS tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and DAVIDSON and CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by GUERICKS, OLSHAUSEN, THIERSCH, TOWNSON, TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of DEAN ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and ROBERTS ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Luk 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in DAVIDSON'S Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by DA COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

JFB: Matthew (Outline)

• GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. ( = Luke 3:23-38). (Mat. 1:1-17)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Mat 1:18-25)
• VISIT OF THE MAGI TO JERUSALEM AND BETHLEHEM. (Mat 2:1-12)
• THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT--THE MASSACRE AT BETHLEHEM--THE RETURN OF JOSEPH AND MARY WITH THE BABE, AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, AND THEIR SETTLEMENT AT NAZARETH. ( = Luk 2:39). (Mat 2:13-23)
• PREACHING AND MINISTRY OF JOHN. ( = Mar 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18). (Mat 3:1-12)
• BAPTISM OF CHRIST AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON HIM IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. ( = Mar 1:9-11; Luk 3:21-22; Joh 1:31-34). (Mat 3:13-17)
• TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. ( = Mar 1:12-13; Luk 4:1-13). (Mat 4:1-11)
• CHRIST BEGINS HIS GALILEAN MINISTRY--CALLING OF PETER AND ANDREW, JAMES AND JOHN--HIS FIRST GALILEAN CIRCUIT. ( = Mar 1:14-20, Mar 1:35-39; Luk 4:14-15). (Mat 4:12-25)
• THE BEATITUDES, AND THEIR BEARING UPON THE WORLD. (Mat. 5:1-16)
• IDENTITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES WITH THOSE OF THE ANCIENT ECONOMY; IN CONTRAST WITH THE REIGNING TRADITIONAL TEACHING. (Mat. 5:17-48)
• FURTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--ITS UNOSTENTATIOUSNESS. (Mat. 6:1-18)
• CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS AND FILIAL CONFIDENCE. (Mat. 6:19-34)
• MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTARY COUNSELS. (Mat 7:1-12)
• CONCLUSION AND EFFECT OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (Mat. 7:13-29)
• HEALING OF A LEPER. ( = Mar 1:40-45; Luk 5:12-16). (Mat 8:1-4) When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. ( = Luk 9:57-62). (Mat 8:18-22) And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
• MATTHEW'S CALL AND FEAST. ( = Mar 2:14-17; Luk 5:27-32). (Mat 9:9-13)
• TWO BLIND MEN AND A DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED. (Mat 9:27-34)
• THIRD GALILEAN CIRCUIT--MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Mat. 9:35-10:5)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. ( = Mar 6:7-13; Luk 9:1-6). (Mat 10:1-5)
• THE TWELVE RECEIVE THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. (Mat. 10:5-42)
• THE IMPRISONED BAPTIST'S MESSAGE TO HIS MASTER--THE REPLY, AND DISCOURSE, ON THE DEPARTURE OF THE MESSENGERS, REGARDING JOHN AND HIS MISSION. ( = Luke 7:18-35). (Mat. 11:1-19)
• OUTBURST OF FEELING SUGGESTED TO THE MIND OF JESUS BY THE RESULT OF HIS LABORS IN GALILEE. (Mat 11:20-30) Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.
• PLUCKING CORN EARS ON THE SABBATH DAY. ( = Mar 2:23-28; Luk 6:1-5). (Mat 12:1-8)
• THE HEALING OF A WITHERED HAND ON THE SABBATH DAY AND RETIREMENT OF JESUS TO AVOID DANGER. ( = Mar 3:1-12; Luk 6:6-11). (Mat 12:9-21)
• A BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED AND REPLY TO THE MALIGNANT EXPLANATION PUT UPON IT. ( = Mar 3:20-30; Luk 11:14-23). (Mat. 12:22-37)
• A SIGN DEMANDED AND THE REPLY--HIS MOTHER AND BRETHREN SEEK TO SPEAK WITH HIM, AND THE ANSWER. ( = Luk 11:16, Luk 11:24-36; Mar 3:31-35; Luk 8:19-21). (Mat 12:38-50)
• JESUS TEACHES BY PARABLES. ( = Mark 4:1-34; Luk 8:4-18; Luk 13:18-20). (Mat. 13:1-52) The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside.
• HOW JESUS WAS REGARDED BY HIS RELATIVES. ( = Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:16-30). (Mat 13:53-58) And it came to pass, that, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS IMPRISONMENT AND DEATH. ( = Mark 6:14-29; Luk 9:7-9). (Mat 14:1-12)
• JESUS CROSSES TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LAKE WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mar 6:45; Joh 6:15-24). (Mat 14:22-26)
• DISCOURSE ON CEREMONIAL POLLUTION. ( = Mar 7:1, Mar 7:23). (Mat. 15:1-20)
• THE WOMAN OF CANAAN AND HER DAUGHTER. (Mat 15:21-28)
• PETER'S NOBLE CONFESSION OF CHRIST AND THE BENEDICTION PRONOUNCED UPON HIM--CHRIST'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--HIS REBUKE OF PETER AND WARNING TO ALL THE TWELVE. ( = Mar 8:27; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:18-27). (Mat. 16:13-28)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT BY OUR LORD OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mark 9:14-32; Luk 9:37-45). (Mat 17:14-23)
• THE TRIBUTE MONEY. (Mat 17:24-27)
• FURTHER TEACHING ON THE SAME SUBJECT INCLUDING THE PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL DEBTOR. (Mat. 18:10-35)
• FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE--DIVORCE. ( = Mar 10:1-12; Luk 9:51). (Mat 19:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD. (Mat. 20:1-16)
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED AND THE REPLY--THE PARABLES OF THE TWO SONS, AND OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN. ( = Mark 11:27-12:12; Luke 20:1-19). (Mat. 21:23-46)
• PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON. (Mat 22:1-14)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES--LAMENTATION OVER JERUSALEM, AND FAREWELL TO THE TEMPLE. ( = Mar 12:38-40; Luk 20:45-47). (Mat. 23:1-39)
• PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. (Mat 25:1-13)
• PARABLE OF THE TALENTS. (Mat. 25:14-30)
• THE LAST JUDGMENT. (Mat. 25:31-46)
• JESUS LED AWAY TO PILATE--REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. ( = Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1; Joh 18:28). (Mat 27:1-10)
• GLORIOUS ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN--THE GUARDS BRIBED TO GIVE A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION. ( = Mar 16:1-8; Luk 24:1-8; Joh 20:1). (Mat 28:1-15)
• JESUS MEETS WITH THE DISCIPLES ON A MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE AND GIVES FORTH THE GREAT COMMISSION. (Mat 28:16-20)
• SIGNS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS--HE IS TAKEN DOWN FROM THE CROSS, AND BURIED--THE SEPULCHRE IS GUARDED. ( = Mar 15:38-47; Luk 23:47-56; Joh 19:31-42). (Mat. 27:51-66)

TSK: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, being one of the twelve apostles, and early called to the apostleship, and from the time of his call a constant attendant on our Saviour, was perfectly well qualified to write fully the history of his life. He relates what he saw and heard. " He is eminently distinguished for the distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord’s discourses and moral instructions. Of these his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Master to the cavils of his adversaries." " There is not," as Dr. A. Clarke justly remarks, " one truth or doctrine, in the whole oracles of God, which is not taught in this Evangelist. The outlines of the whole spiritual system are here correctly laid down. even Paul himself has added nothing. He has amplified and illustrated the truths contained in this Gospel - under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, neither he, nor any of the other apostles, have brought to light one truth, the prototype of which has not been found in the words and acts of our blessed Lord as related by Matthew."

TSK: Matthew 16 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mat 16:1, The Pharisees require a sign; Mat 16:5, Jesus warns his disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees; Mat 16:13, The people’s opinion of Christ, Mat 16:16. and Peter’s confession of him; Mat 16:21, Jesus foretells his death; Mat 16:23, reproves Peter for dissuading him from it; Mat 16:24, and admonishes those that will follow him, to bear the cross.

Poole: Matthew 16 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER SUMMARY

MHCC: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, surnamed Levi, before his conversion was a publican, or tax-gatherer under the Romans at Capernaum. He is generally allowed to have written his Gospel before any other of the evangelists. The contents of this Gospel, and the evidence of ancient writers, show that it was written primarily for the use of the Jewish nation. The fulfilment of prophecy was regarded by the Jews as strong evidence, therefore this is especially dwelt upon by St. Matthew. Here are particularly selected such parts of our Saviour's history and discourses as were best suited to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of their sins; to remove their erroneous expectations of an earthly kingdom; to abate their pride and self-conceit; to teach them the spiritual nature and extent of the gospel; and to prepare them for the admission of the Gentiles into the church.

MHCC: Matthew 16 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mat 16:1-4) The Pharisees and Sadducees ask a sign.

(Mat 16:5-12) Jesus cautions against the doctrine of the Pharisees.

(Mat 16:13-20) Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Christ.

(Mat 16:21-23) Christ foretells his sufferings, and rebukes Peter.

(Mat 16:24-28) The necessity of self-denial.

Matthew Henry: Matthew (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Matthew

We have now before us, I. The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; so this second part of the holy Bible is entitled: The new covenant; so it might as well be rendered; the word signifies both. But, when it is (as here) spoken of as Christ's act and deed, it is most properly rendered a testament, for he is the testator, and it becomes of force by his death (Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17); nor is there, as in covenants, a previous treaty between the parties, but what is granted, though an estate upon condition, is owing to the will, the free-will, the good-will, of the Testator. All the grace contained in this book is owing to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour; and, unless we consent to him as our Lord, we cannot expect any benefit by him as our Saviour. This is called a new testament, to distinguish it from that which was given by Moses, and was not antiquated; and to signify that it should be always new, and should never wax old, and grow out of date. These books contain, not only a full discovery of that grace which has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, but a legal instrument by which it is conveyed to, and settled upon, all believers. How carefully do we preserve, and with what attention and pleasure do we read, the last will and testament of a friend, who has therein left us a fair estate, and, with it, high expressions of his love to us! How precious then should this testament of our blessed Saviour be to us, which secures to us all his unsearchable riches! It is his testament; for though, as is usual, it was written by others (we have nothing upon record that was of Christ's own writing), yet he dictated it; and the night before he died, in the institution of his supper, he signed, sealed, and published it, in the presence of twelve witnesses. For, though these books were not written for some years after, for the benefit of posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam - as a perpetual memorial, yet the New Testament of our Lord Jesus was settled, confirmed, and declared, from the time of his death, as a nuncupative will, with which these records exactly agree. The things which St. Luke wrote were things which were most surely believed, and therefore well known, before he wrote them; but, when they were written, the oral tradition was superseded and set aside, and these writings were the repository of that New Testament. This is intimated by the title which is prefixed to many Greek Copies, Tē kainēs Diathēkēs Hapanta - The whole of the New Testament, or all the things of it. In it is declared the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, Act 20:27. As the law of the Lord is perfect, so is the gospel of Christ, and nothing is to be added to it. We have it all, and are to look for no more.

II. We have before us The Four Gospels. Gospel signifies good news, or glad tidings; and this history of Christ's coming into the world to save sinners is, without doubt, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth; the angel gave it this title (Luk 2:10), Euagnelizomai humin - I bring you good tidings; I bring the gospel to you. And the prophet foretold it, Isa 52:7; Isa 61:1. It is there foretold that in the days of the messiah good tidings should be preached. Gospel is an old Saxon word; it is God's spell or word; and God is so called because he is good, Deus optimus - God most excellent, and therefore it may be a good spell, or word. If we take spell in its more proper signification for a charm ( carmen ), and take that in a good sense, for what is moving and affecting, which is apt lenire dolorem - to calm the spirits, or to raise them in admiration or love, as that which is very amiable we call charming, it is applicable to the gospel; for in it the charmer charmeth wisely, though to deaf adders, Psa 58:4, Psa 58:5. Nor (one would think) can any charms be so powerful as those of the beauty and love of our Redeemer. The whole New Testament is the gospel. St. Paul calls it his gospel, because he was one of the preachers of it. Oh that we may each of us make it ours by our cordial acceptance of it and subjection to it! But the four books which contain the history of the Redeemer we commonly call the four gospels, and the inspired penmen of them evangelists, or gospel-writers; not, however, very properly, because that title belongs to a particular order of ministers, that were assistants to the apostles (Eph 4:11): He gave some apostles, and some evangelists. It was requisite that the doctrine of Christ should be interwoven with, and founded upon, the narrative of his birth, life, miracles, death, and resurrection; for then it appears in its clearest and strongest light. As in nature, so in grace, the most happy discoveries are those which take rise from the certain representations of matters of fact. Natural history is the best philosophy; and so is the sacred history, both of the Old and New Testament, the most proper and grateful vehicle of sacred truth. These four gospels were early and constantly received by the primitive church, and read in Christian assemblies, as appears by the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who lived little more than a hundred years after the ascension of Christ; they declared that neither more nor fewer than four were received by the church. A Harmony of these four evangelists was compiled by Tatian about that time, which he called, To dia tessarōn - The Gospel out of the four. In the third and fourth centuries there were gospels forged by divers sects, and published, one under the name of St. Peter, another of St. Thomas, another of St. Philip, etc. But they were never owned by the church, nor was any credit given to them, as the learned Dr. Whitby shows. And he gives this good reason why we should adhere to these written records, because, whatever the pretences of tradition may be, it is not sufficient to preserve things with any certainty, as appears by experience. For, whereas Christ said and did many memorable things, which were not written (Joh 20:30; Joh 21:25), tradition has not preserved any one of them to us, but all is lost except what was written; that therefore is what we must abide by; and blessed by God that we have it to abide by; it is the sure word of history.

III. We have before us the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The penman was by birth a Jew, by calling a publican, till Christ commanded his attendance, and then he left the receipt of custom, to follow him, and was one of those that accompanied him all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was taken up, Act 1:21, Act 1:22. He was therefore a competent witness of what he has here recorded. He is said to have written this history about eight years after Christ's ascension. Many of the ancients say that he wrote it in the Hebrew or Syriac language; but the tradition is sufficiently disproved by Dr. Whitby. Doubtless, it was written in Greek, as the other parts of the New Testament were; not in that language which was peculiar to the Jews, whose church and state were near a period, but in that which was common to the world, and in which the knowledge of Christ would be most effectually transmitted to the nations of the earth; yet it is probable that there might be an edition of it in Hebrew, published by St. Matthew himself, at the same time that he wrote it in Greek; the former for the Jews, the latter for the Gentiles, when he left Judea, to preach among the Gentiles. Let us bless God that we have it, and have it in a language we understand.

Matthew Henry: Matthew 16 (Chapter Introduction)

None of Christ's miracles are recorded in this chapter, but four of his discourses. Here is, I. A conference with the Pharisees, who challenged him to show them a sign from heaven (Mat 16:1-4). II. Another with his disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees (Mat 16:5-12). III. Another with them concerning himself, as the Christ, and concerning his church built upon him (Mat 16:13-20). IV. Another concerning his sufferings for them, and theirs for him (Mat 16:21-28). And all these are written for our learning.

Barclay: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW

The Synoptic Gospels

Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually known as the Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together and literally means able to be seen together. The reason for that name is this. These three gospels each give an account of the same events in Jesusife. There are in each of them additions and omissions; but broadly speaking their material is the same and their arrangement is the same. It is therefore possible to set them down in parallel columns, and so to compare the one with the other.

When that is done, it is quite clear that there is the closest possible relationship between them. If we, for instance, compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Mat_14:12-21; Mar_6:30-44; Luk_9:10-17) we find exactly the same story told in almost exactly the same words.

Another instance is the story of the healing of the man who was sick with the palsy (Mat_9:1-8; Mar_2:1-12; Luk_5:17-26). These three accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he then said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three as a parenthesis in exactly the same place. The correspondence between the three gospels is so close that we are bound to come to the conclusion either that all three are drawing their material from a common source, or that two of them must be based on the third.

The Earliest Gospel

When we examine the matter more closely we see that there is every reason for believing that Mark must have been the first of the gospels to be written, and that the other two, Matthew and Luke, are using Mark as a basis.

Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these sections 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Of Mark105 sections there are only 4 which do not occur either in Matthew or in Luke.

Mark has 661 verses: Matthew has 1,068 verses: Luke has 1,149 verses. Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606 of Markverses; and Luke reproduces 320. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce Luke reproduces 31; so there are only 24 verses in the whole of Mark which are not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.

It is not only the substance of the verses which is reproduced; the very words are reproduced. Matthew uses 51 per cent of Markwords; and Luke uses 53 per cent.

Both Matthew and Luke as a general rule follow Markorder of events. Occasionally either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark; but they never both differ against him; always at least one of them follows Markorder.

Improvements On Mark

Since Matthew and Luke are both much longer than Mark, it might just possibly be suggested that Mark is a summary of Matthew and Luke; but there is one other set of facts which show that Mark is earlier. It is the custom of Matthew and Luke to improve and to polish Mark, if we may put it so. Let us take some instances.

Sometimes Mark seems to limit the power of Jesus; at least an ill-disposed critic might try to prove that he was doing so. Here are three accounts of the same incident:

Mar_1:34: And he healed many who were sick with various

diseases, and cast out many demons;

Mat_8:16: And he cast out the spirits with a word, and

healed all who were sick;

Luk_4:40: And he laid his hands on every one of them, and

healed them.

Let us take other three similar examples:

Mar_3:10: For he had healed many;

Mat_12:15: And he healed them all;

Luk_6:19: and healed them all.

Matthew and Luke both change Markmany into all so that there may be no suggestion of any limitation of the power of Jesus Christ.

There is a very similar change in the account of the events of Jesusisit to Nazareth. Let us compare the account of Mark and of Matthew.

Mk 6:5-6: And he could do no mighty work there... and

he marvelled because of their unbelief;

Mat_13:58: And he did not do many mighty works there,

because of their unbelief.

Matthew shrinks from saying that Jesus could not do any mighty works; and changes the form of the expression accordingly.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke leave out little touches in Mark in case they could be taken to belittle Jesus. Matthew and Luke omit three statements in Mark.

Mar_3:5: "He looked around at them with anger, grieved

at their hardness of heart."

Mar_3:21: And when his friends heard it, they went out to

seize him: for they said, He is beside himself;

Mar_10:14: He was indignant.

Matthew and Luke hesitate to attribute human emotions of anger and grief to Jesus, and shudder to think that anyone should even have suggested that Jesus was mad.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke slightly alter things in Mark to get rid of statements which might seem to show the apostles in a bad light. We take but one instance, from the occasion on which James and John sought to ensure themselves of the highest places in the coming Kingdom. Let us compare the introduction to that story in Mark and in Matthew.

Mar_10:35: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came

forward to him, and said to him...

Mat_20:20: Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came

up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him,

she asked him for something.

Matthew hesitates to ascribe motives of ambition directly to the two apostles, and so he ascribes them to their mother.

All this makes it clear that Mark is the earliest of the gospels. Mark gives a simple, vivid, direct narrative; but Matthew and Luke have already begun to be affected by doctrinal and theological considerations which make them much more careful of what they say.

The Teaching Of Jesus

We have seen that Matthew has 1,068 verses; and that Luke has 1,149 verses; and that between them they reproduce 582 of Markverses. That means that in Matthew and Luke there is much more material than Mark supplies. When we examine that material we find that more than 200 verses of it are almost identical. For instance such passages as Luk_6:41-42 and Mat_7:1, Mat_7:5; Luk_10:21-22 and Mat_11:25-27; Luk_3:7-9 and Mat_3:7-10 are almost exactly the same.

But here we notice a difference. The material which Matthew and Luke drew from Mark was almost entirely material dealing with the events of Jesusife; but these 200 additional verses common to Matthew and Luke tell us, not what Jesus did, but what Jesus said. Clearly in these verses Matthew and Luke are drawing from a common source-book of the sayings of Jesus.

That book does not now exist; but to it scholars have given the letter Q which stands for Quelle, which is the German word for "source." In its day it must have been an extraordinarily important book, for it was the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus.

MatthewPlace In The Gospel Tradition

It is here that we come to Matthew the apostle. Scholars are agreed that the first gospel as it stands does not come directly from the hand of Matthew. One who had himself been an eye-witness of the life of Christ would not have needed to use Mark as a source-book for the life of Jesus in the way Matthew does. But one of the earliest Church historians, a man called Papias, gives us this intensely important piece of information:

"Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue."

So, then, we can believe that it was none other than Matthew who wrote that book which was the source from which all men must draw, if they wished to know what Jesus taught. And it was because so much of that source-book is incorporated in the first gospel that Matthewname was attached to it. We must be for ever grateful to Matthew, when we remember that it is to him that we owe the Sermon on the Mount and nearly all we know about the teaching of Jesus. Broadly speaking, to Mark we owe our knowledge of the events of Jesusife; to Matthew we owe our knowledge of the substance of Jesuseaching.

Matthew The Taxgatherer

About Matthew himself we know very little. We read of his call in Mat_9:9. We know that he was a taxgatherer and that he must therefore have been a bitterly hated man, for the Jews hated the members of their own race who had entered the civil service of their conquerors. Matthew would be regarded as nothing better than a quisling.

But there was one gift which Matthew would possess. Most of the disciples were fishermen. They would have little skill and little practice in putting words together on paper; but Matthew would be an expert in that. When Jesus called Matthew, as he sat at the receipt of custom, Matthew rose up and followed him and left everything behind him except one thing--his pen. And Matthew nobly used his literary skill to become the first man ever to compile an account of the teaching of Jesus.

The Gospel Of The Jews

Let us now look at the chief characteristics of Matthewgospel so that we may watch for them as we read it.

First and foremost, Matthew is the gospel which was written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew in order to convince Jews.

One of the great objects of Matthew is to demonstrate that all the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus, and that, therefore, he must be the Messiah. It has one phrase which runs through it like an ever-recurring theme--"This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet." That phrase occurs in the gospel as often as 16 times. Jesusirth and Jesusame are the fulfillment of prophecy (Mat_1:21-23); so are the flight to Egypt (Mat_2:14-15); the slaughter of the children (Mat_2:16-18); Josephsettlement in Nazareth and Jesuspbringing there (Mat_2:23); Jesusse of parables (Mat_13:34-35); the triumphal entry (Mat_21:3-5); the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Mat_27:9); the casting of lots for Jesusarments as he hung on the Cross (Mat_27:35). It is Matthewprimary and deliberate purpose to show how the Old Testament prophecies received their fulfillment in Jesus; how every detail of Jesusife was foreshadowed in the prophets; and thus to compel the Jews to admit that Jesus was the Messiah.

The main interest of Matthew is in the Jews. Their conversion is especially near and dear to the heart of its writer. When the Syro-Phoenician woman seeks his help, Jesusirst answer is: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_15:24). When Jesus sends out the Twelve on the task of evangelization, his instruction is: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_10:5-6). Yet it is not to be thought that this gospel by any means excludes the Gentiles. Many are to come from the east and the west to sit down in the kingdom of God (Mat_8:11). The gospel is to be preached to the whole world (Mat_24:14). And it is Matthew which gives us the marching orders of the Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mat_28:19). It is clear that Matthewfirst interest is in the Jews, but that it foresees the day when an nations will be gathered in.

The Jewishness of Matthew is also seen in its attitude to the Law. Jesus did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the Law. The least part of the Law will not pass away. Men must not be taught to break the Law. The righteousness of the Christian must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_5:17-20). Matthew was written by one who knew and loved the Law, and who saw that even the Law has its place in the Christian economy.

Once again there is an apparent paradox in the attitude of Matthew to the Scribes and Pharisees. They are given a very special authority: "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moseseat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (Mat_23:2). But at the same time there is no gospel which so sternly and consistently condemns them.

Right at the beginning there is John the Baptistsavage denunciation of them as a brood of vipers (Mat_3:7-12). They complain that Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners (Mat_9:11). They ascribe the power of Jesus, not to God, but to the prince of devils (Mat_12:24). They plot to destroy him (Mat_12:14). The disciples are warned against the leaven, the evil teaching, of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_16:12). They are like evil plants doomed to be rooted up (Mat_15:13). They are quite unable to read the signs of the times (Mat_16:3). They are the murderers of the prophets (Mat_21:41). There is no chapter of condemnation in the whole New Testament like Matt 23 , which is condemnation not of what the Scribes and the Pharisees teach, but of what they are. He condemns them for falling so far short of their own teaching, and far below the ideal of what they ought to be.

There are certain other special interests in Matthew. Matthew is especially interested in the Church. It is in fact the only one of the Synoptic Gospels which uses the word Church at all. Only Matthew introduces the passage about the Church after Peterconfession at Caesarea Philippi (Mat_16:13-23; compare Mar_8:27-33; Luk_9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes are to be settled by the Church (Mat_18:17). By the time Matthew came to be written the Church had become a great organization and institution; and indeed the dominant factor in the life of the Christian.

Matthew has a specially strong apocalyptic interest. That is to say, Matthew has a specially strong interest in all that Jesus said about his own Second Coming, about the end of the world, and about the judgment. Matt 24 gives us a fuller account of Jesus pocalyptic discourse than any of the other gospels. Matthew alone has the parables of the talents (Mat_25:14-30); the wise and the foolish virgins (Mat_25:1-13); and the sheep and the goats (Mat_25:31-46). Matthew has a special interest in the last things and in judgment.

But we have not yet come to the greatest of all the characteristics of Matthew. It is supremely the teaching gospel.

We have already seen that the apostle Matthew was responsible for the first collection and the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus. Matthew was the great systematizer. It was his habit to gather together in one place all that he knew about the teaching of Jesus on any given subject. The result is that in Matthew we find five great blocks in which the teaching of Jesus is collected and systematized. All these sections have to do with the Kingdom of God. They are as follows:

(a) The Sermon on the Mount, or The Law of the Kingdom (Matt 5-7).

(b) The Duties of the Leaders of the Kingdom (Matt 10 )

(c) The Parables of the Kingdom (Matt 13 ).

(d) Greatness and Forgiveness in the Kingdom (Matt 18 ).

(e) The Coming of the King (Matt 24-25).

Matthew does more than collect and systematize. It must be remembered that Matthew was writing in an age when printing had not been invented, when books were few and far between because they had to be hand-written. In an age like that, comparatively few people could possess a book; and, therefore, if they wished to know and to use the teaching and the story of Jesus, they had to carry them in their memories.

Matthew therefore always arranges things in a way that is easy for the reader to memorize. He arranges things in threes and sevens. There are three messages to Joseph; three denials of Peter; three questions of Pilate; seven parables of the Kingdom in Matt 13; seven woes to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23.

The genealogy of Jesus with which the gospel begins is a good example of this. The genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David. In Hebrew there are no figures; when figures are necessary the letters of the alphabet stand for the figures. In Hebrew there are no written vowels. The Hebrew letters for David are D-W-D; if these letters be taken as figures and not as letters, they add up to 14; and the genealogy consists of three groups of names, and in each group there are 14 names. Matthew does everything possible to arrange the teaching of Jesus in such a way that people will be able to assimilate and to remember it.

Every teacher owes a debt of gratitude to Matthew, for Matthew wrote what is above all the teachergospel.

Matthew has one final characteristic. Matthewdominating idea is that of Jesus as King. He writes to demonstrate the royalty of Jesus.

Right at the beginning the genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David (Mat_1:1-17). The title, Son of David, is used oftener in Matthew than in any other gospel (Mat_15:22; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:15). The wise men come looking for him who is King of the Jews (Mat_2:2). The triumphal entry is a deliberately dramatized claim to be King (Mat_21:1-11). Before Pilate, Jesus deliberately accepts the name of King (Mat_27:11). Even on the Cross the title of King is affixed, even if it be in mockery, over his head (Mat_27:37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew shows us Jesus quoting the Law and five times abrogating it with a regal: "But I say to you..." (Mat_5:21, Mat_5:27, Mat_5:34, Mat_5:38, Mat_5:43). The final claim of Jesus is: "All authority has been given to me" (Mat_28:18).

Matthewpicture of Jesus is of the man born to be King. Jesus walks through his pages as if in the purple and gold of royalty.

FURTHER READING

W. C. Allen, St. Matthew (ICC; G)

J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew (PC; E)

F. V. Filson, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (ACB; E)

A. H. McNeile, St Matthew (MmC; G)

A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (E)

T. H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew (MC; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (TC; E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Matthew 16 (Chapter Introduction)

Blind To The Signs (Mat_16:1-4)

The Dangerous Leaven (Mat_16:5-12)

The Scene Of The Great Discovery (Mat_16:13-16)

The Inadequacy Of Human Categories (Mat_16:13-16 Continued)

The Great Promise (Mat_16:17-19)

The Gates Of Hell (Mat_16:17-19 Continued)

The Place Of Peter (Mat_16:17-19 Continued)

The Great Rebuke (Mat_16:20-23)

The Challenge Behind The Rebuke (Mat_16:20-23 Continued)

The Great Challenge (Mat_16:24-26)

Losing And Finding Life (Mat_16:24-26 Continued)

The Warning And The Promise (Mat_16:27-28)

Constable: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem is intrinsic to all study of the Gospels, especially the first three. The word "synoptic" comes from two Greek words, syn and opsesthai, meaning "to see together." Essentially the synoptic problem involves all the difficulties that arise because of the similarities and differences between the Gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have received the title "Synoptic Gospels" because they present the life and ministry of Jesus Christ similarly. The content and purpose of John's Gospel are sufficiently distinct to put it in a class by itself. It is not one of the so-called Synoptic Gospels.

Part of the synoptic problem is the sources the Holy Spirit led the evangelists to use in producing their Gospels. There is internal evidence (within the individual Gospels themselves) that the writers used source materials as they wrote. The most obvious example of this is the Old Testament passages to which each one referred directly or indirectly. Since Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ many of their statements represent eyewitness accounts of what happened. Likewise Mark had close connections with Peter, and Luke was an intimate associate of Paul as well as a careful historian (Luke 1:1-4). Information that the writers obtained verbally (oral tradition) and in writing (documents) undoubtedly played a part in what they wrote. Perhaps the evangelists also received special revelations from the Lord before and or when they wrote their Gospels.

Some scholars have devoted much time and attention to the study of the other sources the evangelists may have used. They are the "source critics" and their work constitutes "source criticism." Because source criticism and its development are so crucial to Gospel studies, a brief introduction to this subject follows.

In 1776 and 1779 two posthumously published essays by A. E. Lessing became known in which he argued for a single written source for the Synoptic Gospels. He called this source the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and he believed its writer had composed it in the Aramaic language. To him one original source best explained the parallels and differences between the Synoptics. This idea of an original source or primal Gospel caught the interest of many other scholars. Some of them believed there was a written source, but others held it was an oral source.

As one might expect, the idea of two or more sources occurred to some scholars as the best solution to the synoptic problem.¹ Some favored the view that Mark was one of the primal sources because over 90% of the material in Mark also appears in Matthew and or Luke. Some posited another primary source "Q," an abbreviation of the German word for source, quelle. It supposedly contained the material in Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark.

Gradually source criticism gave way to form criticism. The form critics concentrated on the process involved in transmitting what Jesus said and did to the primary sources. They assumed that the process of transmitting this information followed patterns of oral communication that are typical in primitive societies.² Typically oral communication has certain characteristic effects on stories. It tends to shorten narratives, to retain names, to balance teaching, and to elaborate on stories about miracles, to name a few results. The critics also adopted other criteria from secular philology to assess the accuracy of statements in the Gospels. For example, they viewed as distinctive to Jesus only what was dissimilar to what Palestinian Jews or early Christians might have said. Given the critics' view of inspiration it is easy to see how most of them concluded that the Gospels in their present form do not accurately represent what Jesus said and did. However some conservative scholars used the same literary method but held a much higher view of the Gospels.³

The next wave of critical opinion, redaction criticism, hit the Christian world shortly after World War II.⁴ Redaction critics generally accept the tenets of source and form criticism. However they also believe that the Gospel evangelists altered the traditions they received to make their own theological emphases. They viewed the writers not simply as compilers of the church's oral traditions but as theologians who adapted the material for their own purposes. They viewed the present Gospels as containing both traditional material and edited material. Obviously there is a good aspect and a bad aspect to this view. Positively it recognizes the individual evangelist's distinctive purpose for writing. Negatively it permits an interpretation of the Gospel that allows for historical error and even deliberate distortion. Redaction scholars have been more or less liberal depending on their view of Scripture generally. Redaction critics also characteristically show more interest in the early Christian community out of which the Gospels came and the beliefs of that community than they do in Jesus' historical context. Their interpretations of the early Christian community vary greatly as one would expect. In recent years the trend in critical scholarship has been conservative, to recognize more rather than less Gospel material as having a historical basis.

Some knowledge of the history of Gospel criticism is helpful to the serious student who wants to understand the text. Questions of the historical background out of which the evangelists wrote, their individual purposes, and what they simply recorded and what they commented on all affect interpretation. Consequently the conservative expositor can profit somewhat from the studies of scholars who concern themselves with these questions primarily.⁵

Most critics have concluded that one source the writers used was one or more of the other Gospels. Currently most source critics believe that Matthew and Luke drew information from Mark's Gospel. Mark's accounts are generally longer than those of Matthew and Luke suggesting that Matthew and Luke condensed Mark. To them it seems more probable that they condensed him than that he elaborated on them. There is no direct evidence, however, that one evangelist used another as a source. Since they were either personally disciples of Christ or very close to eyewitnesses of His activities, they may not have needed to consult an earlier Gospel.

Most source critics also believe that the unique material in each Gospel goes back to Q. This may initially appear to be a document constructed out of thin air. However the early church father Papias (80-155 A.D.) may have referred to the existence of such a source. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, wrote that Papias had written, "Matthew composed the logia [sayings? Gospel?] in the hebraidi [Hebrew? Aramaic?] dialekto [dialect? language? style?]."⁶ This is an important statement for several reasons, but here note that Papias referred to Matthew's logia. This may be a reference to Matthew's Gospel, but many source critics believe it refers to a primal document that became a source for one or more of our Gospels. Most of them do not believe Matthew wrote Q. They see in Papias' statement support for the idea that primal documents such as Matthew's logia were available as sources, and they conclude that Q was the most important one.

Another major aspect of the synoptic problem is the order in which the Gospels appeared as finished products. This issue has obvious connections with the question of the sources the Gospel writers may have used.

Until after the Reformation, almost all Christians believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel before Mark and Luke wrote theirs; they held Matthean priority. From studying the similarities and differences between the Synoptics, some source critics concluded that Matthew and Luke came into existence before Mark. They viewed Mark as a condensation of the other two.⁷ However the majority of source critics today believe that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke wrote later. As explained above, they hold this view because they believe it is more probable that Matthew and Luke drew from and condensed Mark than that Mark expanded on Matthew and Luke.

Since source criticism is highly speculative many conservative expositors today continue to lean toward Matthean priority. We do so because there is no solid evidence to contradict this traditional view that Christians held almost consistently for the church's first 17 centuries.

While the game of deducing which Gospel came first and who drew from whom appeals to many students, these issues are essentially academic ones. They have little to do with the meaning of the text. Consequently I do not plan to discuss them further but will refer interested student to the vast body of literature that is available. I will, however, deal with problems involving the harmonization of the Gospel accounts at the appropriate places in the exposition that follows. The Bible expositor's basic concern is not the nature and history of the stories in the text but their primary significance in their contexts.

". . . it is this writer's opinion that there is no evidence to postulate a tradition of literary dependence among the Gospels. The dependence is rather a parallel dependence on the actual events which occurred."⁸

A much more helpful critical approach to the study of the Bible is literary criticism, the current wave of interest. This approach analyses the text in terms of its literary structure, emphases, and unique features. It seeks to understand the text as a piece of literature by examining how the writer wrote it.

Writer

External evidence strongly supports the Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. The earliest copies of the Gospel we have begin "KATA MATTHAION" ("according to Matthew"). Several early church fathers referred to Matthew as the writer including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.⁹ Papias' use of the term logia to describe Matthew's work, cited above, is not a clear attestation to Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and one of the 12 Apostles, his work carried great influence and enjoyed much prestige from its first appearance. We might expect a more prominent disciple such as Peter or James to have written it. The fact that the early church accepted it as from Matthew further strengthens the likelihood that he indeed wrote it.

Internal evidence of Matthean authorship is also strong. As a tax collector for Rome, Matthew would have had to be able to write capably. His profession forced him to keep accurate and detailed records which skill he put to good use in composing his Gospel. There are more references to money and to more different kinds of money in this Gospel than in any of the others.¹⁰ Matthew humbly referred to himself as a tax collector, a profession with objectionable connotations in his culture, whereas the other Gospel writers simply called him Matthew. Matthew called his feast for Jesus a dinner (Matt. 9:9-10), but Luke referred to it as a great banquet (Luke 5:29). All these details confirm the testimony of the early church fathers.

Language

Papias' statement, cited above, refers to a writing by Matthew in the hebraidi dialekto (the Hebrew or possibly Aramaic language or dialect). This may not be a reference to Matthew's Gospel. Four other church fathers mentioned that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and that translations followed in Greek: Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Origen (185-254 A.D.), Eusebius (4th century), and Jerome (6th century).¹¹ However they may have been referring to something other than our first Gospel. These references have led many scholars to conclude that Matthew composed his Gospel in Aramaic and that someone else, or he himself, later translated it into Greek. This is the normal meaning of the fathers' statements. If Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, it is difficult to explain why he sometimes, but not always, quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament would have been the normal text for a Hebrew or Aramaic author to use. A Greek translator might have used the LXX (Septuagint) to save himself some work, but if he did so why did he not use it consistently? Matthew's Greek Gospel contains many Aramaic words. This solution also raises some questions concerning the reliability and inerrancy of the Greek Gospel that has come down to us.

There are several possible solutions to the problem of the language of Matthew's Gospel.¹² The best seems to be that Matthew wrote a Hebrew document that God did not inspire that is no longer extant. He also composed an inspired Greek Gospel that has come down to us in the New Testament. Many competent scholars believe that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Greek. They do so mainly because of his Greek.¹³

Date and Place of Composition

Dating Matthew's Gospel is difficult for many reasons even if one believes in Matthean priority. The first extra-biblical reference to it occurs in the writings of Ignatius (c. 110-115 A.D.).¹⁴ However Matthew's references to Jerusalem and the Sadducees point to a date of compositions before 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. His references to Jerusalem assume its existence (e.g., 4:5; 27:53). Matthew recorded more warnings about the Sadducees than all the other New Testament writers combined, but after 70 A.D. they no longer existed as a significant authority in Israel.¹⁵ Consequently Matthew probably wrote before 70 A.D.

References in the text to the customs of the Jews continuing "to this day" (27:8; 28:15) imply that some time had elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the composition of the Gospel. Since Jesus died in 33 A.D. Matthew may have composed his Gospel perhaps a decade or more later. A date between 40 and 70 A.D. is very probable.¹⁶

Since Matthew lived and worked in Palestine we would assume that he wrote while living there. There is no evidence that excludes this possibility. Nevertheless scholars love to speculate. Other sites they have suggested include Antioch of Syria (because Ignatius was bishop of Antioch), Alexandria, Edessa, Syria, Tyre, and Caesarea Maratima. These are all guesses.

Distinctive Features

Compared with the other Gospels Matthew's is distinctively Jewish. He used parallelism as did many to the Old Testament writers, and his thought patterns and general style are typically Hebrew.¹⁷ Matthew's vocabulary (e.g., kingdom of heaven, holy city, righteousness, etc.) and subject matter (the Law, defilement, the sabbath, Messiah, etc.) are also distinctively Jewish. Matthew referred to the Old Testament 129 times, more than any other evangelist.¹⁸ Usually he did so to prove a point to his readers. The genealogy in chapter 1 traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Matthew gave prominent attention to Peter, the apostle to the Jews.¹⁹ The writer also referred to many Jewish customs without explaining them evidently because he believed most of his original readers would not need an explanation.

Another distinctive emphasis in Matthew is Jesus' teaching ministry. No other Gospel contains as many of Jesus' discourses and instructions. These include the Sermon on the Mount, the instruction of the disciples, the parables of the kingdom, the denunciation of Israel's leaders, and the Olivet Discourse.²⁰

Audience and Purposes

Several church fathers (i.e., Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius) stated what we might suppose from the distinctively Jewish emphases of this book, namely that Matthew wrote his Gospel primarily for his fellow Jews.²¹

He wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for a specific purpose or, more accurately, specific purposes. He did not state these purposes concisely as John did in his Gospel (John 20:30-31). Nevertheless they are clear from his content and his emphases.

"Matthew has a twofold purpose in writing his Gospel. Primarily he penned this Gospel to prove Jesus is the Messiah, but he also wrote it to explain God's kingdom program to his readers. One goal directly involves the other. Nevertheless, they are distinct."²²

"Matthew's purpose obviously was to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, that He fulfilled the requirements of being the promised King who would be a descendant of David, and that His life and ministry fully support the conclusion that He is the prophesied Messiah of Israel. . . .

"As a whole, the gospel is not properly designated as only an apologetic for the Christian faith. Rather, it was designed to explain to the Jews, who had expected the Messiah when He came to be a conquering king, why instead Christ suffered and died, and why there was the resulting postponement of His triumph to His second coming."²³

Matthew presented three aspects to God's kingdom program. First, Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as the king that God had promised in the Old Testament. Second, Israel's leaders rejected Jesus as their king. This resulted in the postponement, not the cancellation, of the messianic kingdom that God had promised Israel. Third, because of Israel's rejection Jesus is now building His church in anticipation of His return to establish the promised messianic kingdom on the earth.

There are at least three wider purposes that Matthew undoubtedly hoped to fulfill with his Gospel. First, he wanted to instruct Christians and non-Christians concerning the person and work of Jesus.²⁴ Second, he wanted to provide an apologetic to aid his Jewish brethren in witnessing to other Jews about Christ. Third, he wanted to encourage all Christians to witness for Christ boldly and faithfully. It is interesting that Matthew is the only Gospel writer to use the Greek verb matheteuo, "to disciple" (13:52; 27:57; 28:19; cf. Acts 14:21 for its only other occurrence in the New Testament). This fact shows his concern for making disciples of Christ.²⁵

Carson identified nine major themes in Matthew. They are Christology, prophecy and fulfillment, law, church, eschatology, Jewish leaders, mission, miracles, and the disciples' understanding and faith.²⁶

Plan and Structure

Matthew often grouped his material into sections so that three, five, six, or seven events, miracles, sayings, or parables appear together.²⁷ Jewish writers typically did this to help their readers remember what they had written. The presence of this technique reveals Matthew's didactic (instructional) intent. Furthermore it indicates that his arrangement of material was somewhat topical rather than strictly chronological. Generally chapters 1-4 are in chronological order, chapters 5-13 are topical, and chapters 14-28 are again chronological.²⁸

Not only Matthew but the other Gospel writers as well present the life of Jesus Christ in three major stages. These stages are His presentation to the people, their consideration of His claims, and their rejection and its consequences.

A key phrase in Matthew's Gospel enables us to note the major movements in the writer's thought. It is the phrase "and it came about that when Jesus had finished" (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This phrase always occurs at the end of one of Jesus' addresses. An address therefore concludes each major section of the Gospel, and it is climactic. Matthew evidently used the narrative sections to introduce Jesus' discourses, which he regarded as specially important in his book. Mark, on the other hand, gave more detailed information concerning the narrative material in his Gospel. In addition to each major section, there is a prologue and an epilogue to the Gospel according to Matthew.

Message²⁹

The four Gospels are foundational to Christianity because they record the life of Jesus Christ and His teachings. Each of the four Gospels fulfills a unique purpose. They are not simply four versions of the life of Jesus. If one wants to study the life of Jesus Christ, the best way to do that is with a harmony of the Gospels that correlates all the data chronologically. However if one wants to study only one of the Gospel accounts, then one needs to pay attention to the uniqueness of that Gospel. The unique material, what the writer included and excluded, reveals the purpose for which he wrote and the points he wanted to stress.

What is the unique message of Matthew's Gospel? How does it differ from the other three Gospels? What specific emphasis was Matthew wanting his readers to gain as they read his record of Jesus' life and ministry? I would put it this way.

Matthew wanted his readers to do what John the Baptist and Jesus called the people of their day to do, namely "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This was the message of the King to His people and the message of the King's herald as he called the King's people to prepare for the King's coming.

This is not the final message of Christianity, but it is the message that Matthew wanted us to understand. When John the Baptist and Jesus originally issued this call, they faced a situation that is different from the situation we face today. They called the people of their day to trust in and follow Jesus because the messianic kingdom was immediately at hand. If the Jews had responded, Jesus would have established His kingdom immediately. He would have died on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, ushered in the Tribulation, returned, and established His kingdom.

The messianic kingdom is at hand for you and me in a different sense. Jesus Christ has died and risen from the dead. The Tribulation is still future, but following those seven years Jesus will return and establish His messianic kingdom on earth. The commission that Jesus has given us as His disciples is essentially to prepare people for the King's return. To do this we must go into all the world and herald the gospel to everyone. We must call them to trust in and follow the King as His disciples.

Essentially the message of Matthew is "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The proper response to this message is, "Repent." Let us look first at the message and then at the proper response. Note three things about the message.

First, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is the statement of a fact. The subject of this statement is the kingdom. The kingdom is the theme of Matthew's Gospel. The word "kingdom" occurs about 50 times in Matthew. Since "kingdom" is such a prominent theme it is not surprising to discover that this Gospel presents Jesus as the great King.

Matthew presents the kingship of Jesus. Kingship involves the fact that Jesus is the great King that the Old Testament prophets predicted would come and rule over all the earth in Israel's golden age. It points to the universal sovereignty of God's Son who would rule over all mankind. He was to be a Son of David who would also rule over Israel. The second smaller sphere of sovereignty lies within the first larger sphere.

The word "kingdom" refers to the realm over which the King reigns. This is usually what we think of when we think of Jesus' messianic kingdom, the sphere over which He will rule. However, it is important that we not stress the sphere to the detriment of the sovereignty with which He will rule. Both ideas are essential to the concept of the kingdom that Matthew presents, sphere and sovereignty.

The little used phrase in Matthew's Gospel "kingdom of God" stresses the fact that it is God who rules. The King is God, and He will reign over all of His creation eventually. The kingdom belongs to God and it will extend over all that God sovereignly controls.

Matthew of all the Gospel evangelists was the only one to use the phrase "kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist nor Jesus ever explained this phrase. Their audiences knew what they meant by it. Ever since God gave His great promises to Abraham the Jews knew what the kingdom of heaven meant. It meant God's rule over His people who lived on the earth. As time passed, God gave the Israelites more information about His rule over them. He told them that He would provide a descendant of David who would be their King. This king would rule over the Israelites who would live in the Promised Land. His rule would include the whole earth, however, and the Gentiles too would live under His authority. The kingdom of heaven that the Old Testament predicted was an earthly kingdom over which God would rule through His Son. It would not just be God's rule over His people from heaven. When the Jews in Jesus' day heard John the Baptist and Jesus calling them to repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, what did they think? They understood that the earthly messianic kingdom predicted in the Old Testament was very near. They needed to get ready for it by making some changes.

The simple meaning of "kingdom of heaven" then is God's establishment of heaven's order on earth. Every created being and every human authority would be in subjection to God. God would overturn everyone and everything that did not recognize His authority. It is the establishment of divine order on earth. It is the supremacy of God's will over human affairs. The establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth then is the hope of humanity, and it will only transpire as people submit to God's King. It is impossible for people to bring in this kingdom. Only God can bring it in. People just need to get ready because it is coming.

Second, Matthew's Gospel interprets the kingdom. It does not just affirm the coming of the kingdom, but it also explains the order of the kingdom. Specifically it reveals the principle of the kingdom, the practice of the kingdom, and the purpose of the kingdom.

The principle of the kingdom is righteousness. This is one of the major themes in Matthew. Righteousness in Matthew refers to righteous conduct, righteousness in practice rather than positional righteousness. Righteousness is necessary to enter the kingdom and to serve in the kingdom under the King. The words of the King in Matthew constitute the law of the kingdom. They proclaim the principle of righteousness.

The practice of the kingdom is peace. Peace is another major theme in Matthew. When you think of the Sermon on the Mount you may think of these two major themes: righteousness and peace. The kingdom would come not by going to war with Rome and defeating it. It would come by peaceful submission to the King, Jesus. These two approaches to inaugurating the kingdom contrast starkly as we think of Jesus hanging on the cross between two insurrectionists. They tried to establish the kingdom the way most people in Israel thought it would come, by violence. Jesus, on the other hand, submitted to His Father's will, and even though He died He ratified the covenant by which the kingdom will come by dying. He secured the kingdom. Jesus' example of peaceful submission to God's will is to be the model for His disciples. Greatness in the kingdom does not come by self-assertion but by self-sacrifice. The greatest in the kingdom will be the servant of all. The works of the King in Matthew demonstrate the powers of the kingdom moving toward peace.

The purpose of the kingdom is joy. God will establish His kingdom on earth to bring great joy to mankind. This will be the time of greatest fruitfulness and abundance in earth's history. God's will has always been to bless mankind. It is by rebelling against God that man loses his joy. The essence of joy is intimate fellowship with God. This intimate fellowship will be a reality during the kingdom to a greater extent than ever before in history. The will of the King in Matthew is to bless mankind. The Beatitudes express this purpose very clearly (cf. 5:3-12).

Third, Matthew's Gospel stresses the method by which the King will administer the kingdom. It is a three-fold method.

In the first five books of the Old Testament, the Law or Torah, God revealed the need for a high priest to offer a final sacrifice for mankind to God. The last part of Matthew's Gospel, the passion narrative, presents Jesus as the Great High Priest who offered that perfect sacrifice.

In the second part of the Old Testament, the historical books, the great need and expectation is a king who will rule over Israel and the nations in righteousness. The first part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as that long expected King, Messiah.

In the last part of the Old Testament, the prophets, we see the great need for a prophet who could bring God's complete revelation to mankind. The middle part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as the prophet who would surpass Moses and bring God's final revelation to mankind.

God will administer His kingdom on earth through this Person who as King has all authority, as Prophet reveals God's final word of truth, and as Priest has dealt with sin finally. God's administration of His kingdom is in the hands of a King who is the great High Priest and the completely faithful Prophet.

The central teaching of Matthew's Gospel then concerns the kingdom of heaven. The needed response to this Gospel is, "Repent."

In our day Christians differ in their understanding of the meaning of repentance. This difference arises because there are two Greek verbs each of which means, "to repent." One of these is metamelomai. When it occurs, it usually describes an active change. The other word is metanoeo. When it occurs, it usually describes a contemplative change. Consequently when we read "repent" or "repentance" in our English Bibles, we have to ask ourselves whether a change of behavior is in view primarily or a change of mind. Historically the Roman Catholic Church has favored an active interpretation of the nature of repentance whereas Protestants have favored a contemplative interpretation. Catholics say repentance involves a change of behavior while Protestants say it involves a change of thinking essentially. One interpretation stresses the need for a sense of sorrow, and the other stresses the need for a sense of awareness.

The word John the Baptist and Jesus used when they called their hearers to repentance was metanoeo. We could translate it, "Think again." They were calling their hearers to consider the implications of the imminency of the messianic kingdom.

Consideration that the kingdom of heaven was at hand would result in a conviction of sin and a sense of sorrow. These are the inevitable consequences of considering these things. Conviction of a need to change is the consequence of genuine repentance.

Consideration leads to conviction, and conviction leads to conversion. Conversion describes turning from rebellion to submission, from self to the Savior. In relation to the coming kingdom it involves becoming humble and childlike rather than proud and independent. It involves placing confidence in Jesus rather than in self for salvation.

To summarize, we can think of the kind of repenting that John the Baptist, Jesus, and later Jesus' disciples were calling on their hearers to demonstrate as involving consideration, conviction, and conversion. Repentance begins with consideration of the facts. Awareness of these facts brings conviction of personal need. Feeling these personal needs leads to conversion or a turning from what is bad to what is good.

Now let us combine "repent" with "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew's Gospel calls the reader to consider the kingdom and the King. This should produce the conviction that one is not ready for such a kingdom nor is one ready to face such a King. Then we should submit our lives to the rule of the King and the standards of the kingdom.

Matthew's Gospel proclaims the kingdom. It interprets the kingdom as righteousness, peace, and joy. It reveals that a perfect King who is a perfect prophet and a perfect priest will administer the kingdom. It finally appeals to mankind to repent in view of these realities: to consider, to feel conviction, and to turn in conversion. As readers of this Gospel, we need to get ready, to think again, because the kingdom of heaven is coming.

The church now has the task of calling the world to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The church is Jesus' disciples collectively. The King is coming back to rule and to reign. People need to prepare for that reality. The church's job is to spread the good news of the King and the kingdom to those who have very different ideas about the ultimate ruler and the real utopia. We face the same problem that Jesus did in His day. Therefore Matthew's Gospel is a great resource for us as we seek to carry out the commission that the King has given us.

Individually we have a responsibility to consider the King and the kingdom, to gain conviction by what we consider, and to change our behavior. Our repentance should involve submission to the King's authority and preparation for kingdom service. We submit to the King's authority as we observe all that He has commanded us. We prepare for kingdom service as we faithfully persevere in the work He has given us to do rather than pursuing our own personal agendas. We can do this joyfully because we have the promise of the King's presence with us and the enablement of His authority behind us (28:18, 20).

Constable: Matthew (Outline)

Outline

I. The introduction of the King 1:1-4:11

A. The King's genealogy 1:1-17

B. The King's birth 1:18-25

C. The King's childhood 2:1-23

1. The prophecy about Bethlehem 2:1-12

2. The prophecies about Egypt 2:13-18

3. The prophecies about Nazareth 2:19-23

D. The King's preparation 3:1-4:11

1. Jesus' forerunner 3:1-12

2. Jesus' baptism 3:13-17

3. Jesus' temptation 4:1-11

II. The authority of the King 4:12-7:29

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 4:12-25

1. The setting of Jesus' ministry 4:12-16

2. Jesus' essential message 4:17

3. The call of four disciples 4:18-22

4. A summary of Jesus' ministry 4:23-25

B. Jesus' revelations concerning participation in His kingdom 5:1-7:29

1. The setting of the Sermon on the Mount 5:1-2

2. The subjects of Jesus' kingdom 5:3-16

3. The importance of true righteousness 5:17-7:12

4. The false alternatives 7:13-27

5. The response of the audience 7:28-29

III. The manifestation of the King 8:1-11:1

A. Demonstrations of the King's power 8:1-9:34

1. Jesus' ability to heal 8:1-17

2. Jesus' authority over His disciples 8:18-22

3. Jesus' supernatural power 8:23-9:8

4. Jesus' authority over His critics 9:9-17

5. Jesus' ability to restore 9:18-34

B. Declarations of the King's presence 9:35-11:1

1. Jesus' compassion 9:35-38

2. Jesus' commissioning of 12 disciples 10:1-4

3. Jesus' charge concerning His apostles' mission 10:5-42

4. Jesus' continuation of His work 11:1

IV. The opposition to the King 11:2-13:53

A. Evidences of Israel's opposition to Jesus 11:2-30

1. Questions from the King's forerunner 11:2-19

2. Indifference to the King's message 11:20-24

3. The King's invitation to the repentant 11:25-30

B. Specific instances of Israel's rejection of Jesus ch. 12

1. Conflict over Sabbath observance 12:1-21

2. Conflict over Jesus' power 12:22-37

3. Conflict over Jesus' sign 12:38-45

4. Conflict over Jesus' kin 12:46-50

C. Adaptations because of Israel's rejection of Jesus 13:1-53

1. The setting 13:1-3a

2. Parables addressed to the multitudes 13:3b-33

3. The function of these parables 13:34-43

4. Parables addressed to the disciples 13:44-52

5. The departure 13:53

V. The reactions of the King 13:54-19:2

A. Opposition, instruction, and healing 13:54-16:12

1. The opposition of the Nazarenes and Romans 13:54-14:12

2. The withdrawal to Bethsaida 14:13-33

3. The public ministry at Gennesaret 14:34-36

4. The opposition of the Pharisees and scribes 15:1-20

5. The withdrawal to Tyre and Sidon 15:21-28

6. The public ministry to Gentiles 15:29-39

7. The opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees 16:1-12

B. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

1. Instruction about the King's person 16:13-17

2. Instruction about the King's program 16:18-17:13

3. Instruction about the King's principles 17:14-27

4. Instruction about the King's personal representatives ch. 18

5. The transition from Galilee to Judea 19:1-2

VI. The official presentation and rejection of the King 19:3-25:46

A. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Judea 19:3-20:34

1. Instruction about marriage 19:3-12

2. Instruction about childlikeness 19:13-15

3. Instruction about wealth 19:16-20:16

4. Instruction about Jesus' passion 20:17-19

5. Instruction about serving 20:20-28

6. An illustration of illumination 20:29-34

B. Jesus' presentation of Himself to Israel as her King 21:1-17

1. Jesus' preparation for the presentation 21:1-7

2. Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem 21:8-11

3. Jesus' entrance into the temple 21:12-17

C. Israel's rejection of her King 21:18-22:46

1. The sign of Jesus' rejection of Israel 21:18-22

2. Rejection by the chief priests and the elders 21:23-22:14

3. Rejection by the Pharisees and the Herodians 22:15-22

4. Rejection by the Sadducees 22:23-33

5. Rejection by the Pharisees 22:34-46

D. The King's rejection of Israel ch. 23

1. Jesus' admonition of the multitudes and His disciples 23:1-12

2. Jesus' indictment of the scribes and the Pharisees 23:13-36

3. Jesus' lamentation over Jerusalem 23:37-39

E. The King's revelations concerning the future chs. 24-25

1. The setting of the Olivet Discourse 24:1-3

2. Jesus' warning about deception 24:4-6

3. Jesus' general description of the future 24:7-14

4. The abomination of desolation 24:15-22

5. The second coming of the King 24:23-31

6. The responsibilities of disciples 24:32-25:30

7. The King's judgment of the nations 25:31-46

VII. The crucifixion and resurrection of the King chs. 26-28

A. The King's crucifixion chs. 26-27

1. Preparations for Jesus' crucifixion 26:1-46

2. The arrest of Jesus 26:47-56

3. The trials of Jesus 26:57-27:26

4. The crucifixion of Jesus 27:27-56

5. The burial of Jesus 27:57-66

B. The King's resurrection ch. 28

1. The empty tomb 28:1-7

2. Jesus' appearance to the women 28:8-10

3. The attempted cover-up 28:11-15

4. The King's final instructions to His disciples 28:16-20

Constable: Matthew

Matthew

Bibliography

Abbott-Smith, G. A. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937.

Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. Matthew. The Anchor Bible series. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n. d.

Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Armerding, Carl. The Olivet Discourse. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino Press, 1935.

Bailey, Mark L. "A Biblical Theology of Paul's Pastoral Epistles." in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 333-67. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "Dispensational Definitions of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 201-21. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):443-51.

_____. "Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus' Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):29-38.

_____. "The Parable of the Leavening Process." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):61-71.

_____. "The Parable of the Mustard Seed." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):449-59.

_____. "The Parable of the Sower and the Soils." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):172-88.

_____. "The Parable of the Tares." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):266-79.

_____. "The Parables of the Dragnet and of the Householder." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:623 (July-September 1999):282-96.

_____. "The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):175-89.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Baillie, Rebecca A., and Baillie, E. Eugene. "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy." Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.

Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Barbieri, Louis A., Jr. "Matthew." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 13-94. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1956.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. His Own Received Him Not, But . . . New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1933.

_____. Romans. Vol. I: Man's Ruin. God's Wrath. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.

Barr, James. "Abba Isn't Daddy." Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988):28-47.

Bauckham, R. J. "The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John." Novum Testamentum 19 (1977):224-33.

Bauer, J. B. "Libera nos a malo." Verbum Domini 34 (1965):12-15.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and revised by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1954.

Bennetch, John Henry. "Matthew: An Apologetic." Bibliotheca Sacra 103 (October 1946):477-84.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Bernardin, Joseph B. "The Transfiguration." Journal of Biblical Theology 52 (October 1933):181-89.

Bindley, T. Herbert. "Eschatology in the Lord's Prayer." The Expositor 17 (October 1919):315-20.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Cambridge: University Press, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

_____. "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12." Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):161-96.

_____. Matthew. New American Commentary series. Nashville, Broadman Press, 1992.

Blum, Edwin A. "Jesus and JAMA." Christian Medical Society Journal 17:4 (Fall 1986):4-11.

Bock, Darrell L. "A Review of The Gospel According to Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):21-40.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. 6th ed. London: SCM, 1959.

Bornkamm, Gunther. "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 15-51. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

_____. "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 52-57. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

Bowker, John. "The Son of Man." Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977):19-48.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Buchler, Adolf. "St. Mathew vi 1-6 and Other Allied Passages." Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909):266-70.

Burrows, Millar. Burrows on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

_____. "Thy Kingdom Come." Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (January 1955):1-8.

Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894.

Burton, Ernest de Witt, and Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Byargeon, Rick W. "Echoes of Wisdom in the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-13)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):353-65.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 3 vols. Translated by William Pringle. Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by John Allen. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christain Education, 1936.

Campbell, Donald K. "Interpretation and Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953.

Carr, A. The Gospel According To St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1913.

Carson, Donald A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool." In Scripture and Truth, pp. 119-42. Edited by D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Catchpole, David R. "The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):213-26.

_____. "The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-appraisal of Matthew xxv. 31-46." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 61 (1978-79):355-97.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

_____. "The Teachings of Christ Incarnate." Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (October 1951):389-413.

Congdon, Roger D. "Did Jesus Sustain the Law in Matthew 5?" Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):117-25.

Cooper, David L. Messiah: His Historical Appearance. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1958.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv. 36 and Parallels." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):137-38.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Crater, Tim. "Bill Gothard's View of the Exception Clause." Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.

Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Translated by William Urwick. 4th English ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.

Criswell, W. A. Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Culver, Robert D. "What Is the Church's Commission? Some Exegetical Issues In Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):239-53.

Cunningham, Scott, and Bock, Darrell L. "Is Matthew Midrash?" Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):157-80.

Dahl, N. A. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976.

Dalman, Gustaf H.. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. "The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus' Burial." Anglican Theological Review 32 (1950):187-88.

_____. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956.

Davidson, Bruce W. "Reasonable Damnation: How Jonathan Edwards Argued for the Rationality of Hell." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):47-56.

Davies, W. D., and Allison, D. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927.

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. Edited by James Hastings. S.v. "Baptism," by Marcus Dodds.

_____. S.v. "Genealogies of Jesus Christ," by P. M. Barnard.

A Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. S.v. "kardia," by T. Sorg.

_____. S.v. "kathemai," by R. T. France.

_____. S.v. "Leprosy," by R. K. Harrison.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1936.

Donaldson, T. L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

Donn, T. M. "Let the Dead Bury Their Dead' (Mt. viii. 22, Lk. ix. 60)." Expository Times 61 (September 1950):384.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Duling, Dennis C. "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic." New Testament Studies 24 (1978):392-410.

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975.

Dyer, Charles H. "Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):230-44.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. "An Exegesis of Rapture Passages." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 203-23. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

Ellis, I. P. "But some doubted.'" New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68):574-80.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Erickson, Millard J. "Is Hell Forever?" Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1995):259-72.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. God Remembers, A Study of Zechariah. 4th ed. Portland: Multnomal Press, 1979.

_____. Israel in the Last Days: The Olivet Discourse. Altadena, Ca.: Emeth Publications, 1953.

_____. Premillennialism or Amillennialism? Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Feinberg, Paul D. "Dispensational Theology and the Rapture." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 225-45. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fenton, J. C. Saint Matthew. Westminster Pelican Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Filson, Floyd V. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Fitzmyer, J. A. "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):493-513.

_____. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence." Theological Studies 37 (1976):208-11.

Fleming, T. V. "Christ and Divorce." Theological Studies 24 (1963):109.

France, R. T. "Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples." In New Testament Interpretation, pp. 252-81. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977.

_____. "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem," Novum Testamentum 21 (1979):98-120.

_____. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Franzmann, Martin L. Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia, 1961.

Freed, Edwin D. "The Women in Matthew's Genealogy." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987):3-19.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of Matthew, An Exposition. 2 vols. in 1. Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1910.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce." Churchman 92 (1978):134-43.

Glass, Ronald N. "The Parables of the Kingdom: A Paradigm for Consistent Dispensational Hermeneutics." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 18 November 1994.

Glover, Richard. A Teacher's Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

Goebel, Siegfried. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by Professor Banks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Gore, Charles. The Sermon on the Mount. London: John Murray, 1896.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, F. W., ed. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew in the Revised Version. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.

Grounds, Vernon C. "Mountain Manifesto." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):135-41.

Guelich, Robert A. "The Matthean Beatitudes: Entrance-Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings?" Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1973):415-34.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

_____. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Habershon, Ada R. The Study of the Parables. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1904.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

_____. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Halverson, Richard C. "God and Caesar." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):125-29.

Hare, Douglas R. A. The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1967.

Hatch, W. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889.

Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. By William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson. Edited by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, 1906.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Hengel, G. Crucifixion. London: SCM, 1977.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Expository Study of Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):338-54.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Hodges, Zane C. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Possessing the Kingdom." The KERUGMA Message 1:1 (May-June 1991):1-2; 1:2 (July-August 1991):1-2; 1:3 (November-December 1991):1, 4; 2:1 (Spring 1992):1, 4; 2:2 (Winter 1992):1, 5-6.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

_____. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.

Hogg, C. F., and Watson, J. B. On the Sermon on the Mount. 2nd ed. London: Pickering and Inglis, 1934.

Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.

Howard, Tracy L. "The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):314-28.

Huffman, Norman A. "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):207-20.

Hunter, Archibald M. The Message of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1944.

_____. A Pattern for Life: An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Hutchison, John C. "Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew's Genealogy." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):152-64.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jensen, Joseph. "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina." Novum Testamentum 20 (1978):161-84.

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 3rd ed. Translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave. London: SCM, 1962.

_____. New Testament Theology. Part I. The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

_____. The Prayers of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden and Christoph Burchard. London: SCM, 1967.

Johnson, L. T. "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric." Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989):419-41.

Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Agony of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):303-13.

_____. "The Argument Of Matthew," Bibliotheca Sacra 112:446 (April 1955):143-53.

_____. "The Baptism of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):220-29.

_____. "The Death of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):10-19.

_____. "The Message Of John the Baptist." Bibliotheca Sacra 113:449 (January 1956):30-36.

_____. "The Temptation of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1996):342-52.

_____. "The Transfiguration of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:494 (April-June 1967):133-43.

_____. "The Triumphal Entry of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):218-29.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. "Matthew's Use of the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):34-43.

Kepler, Thomas. S. Jesus' Design for Living. New York: Abingdon Press, 1955.

Kiddle, M. "The Conflict Between the Disciples, the Jews, and the Gentiles in St. Matthew's Gospel." The Journal of Theological Studies 36 (January 1935):33-44.

Kik, J. Marcellus. Matthew Twenty-Four, An Exposition. Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, n. d.

Kilgallen, John J. "To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts [5, 32 and 19, 9] an Exception?" Biblica 61 (1980):102-5.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

_____. "The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within Matthew." Interpretation 41 (1987):131-43.

Kissinger, W. S. The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow & ATLA, 1975.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Lachs, S. T. "Some Textual Observations on the Sermon on the Mount." Jewish Quarterly Review 69 (1978):98-111.

Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Laurenson, L. Messiah, the Prince. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1924.

Legrand, L. "The Missionary Command of the Risen Lord Mt 28:16-20." Indian Theological Studies 24:1 (March 1987):5-28.

Leifeld, Walter L. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1943.

Levertoff, Paul J. St. Matthew (Revised Version). London: Thomas Murby & Co., 1940.

Levinskaya, Irena. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1996.

Lewis, Jack P. "The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):349-67.

Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic. London: SCM, 1961.

Lowery, David K. "Evidence from Matthew." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 165-80. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Matthew." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 19-63. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Maalouf, Tony T. "Were the Magi from Persia or Arabia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):423-42.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1930.

Major, H. D. A. Basic Christianity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1944.

Major, H. D. A., Manson, T. W., and Wright, C. J. The Mission and Message of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

Martin, John A. "Christ, the End of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 248-63. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "Dispensational Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 35-48. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Marx, Werner G. "Money Matters in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):148-57.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Matera, Frank J. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories. Theological Inquiries series. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

Maticich, Karen Kristine. "Reflections on Tractate Shekalim." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):58-60.

Mattill, A. J. Jr. "The Way of Tribulation.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):531-46.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959.

McClister, David. "Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together': Literary Structure as a Key to Meaning in Matt 17:22-20:19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):549-58.

McHugh, John. The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

McKeating, Henry. "Sanctions Against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979):57-72.

McPheeters, William M. "Christ As an Interpreter of Scripture." The Bible Student 1 (April 1900):223-29.

Meier, John P. "Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):94-102.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Sign of Jonah." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980):23-30.

Metzger, Bruce M. "The Nazareth Inscription Once Again." In Jesus und Paulus, pp. 221-38. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975.

_____. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Michaels, J. R. "Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):27-37.

Miller, Earl. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Meadville, Pa.: By the Author, 1950.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

M'Neile, Alan Hugh. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan & Co., 1915.

Moloney, Francis J. "Matthew 19, 3-12 and Celibacy. A Redactional and Form-Critical Study." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979):42-60.

Montefiore, C. G. "Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance." Jewish Quarterly Review 16 (January 1904):209-57.

_____. The Synoptic Gospels. 2 vols. Rev. ed. New York: KTAV, 1968.

Montefiore, C. G., and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology. London: Macmillan, 1938.

Moo, Douglas J. "The Use of the Old Testament in the Passion Texts of the Gospels." Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 1979.

Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-30.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, Frank [pseud.]. Ross, Albert Henry. Who Moved the Stone? London: Faber and Faber, 1930. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Lamplighter Books, 1976.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Boston: N. J. Bartlett & Co., 1884.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

_____. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Moulton, Mark. "Jesus' Goal for Temple and Tree: A Thematic Revisit of Matt 21:12-22." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):561-72.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Mueller, James R. "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts." Revue de Qumran 38 (1980):247-56.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Nelson, Neil D., Jr. "This Generation" in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):369-85.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Pilate," by D. H. Wheaton.

_____. S.v. "Chinnereth," by R. F. Hosking.

Newman, Albert H. A Manual of Church History. 2 vols. Chicago: American Baptist Press, 1931.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Parrot, Andre. Golgotha and the Chruch of the Holy Sepulchre. Translated by E. Hudson. London: SCM, 1957.

Patai, Raphael. The Messianic Texts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979.

Payne, Philip B. "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables." Trinity Journal 2NS:1 (Spring 1981):3-23.

Penner, James A. "Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew's Transfiguration Account." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):201-10.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perowne, S. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1956.

Peters, George N. D. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as Covenanted in the Old Testament and Presented in the New Testament. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

_____. "A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):553-68.

Pettingill, William L. Simple Studies in Matthew. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.

Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Cambridge: University Press, 1980.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 5th ed. London: Methuen, 1942.

Rice, Edwin W. People's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1887.

Robertson, Archibald, T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

_____. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. New York: Harper & Row, 1922.

_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930.

Robertson, Paul E. "First-Century Jewish Marriage Customs." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):33-36.

Robinson, J. M. Editor. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

Robinson, Theodore H. The Gospel of Matthew. Moffatt New Testament Commentary series. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.

Rogers, Cleon. "The Great Commission." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:519 (July-September 1973):258-67.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Sahl, Joseph G. "The Impeccability of Jesus Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):11-20.

Saucy, Mark. "The Kingdom-of-God Sayings in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):175-97.

_____. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

Sauer, Erich. The Triumph of the Crucified. Translated by G. H. Lang. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Scharen, Hans. "Gehenna in the Synoptics." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):324-37; 149:596 (October-December 1992):454-70.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan Co., 1961.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

_____. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Scroggie, W. Graham, A Guide to the Gospels. Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1975.

Senior, Donald. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sparks, H. F. D. "The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood of God in the Gospels." In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, pp. 241-62. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.

Spencer, Aída Besançon. "Father-Ruler: The Meaning of the Metaphor Father' for God in the Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:3 (September 1996):433-42.

Stamm, Frederick Keller. Seeing the Multitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1943.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Marsh. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Stoutenburg, Dennis C. "Out of my sight!', Get behind me!', or Follow after me!': There Is No Choice in God's Kingdom." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):173-78.

Stowe, C. E. "The Eschatology of Christ, With Special Reference to the Discourse in Matt. XXIV. and XXV." Bibliotheca Sacra 7 (July 1850):452-78.

Sukenik, E. L. Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Tatum, W. Barnes, Jr. "Matthew 2.23." The Bible Translator 27 (1976):135-38.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1952.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Genius of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck.

_____. S.v. "polloi," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "porne . . .," by F. Hauck and S. Schulz.

_____. S.v. "telones," by Otto Michel.

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. S.v. "Chebel," by H. J. Fabry.

Thiessen, Henry C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Thistleton, A. C. "Realized Eschatology at Corinth." New Testament Studies 24 (1977):510-26.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Outline Studies of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Foundry of the Second Temple at Jerusalem." Journal of Biblical Literature 55 (December 1936):247-60.

Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980.

_____. "The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 222-37. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Introductory and Concluding Parables of Matthew Thirteen." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):351-55.

Trench, Richard C. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. New York: Appleton, 1851.

_____. Studies in the Gospels. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. Synonyms of the New Testament. New ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1915.

Trilling, Wolfgang .Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-Evangeliums. Munchen: Kosel, 1964.

Turner, David L. "The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments." Grace Theological Journal 10:1 (Spring 1989):3-27.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of J. H. Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Vawter, Bruce. "Divorce and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):528-48.

_____. "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1959):155-67.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Walvoord, John F. "Christ's Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):109-16; 128:511 (July-September 1971):206-14; 128:512 (October-December 1971):316-26; 129:513 (January-March 1972):20-32; 129:514 (April-June 1972):99-105; 129:515 (July-September 1972):206-10; 129:516 (October-December 1972):307-15.

_____. "The Kingdom of Heaven." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):195-205.

_____. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1959.

Ware, Bruce A "Is the Church in View in Matthew 24-25?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):158-72.

Warfield, Benjamin B. "Jesus' Alleged Confession of Sin." Princeton Theological Review 12 (1914):127-228.

_____. Selected Shorter Writings. 2 vols. Edited by John E. Meeter. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970.

Wenham, David. "Jesus and the Law: an Exegesis on Matthew 5:17-20." Themelios 4:3 (April 1979):92-26.

_____. "The Structure of Matthew XIII." New Testament Studies 25 (1979):516-22.

Wenham, G. J. "May Divorced Christians Remarry?" Churchman 95 (1981):150-61.

Wenham, J. W. "When Were the Saints Raised?" Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981):150-52.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Westerholm, Stephen. "The Law in the Sermon on the Mount: Matt 5:17-48." Criswell Theological Review 6:1 (Fall 1992):43-56.

Wilkin, Robert N. "A Great Buy!" The Grace Evangelical Society News 6:9 (September 1991):2.

_____. "Is Confessing Christ a Condition of Salvation?" The Grace Evangelical Society News 9:4 (July-August 1994):2-3.

_____. "Not Everyone Who Says Lord, Lord' Will Enter the Kingdom: Matthew 7:21-23." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:12 (December 1988):2-3.

_____. "The Parable of the Four Soils: Do the Middle Two Soils Represent Believers or Unbelievers? (Matthew 13:20-21)." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:8 (August-September 1988):2.

_____. "Self-Sacrifice and Kingdom Entrance: Matthew 5:29-30." The Grace Evangelical Society News 4:8 (August 1989):2; 4:9 (September 1989):2-3.

Winer, George Benedict. Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. Translated from the 7th German ed. by J. Henry Thayer. Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1874.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "phylactery," by J. Arthur Thompson.

_____. S.v. "Pilate, Pontius," by J. G. Vos.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-4@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-5@

Haydock: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

INTRODUCTION.

THIS and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions , and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiæ Catholicæ commoveret auctoritas. ( Lib. con. Epist. Manichæi, quam vocant fundamenti. tom. viii. chap. 5, p. 154. A. Ed. Ben.) (Witham)

S. MATTHEW, author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era, he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fullness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock) ---This holy apostle, after having reaped a great harvest of souls in Judea, preached the faith to the barbarous nations of the East. He was much devoted to heavenly contemplation, and led an austere life; for he eat no flesh, satisfying nature with herbs, roots, seeds, and berries, as Clement of Alexanderia assures us, Pædag. lib. ii. chap. 1. St. Ambrose says, that God opened to him the country of the Persians. Rufinus and Socrates tell us, that he carried the gospel into Ethiopia, meaning probably the southern or eastern parts of Asia. St. Paulinus informs us, that he ended his course in Parthia; and Venantius Fortunatus says, by martyrdom.--- See Butler's Saints' Lives, Sept. 21 st.

Gill: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MATTHEW

The subject of this book, and indeed of all the writings of the New Testament, is the Gospel. The Greek word ευαγγελιον signifies a joyful message, good news, glad tidings of good things; such as Christ was anointed to preach, the Angels brought to the shepherds, and the Evangelists, Apostles, and Ministers of Christ published to the world. Isa 61:1. And such is the account given by this inspired writer, of the incarnation, life, actions, ministry, miracles, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; whereby peace and reconciliation, pardon and righteousness, atonement and redemption, life and salvation, are obtained for lost, perishing sinners. The Jews, to whom the message of grace was first sent, and among whom the Gospel was first preached, having despised and rejected it; they and their posterity, in allusion to the word "Evangelion", most wickedly and blasphemously call the whole New Testament, און גליון or וצן גליון "Aven Gilion" ^a, a "revelation", or "volume of iniquity and vanity"; but "blessed are the people that know the joyful sound", see Psa 89:15. The writer of this Gospel, Matthew, who also was called Levi in Luk 5:27 was by occupation a publican, or tax-gatherer, and was in his employ when Christ called him by his grace. He was one of the twelve Apostles sent forth by Christ to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, Mat 10:3 and was honoured to be the first of the writers of the New Testament, and to be the first publisher therein of the good news of the incarnate Saviour; and was a wonderful instance of the rich and sovereign grace of God. Though he was employed in collecting the Roman tax, yet he was of Jewish extract; as appears from his being called the son of Alphaeus, Mar 2:14 and from his name Matthew Levi; for as the latter, so the former is an Hebrew name. The Jews say ^b one of the disciples of Jesus was called yatm, Matthai or Matthew: his name signifies a "gift" or "given"; he was one of those the Father had given to Christ, and was kept by him, when the son of perdition was lost, Joh 17:6. It may not be improper to inquire in what language this Gospel was written. The ancient Christian writers were generally of opinion, that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Papias and ^c Pantaenus were of this mind, as also Irenaeus ^d, Origen ^e Eusebius ^f, Athanasius ^g, Epiphanius ^h, and Jerom ⁱ; and it is asserted in the titles of the Arabic and Persic versions, and at the end of the Syriac version of this Gospel, that it was written in that language; and this opinion is espoused by Grotius and Hammond, though justly exploded by others; for what has been published by Munster, Mercer, Hutter, and Robertson, are translations, made by themselves or others, and of no antiquity: and since Hebrew and Syriac words are interpreted in this Gospel, see Mat 1:23 which would not have been done, had it been written in either language; and since Matthew generally follows the Septuagint version in the passages cited by him out of the Old Testament; and since the Hebrew language was not generally known at that time to the common people, only to the learned; for the law and the prophets, when read in the synagogues in that language, required an interpreter; and since the Greek tongue was the language more commonly spoken, and the rest of the Evangelists wrote in Greek, and the Gospel was designed for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; it is most reasonable to conclude that this Gospel also was wrote in Greek; whereby that ancient prophecy was fulfilled, at least in part, "God shall enlarge" or "persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem", Gen 9:27 the Gospel being published in the language of Japheth, the Greek language, which the Jews, the posterity of Shem, now understood; agreeably to which the Palmudic writers interpret the prophecy; says ^k Bar Kaphra, mentioning the above words,

"They shall speak tpy lv wnwvlb in the language of Japheth, in the tents of Shem;''

or,

"the words of the law shall be spoken in the language of Japheth, in the midst of the tents of Shem ^l.''

R. Jochanan ^m explains them thus:

"tpy lv wyrbr "the words of Japheth" shall be in the tents of Shem; and says R. Chiya ben Aba, the sense of it is, The beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem.''

Which the gloss interprets thus:

"The beauty of Japheth is the language of Javan, or the Greek language, which language is more beautiful than that of any other of the sons of Japheth.''

The time when this Gospel was written is said ⁿ by some to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ, when the Evangelist had received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, among which was the gift of tongues; and when the promise of Christ had been made good to him, Joh 14:26.

College: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

It may surprise the modern reader to realize that for the first two centuries of the Christian era, Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the most popular of the Gospel accounts. Not only was Matthew's text the most frequently quoted NT book among second century Christians, in virtually all textual witnesses and canonical lists Matthew is placed first.

Several factors may have contributed to the premier position assigned Matthew's Gospel. Certainly its comprehensive detail and the systematic structuring of ethical and pastoral material contributed to the Gospel's favored place in the church. In addition, the Gospel's popularity was undoubtedly based upon its explicit Jewish tendencies that enabled the church to affirm its Jewish roots while at the same time distancing the Christian movement from the synagogue. In short, both in form and content, Matthew's Gospel provided second century Christianity with an eminently practical and useful compendium of what was foundational to the Christian faith.

The priority and dominance extended Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the consensus for roughly 1700 years, until the early decades of the nineteenth century. With the development of an historical consciousness, and the refinement of literary methodology, questions of historical reliability and Synoptic relationships dominated post-Enlightenment Gospel research. While the chronological priority of Matthew was not immediately challenged, the privileged position given Matthew began to erode as scholarship presupposed that Gospel composition demanded a movement from the "more primitive" to the "more advanced." Mark's size, inferior quality, and seemingly "primitive theology," suggested to many that it was Mark not Matthew that should be regarded as the oldest Gospel, and hence the most reliable for a reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus. As a result, Matthew was gradually dismissed by many (esp. German scholarship), as a secondary development, being permeated by late and legendary additions (e.g., birth and infancy stories), representing more church tradition than a factual record of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The emerging nineteenth century consensus of the secondary character of Matthew received its most substantial endorsement in 1863 from H.J. Holtzmann, who argued that Mark wrote first and was used independently by Matthew and Luke. While subsequent defenders of Marcan priority have supplemented the theory with additional sources (e.g., Q, L, and M) to explain Synoptic relationships, the hypothesis that Mark is the earliest of the Gospel narratives has remained the dominant scholarly opinion for the past 100 years.

The initial result of the emergence of Mark as the pivotal document to explain Synoptic relationships was a decline of interest in Matthew in the early decades of this century. It was to Mark, rather than Matthew that scholarship turned either to find raw materials from which to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus, or to penetrate to the earliest form of the tradition in order to elucidate the possible factors within the Christian communities that generated the rise and preservation of certain text-forms (Form Criticism). As long as the scholarly agenda was preoccupied with penetrating behind the Gospels to isolate sources or to reconstruct early Christian communities, Matthew's Gospel would remain only of secondary interest.

Graham Stanton singles out the date of 1945 as marking a new phase in Matthean studies. The first two decades after 1945 witness a number of studies addressing Matthean themes or sections of the Gospel that begin to call attention to the editorial skills and theological concerns of the Gospel's author. The shift to an emphasis on the role of the evangelist in his selection, arrangement, and modification of the material he received, brought renewed interest in Matthew as an effective communicator and sophisticated theologian (Redaction Criticism). However, such an assessment was ultimately grounded in the hypothesis of Marcan priority and the subsequent evaluation of how Matthew used Mark as his primary literary source. The result has been an exegetical method overly preoccupied with slight literary deviations from Mark, with little sensitivity to the interconnected sequence of events, and their contribution to the whole Gospel.

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of studies on Matthew, with many books and articles concerned to elucidate Matthew's Gospel as a "unified narrative" or "story" told by a competent story-teller who organizes his thought into a coherent sequence of events. The new concern for the Gospels as literary masterpieces demands that the reader be attentive to how Matthew develops his themes and focuses his account on a retelling of the story of Jesus in a way that does not merely rehearse the past, but speaks meaningfully as a guide for Christian discipleship.

Rather than reading Matthew through the lens of other Gospels or a hypothetical reconstruction of the evangelist's sources, priority has shifted to the whole Gospel as a unified coherent narrative. It follows that whatever written or oral sources the evangelist may have had access to, the writer has so shaped his composition that it has a life of its own, discernable only by attention to the structure of the parts and their contribution to the whole.

In order to read and appreciate Matthew's story of Jesus one must be attentive to the codes and conventions that govern the literary and social context of the first century. A coherent reading of any document demands an awareness of the literary rules that govern the various types of literature. Knowing the general category of literary genre of a text enables the reader to know what types of questions can legitimately be asked of the material. For example, if one is reading poetry, questions of factual accuracy or scientific precision may not be the most relevant inquiry for ascertaining a text's meaning. Knowing the genre of a writing enables one's understanding to be informed by the features and intentions that characterize the writing, and not by our modern expectations and concerns we may impose upon the text.

While Matthew's Gospel has certain affinities with the literary genres of biography and historiography, the Gospel is not strictly an historical biography. No Gospel writer was driven by an impulse simply to record the facts of what happened with strict chronological precision. In fact, one need only to read the Gospels side by side to see the freedom and creative manner with which each writer communicated his message. The authors have selected, arranged, and interpreted events, characters, and settings in the best way to communicate with their respective audiences. The result is four unique accounts of Jesus' life and teachings told from a particular "point of view," informed both by the primary events and the theological concerns and needs of the expanding church.

Matthew's Gospel builds reflectively upon the primary events to capture the significance of what happened in story form. An appreciation of the literary and communicative skills of the author enables one to recognize in the dramatic sequence of events a carefully constructed "plot." In this way the storyteller communicates his values and theological commitment and seeks to persuade the reader to accept his perspective.

COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL

Some issues and questions that may be extremely important for understanding one category of literature may contribute little to the understanding of another. For example, an informed interpretation of Paul's letters necessitates a reconstruction of the world that produced the text. The modern reader would need to know as much as possible about the author, destination of the letter, and the factors that gave rise to the text. The letter itself will constitute a prime source for acquiring such information.

However, when one approaches Gospel narratives with the same concerns the matter is complicated by the lack of information afforded by the text. The anonymity of the Gospels, alongside their silence concerning the place, time, and circumstances that may have generated their writings, necessitates that such historical inquiries be answered in terms of probability. What this means is that there is no direct access, via the text, to the historical author or primary recipients of his document. The difficulty is centered in the fact that the text is not primarily designed to function as a "window" through which to gain access into the mind and environment of the author and original readers. The author does not purport to tell his own story or that of his readers, but the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Fortunately, following the sequential development and sense of Matthew's story of Jesus does not depend on identifying with certainty the author or the historical and social matrix that may have prompted his writing.

In what follows, traditional introductory questions will be briefly discussed, alongside important insights afforded by literary theorists who focus on the Gospels as narratives.

A. AUTHORSHIP

The anonymity of the canonical Gospels necessitates heavy reliance on external evidence as a point of departure to establish Gospel authorship. The external testimony from the second century is virtually unanimous that Matthew the tax collector authored the Gospel attributed to him. Even before explicit patristic testimony regarding Gospel authorship there is convincing evidence that no Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate heading or title (e.g., KATA MAQQAION, "according to Matthew"), identifying the person thought to be the author. The common assumption that the Gospels circulated anonymously until the mid-second century when titles were finally affixed to them has been seriously challenged by Martin Hengel. While certain details of Hengel's theory regarding the origins of Gospel headings have been challenged, the lack of variation in the second-century tradition regarding Matthean authorship could well owe its origin to the time when the Gospels first began to circulate among the Christian communities.

The earliest patristic source addressing Gospel authorship comes from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (ca. 60-130), whose comments are available only in quotations preserved by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 260-340, H.E. 3.39.14-16). Eusebius' citation of Papias regarding Matthean authorship has been subject to various interpretations dependent upon the translation of key terms. The citation reads:

Matthew collected (sunetavxato, synetaxato , "composed," "compiled," "arranged") the oracles (taÉ lovgia, ta logia , "sayings," "gospel") in the Hebrew language (dialevktw/, dialektô, "Hebrew or Aramaic language," "Semitic style") and each interpreted (hJrmhvneusen, hçrmçneusen, "interpreted," "translated," "transmitted") them as best he could (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16).

It appears that patristic testimony subsequent to Papias was dependent upon his testimony and thus perpetuated the tradition of Matthean authorship alongside the notion of an original Semitic version. The testimonies of Irenaeus ( Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), Pantaenus (quoted in H.E. 5.10.3), Origen (quoted in H.E. 6.25.4), Eusebius himself ( H.E. 3.24.6), Epiphanius (quoted in Adv. Haer. 29.l9.4; 30.3.7), Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catecheses 14.15), Jerome ( DeVir. III.3), as well as Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), and Syrian and Coptic authorities are all unanimous in affirming that Matthew authored the first Gospel originally in a Semitic language. However, since the tradition seems ultimately to rest upon the view of Papias, as cited by Eusebius, the accumulated evidence of patristic testimony, in the view of some, has very little independent worth. Especially since the idea of an original Semitic Matthew, from which our Greek Matthew has been translated has been challenged on textual and linguistic grounds. Matthew simply does not read like translated Greek. These and other difficulties with the view of Papias have resulted in many dismissing all patristic testimony concerning Matthean authorship.

While much critical opinion has assumed that Papias' errant view of an original Semitic Matthew discounts his testimony about Matthew being the author, in recent times the evidence afforded by the testimony of Papias has been reassessed. On the one hand, some scholars have argued that the terms Ebrai?di dialevktw/ (Ebraidi dialektô), do not refer to the Hebrew or Aramaic language, but rather to a Jewish style or literary form. In this view, Papias would be referring to Matthew's penchant for Semitic themes and devices, not an original Semitic Gospel. Others have rejected such an interpretation as an unnatural way to read the passage from Papias, and prefer to acknowledge that Papias was simply wrong when he claimed that Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language. However, such an admission does not warrant the complete dismissal of the testimony of Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew. One must still explain how Matthew's name became attached to the first Gospel. The obscurity and relative lack of prominence of the Apostle Matthew argues against the view that the early church would pseudonymously attribute the Gospel to Matthew. Surely, patristic tradition had some basis for attributing the Gospel to Matthew. Therefore, as noted by Davies and Allison, "the simplistic understanding of Papias which dismisses him out of hand must be questioned if not abandoned."

There is nothing inherent in the Gospel itself that convincingly argues against Matthean authorship. Contrary to the view of a few, the decided Jewish flavor of the Gospel argues decisively for the author of the first Gospel being a Jew. Other scholars have noted that Matthew's background and training as a "tax collector" along with other professional skills offers a plausible explanation for the Gospel's sophisticated literary form and attention to detail. Certainly the combined weight of external and internal considerations make the traditional view of Matthean authorship a reasonable, if not a most plausible position. However, in the words of R.T. France there is "an inevitable element of subjectivity in such judgments." Not only is hard data difficult to come by to establish the authorship of any of the Gospels, what is available is often subject to diverse but equally credible explanations. It follows that while the issue of authorship is an intriguing historical problem, it is extremely doubtful that any consensus will ever emerge given the nature of the available evidence.

The question must be raised whether the veracity of the first Gospel or its interpretation are ultimately dependent upon one's verdict concerning authorship. While one's theological bias concerning authorship may influence how the text is evaluated, the two issues are not integrally connected. Since the first Gospel offers very little (if any) insight into the identity of its historical author, recreating the figure behind the Gospel is neither relevant or particularly important for understanding Matthew's story of Jesus. Thus, while I see no compelling reason to abandon the traditional attribution of Matthean authorship to the first Gospel, no significant exegetical or theological concern hangs on the issue.

B. NARRATION OF THE STORY

Of much greater importance than deciding the identity of the author, is an evaluation of the way the author has decided to present his story of Jesus. In literary terms the way a story gets told is called "point of view." A storyteller may tell his story in the first person (i.e., "I"), and portray himself as one of the characters in the story. From a first person point of view the storyteller would necessarily be limited to what he personally has experienced or learned from other characters. Matthew's story is told in a third person narration, wherein the storyteller is not a participant in the story, but refers to characters within the story as "he," "she," or "they." From such a vantage point the Matthean narrator provides the reader with an informational advantage over story characters, and thereby, situates the reader in an advantageous position for evaluating events and characters in the story.

Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of a third person narration is the storyteller's ability to provide the reader with insights which are not normally available to one in real life. His ability to move inside his characters to reveal their innermost thoughts, feelings, emotions, and motivations, enables the reader to use these insights to form evaluations and opinions about characters and events within the story. For example, the narrator reveals when the disciples are amazed (8:29; 21:20), fearful (14:30; 17:6), sorrowful (26:22), filled with grief (17:23), and indignant (26:8). He knows when they understand (16:12; 17:13), and when they doubt (28:17). The overall impact of these insights enables the reader to better evaluate the traits exhibited by the disciples.

Similar insights are provided into the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of minor characters in the story. The inner thoughts of Joseph (1:19), Herod (2:3), the crowds (7:28; 22:33; 9:8; 12:13; 15:31), the woman (9:21), Herod the tetrarch (14:59), Judas (27:3), Pilate (27:14,18), the centurion (27:54), and the reaction of the women at the tomb (28:4,8) are all accessible to the Matthean narrator. The narrator even supplies the reader with inside information about the thoughts and motivations of the Jewish leaders (2:3; 9:3; 12:14; 21:45-46; 26:3-5; 12:10; 16:1; 19:3; 22:15). These insights function to establish in the mind of the reader the antagonist of the story.

The Matthean narrator is also not bound by time or space in his coverage of the story. Matthew provides the reader access to private conversations between Herod and the Magi (2:3-8), John and Jesus (3:13-15), Jesus and Satan (4:1-11), the disciples (16:7), Peter and Jesus (16:23), Judas and the chief priest (26:14-16; 26:40), and Pilate and the chief priest (27:62-64). He makes known to the reader the private decisions made by the chief priest and the Sanhedrin (26:59-60), and the plan of the chief priest and elders concerning the disappearance of the body (28:12-15). The narrator is present when Jesus prays alone, while at the same time he knows the difficulties of the disciples on the sea (14:22-24). He easily takes the reader from the courtroom of Pilate to the courtyard of Peter's denial (26:70f.), and eventually to the scene at the cross (27:45). For the most part, the narrator in Matthew's story stays close to Jesus, and views events and characters in terms of how they affect his main character.

Whoever the actual historical author may be, it is clear that the Matthean storyteller narrates his Gospel in a way to reliably guide his readers through the story so as to properly evaluate events and characters. On occasion the narrator will interrupt the flow of the story in order to provide the reader with an explicit comment or explanation. These intrusions may take the form of various types of descriptions (e.g., 3:4; 17:2; 28:3-4; 27:28-31), summaries (e.g., 4:23-25; 9:35-38; 12:15-16; 14:14; 15:29-31), or explicit interpretive commentary (1:22-23, 2:15, 17-18, 23; 4:15-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10). Detecting the narrator's voice in the story enables the reader to be sensitive to the manner in which Matthew instructs, leads, and encourages the reader to adopt a particular point of view.

SETTING OF THE GOSPEL

Traditional approaches to Gospel introduction usually treat under the heading of "setting" such issues as the date and place of the Gospel's writing, alongside the identity and problems confronting the community addressed. It is important to remember that practically speaking our exclusive source for information about the time and circumstantial factors generating the Gospel's production come only from the Gospel itself. No explicit outside information speaks directly to the issue of the social and historical conditions of the Gospel's primary readers. Essentially, scholarly efforts to establish a life-setting for the writing of the Gospel must search the Gospel for possible clues that hint at the time and circumstances of the writing. The fact that, although reading the same evidence, scholarly proposals for the setting of Matthew's Gospel have resulted in reconstructions that are opposed to one another should give one caution about dogmatic claims in such areas.

A. DATE

Efforts to recover the environmental setting that best explains the form and content of Matthew's Gospel have not resulted in a scholarly consensus. Concerning the date of the Gospel's composition scholars are divided into two broad proposals. The majority view is that Matthew was written after Mark sometime between the dates of A.D. 80-100. However, the arguments adduced to establish such a dating scheme are largely based upon prior judgments concerning the order of Gospel composition or hypothetical reconstructions of developments in the first century. Pivotal to the post-70 dating of Matthew is the contention that Matthew knew and used Mark as a major source for the writing of his Gospel. Since the consensus of scholarly judgment dates Mark in the 60s, it is therefore likely that Matthew composed his Gospel sometime after A.D. 70. Of course, if one rejects Marcan priority or the suggested date for Marcan composition, the argument fails to be convincing.

A post-70 date has also been assumed based upon Matthew's explicit language concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his references to the "church" (16:18; 18:17). Such language is thought to be anachronistic and therefore indicative of a post-70 composition. The reference to a "king" in the parable of the wedding feast who "sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" (22:7), appears to reflect historical knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction retrojected into Jesus' ministry as prophecy. However, apart from the fact of whether Jesus could predict Jerusalem's fall, the wording of 22:7, as France observes, "is precisely the sort of language one might expect in a genuine prediction of political annihilation in the Jewish context, and does not depend on a specific knowledge of how things in fact turned out in A.D. 70." There also is no need to read a developed ecclesiology into Jesus' references to the "church." The term ejkklhsiva (ekklçsia) in Matthew says nothing about church order, and with the communal imagery attached to the term in Jewish circles (cf. Qumran), it becomes entirely credible that Jesus could speak of his disciples as constituting an ekklçsia.

Perhaps the most heavily relied upon argument for dating Matthew in the last decades of the first century is the decided Jewish polemic that seemingly dominates the first Gospel. It is thought that formative Judaism in the post-70 period provides the most suitable background for Matthew's portrayal of the Jewish leaders and his underlying view of Israel. After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 it was the Pharisaic movement that emerged as the normative form of Judaism. Pharisaism was particularly suited to bring stability and a renewed sense of Jewish identity after the tragedy of A.D. 70. The Pharisees saw themselves as "the most accurate interpreters of the law" (see Josephus, JW 1.5.1; 2.8.14; Life 38.191), and definers of both the social and cultic boundaries delimiting the covenanted people of God. The community addressed by Matthew's Gospel is thought to be a rival to a post-70 formative Judaism, having endured severe hostility and rejection by official Judaism.

However, the evidence does not warrant the supposition that Matthew's community has severed all contact with the Jewish community. Furthermore, not enough is known about pre-70 Pharisaism to emphatically deny a setting for Matthew's Gospel before Jerusalem's destruction. Indeed, an impressive list of scholars have cogently argued for a pre-70 dating of Matthew. Not only does such a view have solid patristic evidence, some passages in Matthew may be intended to imply that the temple was still standing at the time of the Gospel's writing (cf. Matt 5:23-29; 12:5-7; 17:23; 16:22; 26:60-61). It appears that the evidence is not sufficiently decisive so as to completely discredit all competitive views. Fortunately, understanding Matthew's story of Jesus is not dependent upon reconstructing the historical context from which the Gospel emerged.

B. PLACE OF ORIGIN

Even less important for a competent reading of the first Gospel involves the effort to decide the Gospel's precise place of origin. Because of its large Jewish community and strategic role in the Gentile mission most Matthean scholars have opted for Antioch of Syria as the Gospel's place of origin. Other proposals have included Jerusalem, Alexandria, Caesarea, Phoenicia, and simply "east of the Jordan." While certain evidence may tend to weigh in favor of one provenance over another, in the final analysis we cannot be certain where Matthew's Gospel was composed. Nevertheless, as observed by France, deciding "the geographical location in which the Gospel originated is probably the least significant for a sound understanding of the text." Much more relevant to the interpretation of the gospel is the dimension given the discussion of "setting" by a literary reading of the first Gospel.

C. NARRATIVE WORLD

In literary terms the discussion of "setting" does not involve the delineation of factors generating the text, but rather the descriptive context or background in which the action of the story transpires. Settings, as described by the narrator, are like stage props in a theatrical production. Oftentimes, the narrator's description of the place, time, or social conditions in which action takes place is charged with subtle nuances that may generate a certain atmosphere with important symbolic significance. For example, early in Matthew's story the narrator relates places and events to create a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate his central character, Jesus. The story opens with a series of events that are calculated to evoke memories of Israel's past, and thereby to highlight the significance of the times inaugurated by Jesus. By means of a genealogy, cosmic signs, dream-revelations, the appearance of the "angel of the Lord," and the repeated reference to prophetic fulfillment, the narrator highlights God's renewed involvement with his people and the climactic nature of the times realized in Jesus. The locations of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Egypt evoke feelings of continuity between Jesus' history and that of Israel's. Other locations such as the "desert" and "mountain" function to create a certain aura around events and characters in the story. Later in the story specific locations such as "synagogue," the "sea," and the "temple" all contribute to a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate the course of events. While real-life settings of the author and his readers can only be reproduced in terms of probability, the temporal and spatial settings established in the story provide an integral context for interpreting Matthew's story.

THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF MATTHEW

A. LITERARY AND RHETORICAL SKILL

Since Matthew's text would have been handwritten without systematic punctuation or modern techniques for delineating structural features such as bold print, underlining, paragraph indention, or chapter headings, any clues for discerning the structure and nature of the composition is dependent upon "verbal clues" within the narrative itself. Within both Hebrew and classical traditions communication on a literary level assumed a level of competency in conventional communicative techniques. While NT authors may not have been formally trained in rhetoric, an effective exchange of ideas demands some awareness of conventional patterns for communication. A study of Matthew's literary style puts emphasis on the literary devices he employs to lead the reader to experience his story in a certain way.

Reading Matthew's story (whether orally before an audience, or in private), would have demanded that the reader attend to the various structural features which might illumine the meaning and flow of the narrative. Some of these literary strategies function on a broader structural level providing the text with a sense of progression and cohesion (e.g., Matt see the formulaic phrases in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; and 4:17; 16:21). However, most structural features primarily contribute to a sense of cohesion within smaller textual units. These features may highlight or bracket unifying themes by opening and closing distinct units with similar words or phrases (see, e.g., 4:23-24 and 9:35); build anticipation by foreshadowing subsequent events (e.g., ch. 2 foreshadows the passion narrative); or stimulate reflection and a sense of development in the story by verbal repetition and episodic similarities (cf. 8:23-27/14:22-33; 9:27-31/20:29-34; 9:32-34/12:22-34; 14:13-21/15:32-38). These elements along with Matthew's fondness for grouping materials according to a thematic or even numerical scheme, are indicative of an environment largely educated through oral proclamation not the written word. Matthew's compositional scheme greatly facilitated learning by providing the listener (or reader) with a coherent and orderly presentation that aided comprehension and memorization.

The meticulous structural concerns, both in the whole and the smaller details of Matthew, have been widely recognized by scholarship. However, as we shall see in the next section, there is great diversity with respect to the overall structural pattern of the first Gospel. The difficulty lies with going from clearly delineated structural features in the smaller units of text, to the use of the same devices to explain the total composition. Often the analysis seems forced and unable to fit the details into a single coherent pattern. It may not always be easy to identify the precise contribution that a particular literary device makes to the overall composition of a literary work, and certainly there always exists the danger of reading too much into a text by artificially imposing symmetrical patterns where none exist. However, these problems are overcome by a greater sensitivity to the nature and function of literary devices, and not by ignoring these features of a text. The question remains concerning what features might provide clues to the overall structure of Matthew's Gospel.

B. STRUCTURAL-PLOT

Consideration of Matthew's skill in the smaller portions of his text has stimulated numerous efforts to locate structural indications that may provide the organizing pattern for the entire Gospel. Structural appraisals of Matthew's Gospel usually begin with the discovery of a literary device or formulaic expression that appears to be unique to the evangelist. However, while scholars may agree on the existence of a literary device or formula, they may diverge widely concerning the function or theological significance of a literary feature. For example, although the expressions kaiÉ ejgevneto o{te ejtevlesen oJ =Ihsou'" (kai egeneto hote etelesen ho Içsous, "and when Jesus had finished;" 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), and ajpoÉ tovte h[rxato oJ =Ihsou'" (apo tote erxato ho Içsous, "from that time Jesus began," 4:17; 16:21) are recognized to be structurally significant, it is difficult to establish that Matthew consciously adopted these expressions as the organizational key to his entire Gospel. As helpful as these phrases are for marking off the major discourses of Jesus or highlighting major new developments in the story, neat structural schemes based upon repeated formulae cannot do justice to the subtle twists and turns of the dramatic flow of Matthew's story.

Several scholars have centered on Matthew's use of Mark to determine the structure of his Gospel. Attention has been called to the peculiar Matthean organization of 4:12-13:58 in contrast to the faithful following of Marcan order in 14:1-28:20. Certainly a source-critical study of Matthew must account for the seemingly independent structural form and sequence in the first half of the Gospel as opposed to the latter half. However, it is doubtful that Matthew intended his readers to compare his Gospel with Mark in order to understand his structural scheme. If Matthew could clearly structure patterns on a smaller scale, independent of Mark, why not on a larger scale? Furthermore, there are too many structural peculiarities even in the second half of the Gospel to assume that Matthew merely succumbed to a slavish reproduction of Mark in the second half of his Gospel.

More recent investigations have delineated the Gospel's structure in terms of how the individual events or episodes connect sequentially to form a discernable plot. It is the organizing principle of plot which determines the incidents selected, their arrangement, and how the sequence of events or episodes are to impact the reader. Given the episodic and thematic flavor of Matthew's narrative, his plot development does not exhibit a linear tightness or the flair for the dramatic found in other narratives (cf. Mark). Nevertheless, Matthew does tell a story, and thus the various episodes are carefully interrelated by causal and thematic developments. There are definite major and minor story lines and character development, with certain episodes marking key turning points in the unfolding drama. An analysis of plot has the advantage of moving the discussion away from isolated literary devices or contrived symmetrical patterns, to a consideration of how the sequence of events and portrayal of characters connect meaningfully to tell a continuous and coherent story.

Matthew's story is organized around several narrative blocks comprised of events that are interconnected according to a particular emphasis or theme. The unifying factor giving coherence to the overall sequence of events is the explicit and implicit presence of the central character Jesus in virtually every episode. Within this story-form events of similar nature are often clustered or repeated for their accumulative impact, as various themes are reinforced and developed. An analysis of the sequence and function of Matthew's major narrative blocks enables the reader to discern an overall progression of events according to a consciously constructed plot. The following seven narrative blocks provide the story with a clear sense of dramatic progression:

1:1-4:16 Establishing the identity and role of Jesus, the protagonist of the story.

4:17-11:1 Jesus embarks upon a ministry of teaching and healing to manifest God's saving presence in Israel.

11:2-16:20 While faulty interpretations of Jesus' ministry lead to misunderstanding and repudiation, the disciples, through divine revelation, are provided special insight into Jesus' person and mission.

16:21-20:34 During Jesus' journey to Jerusalem he engages his disciples in explicit discussion concerning the ultimate values, priorities, and intentions of his messianic mission.

21:1-25:46 Upon entering Jerusalem Jesus' actions and teachings lead to conflict and rejection by the Jewish authorities.

26:1-27:50 While hostility and misunderstanding coalesce in betrayal, desertion, and death, Jesus is resolved to consciously and voluntarily fulfill the divine plan.

27:51-28:20 God ultimately vindicates his Son as evidenced by cosmic signs and by raising him from the dead and giving him authority to commission his disciples to a worldwide mission.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED COMMENTARIES:

Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann. Matthew . AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew . San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Carson, D.A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 8:3-599. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Davies, Margaret. Matthew Readings: A New Biblical Commentary . Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Davies, W.D. and Dale C. Allison. Introduction and Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew I-VII . Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

. Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII . Vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew . International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

France, R.T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Gardner, Richard B. Matthew. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991.

Garland, David. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel . New York: Crossroad, 1993.

Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13 . Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.

. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Harrington, D.J. The Gospel of Matthew . Sacra Pagina 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew . New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Keener, Craig S. Matthew . The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Ed. Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Luz, U. Matthew 1-7 . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels . Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992.

Meier, J.P. The Vision of Matthew . New York: Crossroad, 1979, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Patte, Daniel. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew . Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.

SELECTED STUDIES:

Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Bauer, D.R. The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . JSNTSup 31. Sheffield: Almond, 1988.

Borg, Marcus. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus . New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.

France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Hill, David. "Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology." JSNT 6 (1980) 2-16.

Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew As Story. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Lohr, C. "Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew." CBQ 23 (1961): 339-352.

Luz, U. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew . Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Matera, Frank. "The Plot of Matthew's Gospel." CBQ 49 (1987): 233-253.

. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies . New York: Paulist, 1986.

Powell, M.A. God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew's Gospel . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew . Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

. What Are They Saying About Matthew? Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

Stanton, Graham. A Gospel For a New People: Studies in Matthew . Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992.

. "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980." In ANRW II.25.3. Edited by W.Haase. Pages 1889-1895. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1985.

Verseput, Donald J. "The Title Son of God in Matthew's Gospel." NTS 33 (1987): 532-556.

Westerholm, Stephen. Jesus and Scribal Authority . ConNT 10. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1978.

Wilkens, M.J. The Concept of Discipleship in Matthew's Gsopel as Reflected in the Use of the Term Mathçtçs. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988.

Witherup, Ronald D. "The Death of Jesus and the Rising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51-54 in Context." SBLASP. Pages 574-585. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

. The New Testament and the People of God . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANTJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und zum Judentum

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib Biblica

BibRev Bible Review

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BZNW Beheifte zur ZNW

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament

ConNT Coniectanea neotestamentica

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

ETL Ephemerides theologicai lovanienses

ExpTim The Expository Times

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

Int Interpretation

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal for the Study of New Testament Theology

LXX Septuagint

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NovT Novum Testamentum

NT New Testament

NTM New Testament Message

NTS New Testament Studies

OT Old Testament

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RQ Restoration Quarterly

SBLASP Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers

SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series

SBLMS SBL Monograph Series

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Str-B Kommentar zum Neuen Testament by Strack and Billerbeck

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

TIM Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by Bornkamm, Barth, and Held

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBSGNT United Bible Society Greek New Testament

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

WUNT Wissenschaftliche untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Matthew (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY AND ROLE OF JESUS THE CHRIST - Matt 1:1-4:16

A. Genealogy of Jesus - 1:1-17

B. The Annunciation to Joseph - 1:18-25

C. The Infancy of Jesus - 2:1-23

1. The Gentile Pilgrimage - 2:1-12

2. The Messiah's Exile and Exodus - 2:13-23

D. The Mission and Message of John the Baptist - 3:1-12

E. The Baptism and Commission of Jesus - 3:13-17

F. The Testing of the Son - 4:1-11

G. Introducing the Ministry of Jesus - 4:12-16

II. GOD'S SAVING PRESENCE IN THE MIDST OF HIS PEOPLE - 4:17-10:42

A. Programmatic Heading: Proclamation of the Kingdom - 4:17

B. Call of the Disciples - 4:18-22

C. Programmatic Summary - 4:23-25

D. Sermon on the Mount: Ministry in Word - 5:1-7:29

1. The Setting - 5:1-2

2. The Beatitudes - 5:3-12

3. Salt and Light - 5:13-16

4. Jesus and the Law - 5:17-20

5. Practicing Greater Righteousness Toward One's Neighbor - 5:21-48

a. Murder - 5:21-26

b. Adultery - 5:27-30

c. Divorce - 5:31-32

d. Oaths - 5:33-37

e. An Eye for an Eye - 5:38-42

f. Love Your Enemies - 5:43-48

6. Practicing Greater Righteousness Before God - 6:1-18

a. Summary - 6:1

b. Giving to the Needy - 6:2-4

c. Prayer - 6:5-15

d. Fasting - 6:16-18

7. The Priorities and Values of the GreaterRighteousness - 6:19-34

a. Treasures in Heaven - 6:19-24

b. Worry - 6:25-34

8. The Conduct of Greater Righteousness - 7:1-12

a. Judging Others - 7:1-5

b. Honor What Is Valuable - 7:6

c. Ask, Seek, Knock - 7:7-11

d. The Golden Rule - 7:12

9. The Call for Decision - 7:13-27

a. The Narrow and Wide Gates - 7:13-14

b. A Tree and Its Fruit - 7:15-23

c. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 7:24-27

10. Conclusion - 7:28-29

E. Ministry in Deed - 8:1-9:34

1. Cleansing of a Leper - 8:1-4

2. Request of a Gentile Centurion - 8:5-13

3. Peter's Mother-in-Law - 8:14-15

4. Summary and Fulfillment Citation - 8:16-17

5. Two Would-Be Followers - 8:18-22

6. Stilling of the Storm - 8:23-27

7. The Gadarene Demoniacs - 8:28-34

8. Healing of the Paralytic - 9:1-8

9. Jesus' Association with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 9:9-13

10. Question on Fasting - 9:14-17

11. Raising the Ruler's Daughter and Cleansing the Unclean Woman - 9:18-26

12. Healing Two Blind Men - 9:27-31

13. Healing of a Deaf Mute - 9:32-34

F. A Call to Mission - 9:35-10:4

G. The Missionary Discourse - 10:5-42

1. Instructions for Mission - 10:5-15

2. Persecution and Response - 10:16-23

3. The Disciples' Relationship to Jesus - 10:24-42

III. ISRAEL'S MISUNDERSTANDING AND REPUDIATION OF JESUS - 11:1-14:12

A. John's Question from Prison - 11:1-6

B. The Person and Mission of John - 11:7-19

1. Identification of John by Jesus - 11:7-15

2. Rejection of John and Jesus - 11:16-19

C. Unrepentant Cities - 11:20-24

D. Jesus' Response and Invitation - 11:25-30

E. Sabbath Controversy: Incident in the Grainfield - 12:1-8

F. Sabbath Controversy: Healing in the Synagogue - 12:9-14

G. The Character and Mission of God's Servant - 12:15-21

H. The Beelzebub Controversy - 12:22-37

I. The Request for a Sign - 12:38-42

J. A Concluding Analogy - 12:43-45

K. Jesus' True Family - 12:46-50

L. The Parables of the Kingdom - 13:1-52

1. The Parable of the Four Soils - 13:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 13:10-17

3. The Interpretation of the Parable ofthe Soils - 13:18-23

4. Parable of the Weeds - 13:24-30

5. Parable of the Mustard Seed - 13:31-32

6. Parable of the Leaven - 13:33

7. The Purpose of Parables - 13:34-35

8. The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds - 13:36-43

9. Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl - 13:44-46

10. Parable of the Dragnet - 13:47-50

11. Trained in the Kingdom - 13:51-52

M. Rejection at Nazareth - 13:53-58

N. The Death of John the Baptist - 14:1-12

IV. EDUCATING THE DISCIPLES: IDENTITY AND MISSION - 14:13-16:20

A. Feeding of the Five Thousand - 14:13-21

B. Walking on the Water - 14:22-33

C. Summary: Healings at Gennesaret - 14:34-36

D. Jesus and the Teachings of the Pharisees - 15:1-20

E. The Canaanite Woman - 15:21-28

F. Feeding of the Four Thousand - 15:29-39

G. Request for a Sign - 16:1-4

H. The Leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees - 16:5-12

I. Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 16:13-20

V. THE WAY OF THE CROSS - 16:21-20:34

A. The Things of God Versus the Things of Men - 16:21-28

B. Transfiguration - 17:1-8

C. The Coming Elijah - 17:9-13

D. The Power of Faith - 17:14-21

E. The Second Passion Prediction - 17:22-23

F. Jesus and the Temple Tax - 17:24-27

G. Fourth Discourse: Life in the Christian Community - 18:1-35

1. Becoming Like a Child - 18:1-5

2. Avoiding Offense - 18:6-9

3. Value of the "Little Ones" - 18:10-14

4. Reconciling an Offending Brother - 18:15-20

5. Importance of Forgiveness - 18:21-35

H. Transition from Galilee to Judea - 19:1-2

I. Marriage and Divorce - 19:3-9

J. The Bewildered Response of the Disciples - 19:10-12

K. The Little Children - 19:13-15

L. The Rich Young Man - 19:16-22

M. Wealth, Reward and Discipleship - 19:23-30

N. The Generous Landowner - 20:1-16

O. Third Passion Prediction - 20:17-19

P. Requests on Behalf of the Sons of Zebedee - 20:20-28

Q. Two Blind Men Receive Sight - 20:29-34

VI. CONFLICT IN JERUSALEM - 21:1-25:46

A. Jesus' Entry into Jerusalem - 21:1-11

B. Demonstration in the Temple - 21:12-17

C. The Fig Tree - 21:18-22

D. The Authority Question - 21:23-27

E. Parable of the Two Sons - 21:28-32

F. Parable of the Tenants - 21:33-46

G. Parable of the Wedding Feast - 22:1-14

H. Confrontations with the Religious Leaders - 22:15-46

1. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 22:15-22

2. Marriage in the Afterlife - 22:23-33

3. The Greatest Commandment - 22:34-40

4. The Son of David - 22:41-46

I. Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees - 23:1-39

1. Do Not Practice What They Preach - 23:1-12

2. Woes against the Teachers of the Law andthe Pharisees - 23:13-36

3. Lament over Jerusalem - 23:37-39

J. Fifth Discourse: Judgment to Come - 24:1-25:46

1. Introduction - 24:1-3

2. Warnings Not to Be Deceived - 24:4-14

3. The Coming Tribulation in Judea - 24:15-28

4. The Climactic Fall of Jerusalem within "This Generation" - 24:29-35

5. The Coming Judgment of the Son ofMan - 24:36-25:46

a. The Coming Son of Man~ - 24:36-51

b. The Ten Virgins - 25:1-13

c. Parable of the Talents - 25:14-30

d. Judgment of the Son of Man - 25:31-46

VII. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS - 26:1-28:20

A. The Plot to Arrest and Execute Jesus - 26:1-5

B. Anointing in Bethany - 26:6-13

C. Judas' Betrayal - 26:14-16

D. Preparation for Passover - 26:17-19

E. The Last Supper - 26:20-30

F. Jesus Predicts the Disciples' Desertion and Denial - 26:31-35

G. The Gethsemane Prayer - 26:36-46

H. The Arrest of Jesus - 26:47-56

I. The Hearing Before Caiaphas - 26:57-68

J. The Denial of Peter - 26:69-75

K. Transition to the Roman Authorities - 27:1-2

L. The Suicide of Judas - 27:3-10

M. The Trial Before Pilate - 27:11-26

N. Mockery and Abuse of Jesus - 27:27-31

O. The Crucifixion - 27:32-44

P. The Death of Jesus - 27:45-56

Q. The Burial of Jesus - 27:57-61

R. Keeping Jesus in the Tomb - 27:62-66

S. The Empty Tomb - 28:1-7

T. The Appearance of Jesus to the Women - 28:8-10

U. The Bribing of the Guards - 28:11-15

V. The Great Commission - 28:16-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Matthew (Book Introduction)

PREFACE.

——————

IN presenting to the reader the Second Volume [Matt X to XXI] of this Translation of the great work of Cornelius à Lapide, I desire to mention that it has not been within my purpose to give an equivalent for every word of the original. This ought to have been stated at the commencement of the first volume, and I greatly regret the omission.

The stern exigencies of publication have compelled me to compress the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels within five octavo volumes, when a reproduction of the Latin original, verbatim et literatim , would have probably necessitated seven.

The matter standing thus, I have had to exercise my own judgment as to the character of the necessary omissions and compression. I am perfectly aware that in omitting or compressing anything at all, I expose myself to the full fury of the blasts of unkind, bitter, or unscrupulous criticism; though criticism of this kind has, I am thankful to say, been confined to a single print.

I have no fault whatever to find with the criticism of the R. Catholic Tablet . It was dictated by a thoroughly honest and commendable, but certainly mistaken fear, that I had made omissions for controversial purposes. Of this, I hope I am incapable.

With regard to the other adverse criticism to which I have alluded, I am sorry that I cannot regard it as either just or righteous. One reason is this; the reviewer in question concludes his remarks by saying—"Those who are familiar with Cornelius' work are aware of the terseness and pungency of the author's style. Whether it would be possible to give this in English we cannot say, but the present translators do not appear to have even attempted the task, either in their literal rendering, or in their paraphrased passages, so that much of the sententiousness of the original has evaporated."

It would be almost impossible to single out from the whole range of the history of criticism a more telling example of its frequent utter worthlessness and disregard of a strict adherence to truth. In the first place, with regard to Cornelius himself, those who are best acquainted with him—his greatest lovers and admirers—are aware that if there is one thing more than another which they are disposed to regret, it is his great prolixity, and the inordinate length of his sentences.

Secondly, if the hostile reviewer had examined my translation solely for the purposes of an honest criticism, he could not have helped becoming aware of the fact that there is scarcely a page in which I have not broken up what is a single sentence in the Latin into two, three, and sometimes even more sentences in the English.

Lastly, I need not tell scholars that it would be far more easy and pleasant to myself to translate literally, without any omission whatever, than to have continually to be, as it were, upon the stretch to omit or compress what must be omitted, when very often all seems valuable. I can truly say I have often spent as much time in deliberating what to omit, or how to compress a passage, as would have sufficed to have written a translation of it in full twice over.

About two-thirds of the twenty-first chapter of S. Matthew, the last in this second volume, have been translated without any omission, or compression whatever. A note is appended to the place where this unabridged translation begins. This will enable any one who cares to do so, to compare the abridged portion with the unabridged, and both with the original.

T. W. M.