Matthew · Chapter 16

V. 1. A sign from heaven-Such they imagined Satan could not counterfeit. Mark 8:11; Matthew 12:38.

Verse 1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees] Though a short account of these has been already given in a note on Matthew 3:7, yet, as one more detailed may be judged necessary, I think it proper to introduce it in this place.

The PHARISEES were the most considerable sect among the Jews, for they had not only the scribes, and all the learned men of the law of their party, but they also drew after them the bulk of the people. When this sect arose is uncertain. Josephus, Antiq. lib. v. c. xiii. s. 9, speaks of them as existing about 144 years before the Christian era. They had their appellation of Pharisees, from vrp parash, to separate, and were probably, in their rise, the most holy people among the Jews, having separated themselves from the national corruption, with a design to restore and practice the pure worship of the most High. That they were greatly degenerated in our Lord’s time is sufficiently evident; but still we may learn, from their external purity and exactness, that their principles in the beginning were holy. Our Lord testifies that they had cleansed the outside of the cup and the platter, but within they were full of abomination. They still kept up the outward regulations of the institution, but they had utterly lost its spirit; and hypocrisy was the only substitute now in their power for that spirit of piety which I suppose, and not unreasonably, characterized the origin of this sect.

As to their religious opinions, they still continued to credit the being of a God; they received the five books of Moses, the writings of the prophets, and the hagiographa. The hagiographa or holy writings, from agiov holy, and grafw I write, included the twelve following books-Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. These, among the Jews, occupied a middle place between the law and the prophets, as divinely inspired. The Pharisees believed, in a confused way, in the resurrection, though they received the Pythagorean doctrine of the metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. Those, however, who were notoriously wicked, they consigned, on their death, immediately to hell, without the benefit of transmigration, or the hope of future redemption. They held also the predestinarian doctrine of necessity, and the government of the world by fate; and yet, inconsistently, allowed some degree of liberty to the human will. See Prideaux. The SADDUCEES had their origin and name from one Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, president of the Sanhedrin, and teacher of the law in one of the great divinity schools in Jerusalem, about 264 years before the incarnation.

This Antigonus having often in his lectures informed his scholars, that they should not serve God through expectation of a reward, but through love and filial reverence only, Sadoc inferred from this teaching that there were neither rewards nor punishments after this life, and, by consequence, that there was no resurrection of the dead, nor angel, nor spirit, in the invisible world; and that man is to be rewarded or punished here for the good or evil he does.

They received only the five books of Moses, and rejected all unwritten traditions. From every account we have of this sect, it plainly appears they were a kind of mongrel deists, and professed materialists. See Prideaux, and the authors he quotes, Connex. vol. iii. p. 95, and 471, &c., and see Clarke’s note “Matthew 3:7”.

In Matthew 22:16, we shall meet with a third sect, called HERODIANS, of whom a few words may be spoken here, It is allowed on all hands that these did not exist before the time of Herod the Great, who died only three years after the incarnation of our Lord. What the opinions of these were is not agreed among the learned. Many of the primitive fathers believed that their distinguishing doctrine was, that they held Herod to be the Messiah; but it is not likely that such an opinion could prevail in our Saviour’s time, thirty years after Herod’s death, when not one characteristic of Messiahship had appeared in him during his life. Others suppose that they were Herod’s courtiers, who flattered the passions of their master, and, being endowed with a convenient conscience, changed with the times; but, as Herod was now dead upwards of thirty years, such a sect could not exist in reference to him; and yet all allow that they derived their origin from Herod the Great.

Our Lord says, Mark 8:15, that they had the leaven of Herod, i.e. a bad doctrine, which they received from him. What this was may be easily discovered: 1. Herod subjected himself and his people to the dominion of the Romans, in opposition to that law, Deuteronomy 17:15, Thou shalt not set a king over thee-which is not thy brother, i.e. one out of the twelve tribes. 2. He built temples, sat up images, and joined in heathenish worship, though he professed the Jewish religion; and this was in opposition to all the law and the prophets. From this we may learn that the Herodians were such as, first, held it lawful to transfer the Divine government to a heathen ruler; and, secondly, to conform occasionally to heathenish rites in their religious worship. In short, they appear to have been persons who trimmed between God and the world-who endeavoured to reconcile his service with that of mammon-and who were religious just as far as it tended to secure their secular interests. It is probable that this sect was at last so blended with, that it became lost in, the sect of the Sadducees; for the persons who art called Herodians, Mark 8:15, are styled Sadducees in Matthew 16:6. See Prideaux, Con. vol. iii. p. 516, &c., and Josephus, Antiq. b. xv. c. viii. s. i. and x. s. iii. But it is very likely that the Herodians, mentioned c. xxii. 10, were courtiers or servants of Herod king of Galilee. See the note there.

Show them a sign] These sects, however opposed among themselves, most cordially unite in their opposition to Christ and his truth. That the kingdom of Satan may not fall, all his subjects must fight against the doctrine and maxims of the kingdom of Christ.

Tempting-him] Feigning a desire to have his doctrine fully proved to them, that they might credit it, and become his disciples; but having no other design than to betray and ruin him.

Verse 1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came — Notwithstanding the difference of their principles, and the alienation of their affections from each other, they now agreed to join in an attempt upon Christ; his doctrine being equally opposed to the errors and vices of both these sects; see the note on Matthew 3:7: tempting, or, trying him, as peirazontev properly signifies; (see note on Matthew 4:1,) that is, making trial, in a crafty and insnaring manner, whether he was able to do what they required: desired a sign from heaven — Such a sign as they insinuated Satan could not counterfeit. They pretended they were willing to be convinced that he was the Messiah, could they see sufficient proofs of it: whereas they had already resisted the clearest evidence of it, and now indeed came with no design or desire of being convinced of his divine mission, but in order that, failing in the proof which they required, he might expose himself to general censure and contempt.

Verse 1. The pharisees also with the sadducees came, soliciting a sign from heaven: Matthew 12:38. This was the second time, and they received the appellation of hypocrites, as professing the highest attainments of oriental literature, and yet blind as to the signs of the times. If they could augur future weather from present appearances of the sky, why not discern the aspects of providence, and study the signs of the times? The weeks of Daniel were coming to a completion. In Herod the sceptre was departed from Judah. Pious men were expecting the Messiah. Multitudes were rushing into the kingdom of God, while on the other hand the crimes of the rulers, and the corruptions of the sanctuary were precipitating the nation to the vortex of destruction, by revolt against the Romans. Like the ancient cloud, those signs were dark on the one side, and bright on the other.

§ 70. — A SIGN AGAIN ASKED, 1-12.

1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees — These two sects were hostile to each other, but could be friends in order to resist the Saviour in concert. On this occasion they repeated the demand for a sign made on more than one occasion. See notes on Matthew 12:38-40.

Tempting… him — Inasmuch as our Lord refused the sign formerly demanded, they now try again the same experiment. If he complies with their demands he will be such a Messiah as they desire. If he does not, they have an argument against him. From heaven — As being less likely to be a magical or juggling performance than a terrestrial miracle. Alford says: “In the Jewish superstition it was held that demons and false gods could give signs on earth, but only the true God from heaven.”

Signs in the skies indeed there were. At his birth was the star. The angels announced from the skies his nativity. The dove from the skies descended upon him. Voices from heaven at different times acknowledged him Son of God. Finally, at his crucifixion darkness at midday and earthquake gave witness to him.

At a later date in Jewish history (about the year 136) a false messiah came and undertook to be just such a messiah as the Jews desired. He called himself Bar Cochevas, or son of a star, from the star prophesied by Balaam. He performed signs by legerdemain, gained thousands of followers, among whom were three of the greatest of rabbis. He raised an insurrection against the Roman government, and terrible slaughters ensued. After one of the most sanguinary wars in history, the rebellion was subdued in the blood of the impostor and his deluded followers.

It is a bloody messiah like this whose sign these Pharisees wished to see appear in the heavens. Miracles of mercy, sermons and parables, forgiveness of sin and reformation of life, were matters for which they had no taste. To have granted their request would have been to concede their notion.

1 The Pharisees require a sign. 6 Jesus warneth 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 foreshoweth his death, 23 reproving Peter for dissuading him from it: 24 and admonishes those that will follow him to bear the cross.

CHAPTER 16. Verse 1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came. — These were not the Pharisees from Jerusalem mentioned in the preceding chapter, but persons of these sects residing in Galilee. Between the Sadducees and Pharisees there were great differences of opinion; but in their enmity to Christ all were united, whether in Jerusalem or in other parts of the country.

And tempting him, desired that he would give them a sign from heaven. — To tempt signifies to put his claims as Messiah to the test. This test, however, was one devised by themselves: and, as in Matthew 12:38, it was to be the exhibition of a sign from heaven; by which they may be supposed to have meant a luminous appearance, or thunder, or the descent of fire, or some other prodigy similar to some of those mentioned in the Old Testament. It is not easy to say what led these Jewish sects to agree, as they appear to have done, in fixing upon a sign in the heavens as a proof of the appearance of Messiah. They have by some been thought to derive this from a literal interpretation of Daniel 7:13, where the “Son of man” is said to “come with the clouds of heaven;” but as he is there represented as coming in this manner that he might appear before the Ancient of days, it is scarcely to be admitted that they could so interpret this of his appearance among MEN; nor is there a portion of prophecy which speaks of any extraordinary appearance in, or sign from heaven, as to be given by Messiah in demonstration of his claims. It is more probable that, as there had been an agreement among the Pharisees, both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, to account for the miracles of Christ, and to destroy their evidence, as proofs of his Divine mission, by attributing them to Satan; so, as they had observed that his extraordinary works were chiefly miracles of healing, and dispensations of mercy which had in view the communication of some practical benefit, that they fixed upon signs of quite a different kind and order, as flaming fires, destructive thunderbolts, &c., as necessary proofs, well knowing that he was not likely to show them at their request, and thus to create a pretence for their own incredulity, and to counteract among the people the impression of his miracles, by disparaging them as not worthy to be compared to signs from heaven. Or this expectation might rest upon their own vain traditions; which is rendered somewhat probable by this, that their late writers speak of such phenomena as among the signs of Messiah. The appearance of an extraordinary rainbow, for instance, is mentioned as one of these indications. — Whatever origin this notion might have, it was not for want of evidence that they continued in unbelief. This is sufficiently proved by their disregarding even signs from heaven. On one occasion there was a sign of this kind so manifest that the people said, “An angel spoke to him;” yet the Pharisees did not believe. There were signs from heaven at the crucifixion; and, by the testimony of the Roman soldiers, on the morning of the resurrection; and, finally, on the day of pentecost; and yet they continued contemptuously to reject the truth. It was therefore the state of their hearts which occasioned that blind and determined unbelief which ultimately caused their ruin. Their obstinate insensibility to the plainest evidence is reproved by what follows. See note on Mark 8:12.

V. 2. Luke 12:54.

Verse 2. When it is evening] There are certain signs of fair and foul weather, which ye are in the constant habit of observing, and which do not fail.-The signs of the times: the doctrine which I preach, and the miracles which I work among you, are as sure signs that the day-spring from on high has visited you for your salvation; but if ye refute to hear, and continue in darkness, the red and gloomy cloud of vindictive justice shall pour out such a storm of wrath upon you as shalt sweep you from the face of the earth.

Verses 2, 3. He answered, When it is evening, &c. — As if he had said, It is evident you ask this out of a desire to cavil rather than to discern the divine will, for in other cases you take up with degrees of evidence far short of those which you here reject: as for instance, you know that a red sky in the evening is a presage of fair weather, and a red and lowering sky in the morning, of foul weather; thus ye can discern the face of the sky, and form from thence very probable conjectures concerning the weather; but can ye not discern the signs of the times — The signs which evidently show that this is the time of the Messiah? The proofs which Jesus was daily giving them by his wonderful works, his holy and beneficent conduct, and heavenly doctrine, of his divine mission, were more than sufficient to establish it; and, had the Pharisees been possessed of any candour at all, or any inclination to know the truth, they could not have been at a loss to judge in this matter, especially, as in ordinary affairs they showed abundance of acuteness. The truth is, as our Lord here signified, their not acknowledging him as the Messiah was neither owing to want of evidence, nor to want of capacity to judge of that evidence; but to their self-confidence and pride, and their carnal and worldly spirit.

2-5. Our Lord, in his answer, endeavours to reveal to these Jews their own gross state of mind. They can appreciate, to be sure, physical and glaring signs in the heavens. But there is a higher moral heavens, in which God hangs out his spiritual tokens, to which they are blind.

V. 3. The signs of the times-The signs which evidently show, that this is the time of the Messiah.

Verse 3. The sky is red and lowering.] The signs of fair and foul weather were observed in a similar manner among the Romans, and indeed among most other people. Many treatises have been written on the subject: thus a poet:-

Cæruleus pluviam denunciant, IGNEUS euros. Sin MACULÆ incipient RUTILO immiscerier IGNI, Omnia tunc pariter VENTO NIMBISQUE videbis Fervere — VIRG. Geor. i. l. 453.

“If fiery red his glowing globe descends, High winds and furious tempests he portends: But if his cheeks are swoll’n with livid blue, He bodes wet weather, by his watery hue If dusky spots are varied on his brow, And streak’d with red a troubled colour show, That sullen mixture shall at once declare, Wind, rain, and storms, and elemental war.” DRYDEN.

Verses 2, 3. He answered, When it is evening, &c. — As if he had said, It is evident you ask this out of a desire to cavil rather than to discern the divine will, for in other cases you take up with degrees of evidence far short of those which you here reject: as for instance, you know that a red sky in the evening is a presage of fair weather, and a red and lowering sky in the morning, of foul weather; thus ye can discern the face of the sky, and form from thence very probable conjectures concerning the weather; but can ye not discern the signs of the times — The signs which evidently show that this is the time of the Messiah? The proofs which Jesus was daily giving them by his wonderful works, his holy and beneficent conduct, and heavenly doctrine, of his divine mission, were more than sufficient to establish it; and, had the Pharisees been possessed of any candour at all, or any inclination to know the truth, they could not have been at a loss to judge in this matter, especially, as in ordinary affairs they showed abundance of acuteness. The truth is, as our Lord here signified, their not acknowledging him as the Messiah was neither owing to want of evidence, nor to want of capacity to judge of that evidence; but to their self-confidence and pride, and their carnal and worldly spirit.

3. Red — The evening and the morning redness betokened opposite things, fair weather and foul. The visible sky has signs they can read. Hypocrites — Who pretend that it is only for want of proper evidence that you do not believe my mission, when one half the sagacity you use in regard to the weather would, with an honest heart, convince you that a greater than Jonah is here. There would be less skepticism if men’s hearts were as pure as the evidences of religion are clear. Signs of the times — The evident approaches of the fulfilment of prophecy, and the tokens that society is going to destruction without a moral reformation, were the sad signs of these times. Were not Daniel’s seventy weeks of years drawing to a close, at which time the Messiah was to appear? Was not the sceptre departing from Judah, at which time their predicted Shiloh was to come? Had not the harbinger of the Messiah appeared and awakened them all with his warnings? Were there no recollections how Herod, alarmed by a sign from the sky, summoned the Sanhedrim to inform him of the place of Messiah’s birth? Was there not a general presentiment prevalent, through the East that the great One was about to appear? Was there not now One who was, by their recorded pedigrees, of the line of David, proving by miracles that he was the Messiah of prophecy? Had they not themselves confessed that his miracles were such as no power less than the highest spiritual agent could perform?

Verse 3. The signs of the times. — By this our Lord doubtless means those strong proofs already given, in the very aspect of public events, of the Messiah being come, but which they utterly disregarded. One of these was the departure of the sceptre from Judah, according to the prediction of Jacob; for Judea was now a Roman province, and what remained of power in Galilee, and the neighbouring districts, to their last race of kings, Herod and his descendants, was fast passing away, and was indeed altogether dependent upon the Romans. Another was the appearance of the forerunner of our Lord, in the person of the Baptist, who had so established the authority of his mission, that “all the people held John to be a prophet;” but, if a prophet of God at all, then his testimony was necessarily true; and he had pointed to Jesus himself as the Christ. To these were to be added the character and conduct of our Lord, which so exactly answered to prophetic description; the fact that a great and extraordinary teacher had appeared among them, learned in the law without being taught in their schools, speaking as never man spoke, refuting all objections, exposing all errors, and instructing all who would follow him, in the purest doctrines, expressed with superhuman eloquence, and confirmed by the greatest miracles, publicly wrought, extending to innumerable cases, conferring the most signal blessings, and filling the country with the most indubitable witnesses of his mission. These were the “signs of the times,” strongly marked by the finger of God; which yet, plain and palpable as they were, the Pharisees and Sadducees disregarded. They could discern the face of the sky, and, by carefully marking the atmospheric phenomena of their climate a matter to which their “wise men” applied themselves with attention, laid down the prognostics of the weather which would follow; but they refused to apply the same carefulness and seriousness to mark “the signs of the times; to consider their character, to inquire what they indicated, and to draw their conclusions as honestly, and as much without prejudice, as in the case of the signs of the weather. They are, therefore, called “hypocrites;” and this part of their conduct proved how truly they were so. — They professed to be in quest of evidence to ascertain whether Messiah had come, and they neglected all that had for years been urged upon them. They could not dispute it, but they rejected it, because they had not some other sign which God in his prophetic word had never promised to give, and which could not, in the nature of things, be more convincing than those already before their eyes. It was not truth, therefore, that they sought; and they were justly charged with hypocrisy for pretending it.

V. 4. A wicked and adulterous generation-Ye would seek no farther sign, did not your wickedness, your love of the world, which is spiritual adultery, blind your understanding.

Verse 4. Wicked and adulterous generation] The Jewish people are represented in the Sacred Writings as married to the Most High; but, like a disloyal wife, forsaking their true husband, and uniting themselves to Satan and sin. Seeketh after a sign, shmeion epizhtei, seeketh sign upon sign, or, still another sign. Our blessed Lord had already wrought miracles sufficient to demonstrate both his Divine mission and his divinity; only one was farther necessary to take away the scandal of his cross and death, to fulfil the Scriptures, and to establish the Christian religion; and that was, his resurrection from the dead, which, he here states, was typified in the case of Jonah.

Verse 4. A wicked and adulterous generation — As if he had said, Ye would seek no further sign, did not your wickedness, and your love of the world, which is spiritual adultery, blind your understanding. There shall no sign be given, but — of the Prophet Jonas — Or the miracle of Christ’s own resurrection, a sign greater than any of those showed by the ancient prophets and messengers of God, and consequently a sign which proved Jesus to be superior unto them all. This sign our Lord had explained on a former occasion. See on Matthew 12:40.

Ver. 4. There shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. The Saviour names this prophet as a striking figure of himself, being a voluntary victim thrown into the sea, raised on the third day, and sent to preach repentance to the gentiles, as Christ sent the gospel to all nations. The resurrection of Christ, the keystone of the church, was the sign of his Divinity, who should gather the nations to himself, and cause the glory of the ritual law to vanish away, being eclipsed and absorbed in the unfading glory of Christ.

4. Sign of the prophet Jonas — Our Lord here briefly refers them to his previous illustration of their request. Briefly, because they doubtless knew its farther exposition as previously given. Departed — Our Lord knew that their temper was now of the hostile and treacherous kind; and as he went to Tyre and Sidon to avoid their treachery in chapter 15, and thence to Decapolis to elude Herod, so now he evades these men by a rapid departure. Indeed, his movements through these two or three chapters are rapid, and distant from the seat of government, as if aware that the eye of the authorities of Herod Antipas was upon him. This debate took place at Magdala or thereabouts. Matthew 15:39. It is implied by the word departed that he left that place and again crossed the lake to the east side; and his next named locality is Bethsaida Julias. Note on verse 13.

Verse 4. A wicked and adulterous generation. — See note on Matthew 12:39.

And he left them, and departed. — As persons wholly incorrigible, he took no farther pains with them, but departed to the vessel in which he had arrived, and passed over to the other side of the lake.

V. 5. Mark 8:14.

Verse 5. Come to the other side] Viz. the coast of Bethsaida, by which our Lord passed, going to Cæsarea, for he was now on his journey thither. See Matthew 16:13, and Mark 8:22, 27.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

5. Disciples were come to the other side — Our Lord had already gone to the other side. He had now passed again from the government of Herod Antipas to that of Herod Philip.

Verse 5. Forgotten to take bread. — For they had no more, says St. Mark, than one loaf in the ship; and had probably been so intent upon our Lord’s discourse, and had embarked so suddenly, as to forget to purchase provision, which was the more necessary, as they landed in an unfrequented place, and had before them a considerable journey toward Cesarea Philippi.

V. 6. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees-That is, of their false doctrine: this is elegantly so called; for it spreads in the soul, or the Church, as leaven does in meal. Luke 12:1.

Verse 6. Beware of the leaven] What the leaven of Pharisees and Sadducees was has been already explained, see Matthew 16:1. Bad doctrines act in the soul as leaven does in meal; they assimulate the whole Spirit to their own nature. A man’s particular creed has a greater influence on his tempers and conduct than most are aware of. Pride, hypocrisy, and worldly-mindedness, which constituted the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, ruin the major part of the world.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

Ver. 6. Beware of the leaven of the pharisees and of the sadducees. To this the evangelist Mark adds, “and of the leaven of Herod:” Mark 8:15. The caution is against their cabala, or traditions, exalted above the law of God; but chiefly against the exterior pomp and parade of devotion, an empty substitute for real piety in the heart. Gibbon may boast of the elegant mythology of the Greeks, and the continental catholic may talk of the splendour of his devotions; but after all God prefers the humblest heart for his abode, before all temples built with hands.

6. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — The disciples doubtless were often exposed to the influence of the conversations of the Pharisees and Sadducees when our Lord was not present. In Matthew 15:12-20, they had evidently come to our Lord under the influence of such a conversation. Our Lord’s refusal to grant a sign at their demand, as well as his departure, gave perhaps an air of victory to these cavillers.

V. 7. They reasoned among themselves-What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us?

Verse 7. They reasoned] For, as Lightfoot observes, the term leaven was very rarely used among the Jews to signify doctrine, and therefore the disciples did not immediately apprehend his meaning. In what a lamentable state of blindness is the human mind? Bodily wants are perceived with the utmost readiness, and a supply is sought with all speed. But the necessities of the soul are rarely discovered, though they are more pressing than those of the body, and the supply of them of infinitely more importance.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

Ver. 7-9. It is because we have taken no bread. The disciples were next admonished for not being more acute in apprehending the Saviour’s figure of speech, that the leaven designated the misguided and unfounded doctrine of the scribes. Do ye not remember the five loaves, and the five thousand? When ministers want a loaf, they should learn to trust in providence, else how can they exhort others to live by faith?

7. Because we have taken no bread — The uneasiness of the disciples at their oversight in not taking bread confused their minds and filled their thoughts, so that they had no expectation of the Lord’s figurative meaning. This is not strange. They have a material bread to take care of; and the allegorical language of our Lord might easily take them unawares. Besides, as there has been very lately a severe contest between the Pharisees and our Lord, who knows what treachery the sellers of bread among the Pharisees may be guilty of? Perhaps our Lord may be warning us against a poison in the leaven.

Verse 7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. — Lightfoot illustrates the meaning by referring to a practice of the Jewish doctors, who frequently forbade their disciples to buy the bread of heathens and Samaritans, which was a partaking of their leaven. This well connects the observation of our Lord with the occasion, although the disciples were perplexed as to his meaning. They could not understand him literally, for they were not likely to buy bread of the opulent Pharisees and Sadducees, nor were they in a place where they could buy it at all, being in a desert; and they did not as yet lay hold of the spiritual meaning of his words. On this account they reasoned among themselves, both as to the supply of their necessities, and what might be the meaning of their Lord’s words. This clearly appears, because our Lord’s reproof relates both to their want of faith as to supplies, and their want of a prompt spiritual discernment.

V. 8. Why reason ye-Why are you troubled about this? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word?

Verse 8. When Jesus perceived, he said] autoiv, unto them, is wanting in BDKLMS, and twenty others; one of the Syriac, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and most of the Itala; also in Origen, Theophylact, and Lucifer Calaritanus. Mill approves of the omission, and Griesbach has left it out of the text.

O ye of little faith] There are degrees in faith, as well as in the other graces of the Spirit. Little faith may be the seed of great faith, and therefore is not to be despised. But many who should be strong in faith have but a small measure of it, because they either give way to sin, or are not careful to improve what God has already given.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

Ver. 7-9. It is because we have taken no bread. The disciples were next admonished for not being more acute in apprehending the Saviour’s figure of speech, that the leaven designated the misguided and unfounded doctrine of the scribes. Do ye not remember the five loaves, and the five thousand? When ministers want a loaf, they should learn to trust in providence, else how can they exhort others to live by faith?

8. O ye of little faith — By the grossness of their mistake our Lord intends to impress the lesson on their minds.

Verses 9. - 10. Do ye not yet understand-the five loaves-neither the seven] See Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 14:14”, &c. How astonishing is it that these men should have any fear of lacking bread, after having seen the two miracles which our blessed Lord alludes to above! Though men quickly perceive their bodily wants, and are querulous enough till they get them supplied, yet they as quickly forget the mercy which they had received; and thus God gets few returns of gratitude for his kindnesses. To make men, therefore, deeply sensible of his favours, he is induced to suffer them often to be in want, and then to supply them in such a way as to prove that their supply has come immediately from the hand of their bountiful Father.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

Ver. 7-9. It is because we have taken no bread. The disciples were next admonished for not being more acute in apprehending the Saviour’s figure of speech, that the leaven designated the misguided and unfounded doctrine of the scribes. Do ye not remember the five loaves, and the five thousand? When ministers want a loaf, they should learn to trust in providence, else how can they exhort others to live by faith?

9. Five thousand — Our Lord reminds them of the miracles of bread to show that his thoughts were not obliged to be resting on natural supplies of bread.

Verses 9. - 10. Do ye not yet understand-the five loaves-neither the seven] See Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 14:14”, &c. How astonishing is it that these men should have any fear of lacking bread, after having seen the two miracles which our blessed Lord alludes to above! Though men quickly perceive their bodily wants, and are querulous enough till they get them supplied, yet they as quickly forget the mercy which they had received; and thus God gets few returns of gratitude for his kindnesses. To make men, therefore, deeply sensible of his favours, he is induced to suffer them often to be in want, and then to supply them in such a way as to prove that their supply has come immediately from the hand of their bountiful Father.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

10. Four thousand — It is plain, from the references in these two verses to the miracles of feeding both the four thousand and the five thousand, that they were intended to be narrated as two independent transactions.

V. 11. How do ye not understand-Beside, do you not understand, that I did not mean bread, by the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

Verse 11. How is it that ye do not understand] We are not deficient in spiritual knowledge, because we have not had sufficient opportunities of acquainting ourselves with God; but because we did not improve the advantages we had. How deep and ruinous must our ignorance be, if God did not give line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little! They now perceived that he warned them against the superstition of the Pharisees, which produced hypocrisy, pride, envy, &c., and the false doctrine of the Sadducees, which denied the existence of a spiritual world, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the providence of God.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

§ 70. — A SIGN AGAIN ASKED, 1-12.

1. The Pharisees also with the Sadducees — These two sects were hostile to each other, but could be friends in order to resist the Saviour in concert. On this occasion they repeated the demand for a sign made on more than one occasion. See notes on Matthew 12:38-40.

Tempting… him — Inasmuch as our Lord refused the sign formerly demanded, they now try again the same experiment. If he complies with their demands he will be such a Messiah as they desire. If he does not, they have an argument against him. From heaven — As being less likely to be a magical or juggling performance than a terrestrial miracle. Alford says: “In the Jewish superstition it was held that demons and false gods could give signs on earth, but only the true God from heaven.”

Signs in the skies indeed there were. At his birth was the star. The angels announced from the skies his nativity. The dove from the skies descended upon him. Voices from heaven at different times acknowledged him Son of God. Finally, at his crucifixion darkness at midday and earthquake gave witness to him.

At a later date in Jewish history (about the year 136) a false messiah came and undertook to be just such a messiah as the Jews desired. He called himself Bar Cochevas, or son of a star, from the star prophesied by Balaam. He performed signs by legerdemain, gained thousands of followers, among whom were three of the greatest of rabbis. He raised an insurrection against the Roman government, and terrible slaughters ensued. After one of the most sanguinary wars in history, the rebellion was subdued in the blood of the impostor and his deluded followers.

It is a bloody messiah like this whose sign these Pharisees wished to see appear in the heavens. Miracles of mercy, sermons and parables, forgiveness of sin and reformation of life, were matters for which they had no taste. To have granted their request would have been to concede their notion.

Verses 5-12. When his disciples were come to the other side — Namely, of the sea of Tiberias, see Mark 8:13; they had forgotten to take bread — They had tarried so long in Dalmanutha, or Magdala, that they had consumed the seven baskets of fragments which they had taken up at the late miracle, recorded Matthew 15:32-39, and had no more than one loaf with them in the ship, Mark 8:14. Then Jesus said, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees — That is, of their false doctrine; elegantly called leaven, for it spreads in the soul, or the church, as leaven does in meal. And they reasoned among themselves — What must we do then for bread, since we have taken no bread with us? Thus the slowness of their understanding showed itself on this occasion, as it had done on many others. “As they had forgotten to take bread, and had often heard the doctors prohibit the use of the leaven of heathen and Samaritans, they thought he forbade them to buy bread from bakers of either sect, lest it might be made with impure leaven, and so they looked on the advice as an indirect reproof of their carelessness.” Which when Jesus perceived — As he knew all the secret workings of their minds; he said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye? — Why are ye troubled about this? Why should your neglecting to bring bread with you make you put such an interpretation upon my words? Am I not able, if need so require, to supply you by a word? Observe, reader, to distrust Christ, and disquiet our own minds, when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be would deliver us from the burden of care, by enabling us to cast it on the Lord, who careth for us. Do ye not understand — After having been so long with me, are ye still ignorant of my power and goodness? neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets, &c. — Certainly you are very stupid, if you have forgotten how that with five loaves I fed five thousand men, who, after being fully satisfied, left a great deal more than the quantity that was at first set before me to divide among them. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand — An instance of a merciful and miraculous supply which happened so lately. How is it that ye do not understand? — How came ye not to know that he, who on those different occasions fed such multitudes with such a little quantity of food, can never be at a loss to provide a meal for twelve? The experience which they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, was a great aggravation of their distrust. Though they had no bread with them, they had Him with them who could provide bread for them. God’s people may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace. As Christ’s disciples well deserved the sharp rebuke which their Master gave them on this occasion, so it had the designed effect; for it brought the disciples to understand that he designed to caution them against the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; the pernicious nature and tendency of which may be learned from many instances taken notice of and condemned by Jesus himself, in the course of his ministry.

12. Doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees — Their rejection of His miracles, their ascription of His mighty power to Satan, and their cavilling demands for a sign from heaven. These principles were very likely to infect the minds of the disciples with scepticism.

Verse 12. But of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. — Leaven is usually the metaphor for evil affections; but here, and in Galatians 5:9, it is used for bad doctrine, which actively diffuses itself, and in the results corrupts and vitiates. St. Mark says, “And the leaven of Herod,” because Herod was a Sadducee, and the head therefore of the Sadducees of Galilee, with whom the conversation had been held.

V. 13. And Jesus coming-There was a large interval of time between what has been related, and what follows. The passages that follow were but a short time before our Lord suffered. Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18.

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

When Jesus came] elqwn de o ihsouv-when Jesus was coming. Not, when Jesus came, or was come, for Mark expressly mentions that it happened en th odw, in the way to Cæsarea Philippi, Mark 8:27, and he is Matthew’s best interpreter.-WAKEFIELD.

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

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

Ver. 13. The coasts of Cesarea Philippi, situate at the fountain-head of the JorDaniel Pheneas was the original name, but Philip having built many houses there, called it after his own name. Philip the evangelist, one of the seven deacons, resided here. Acts 21:8.

Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? By asking the question, our Saviour meant to give the greater distinction to the confession which followed. It is very remarkable, that when our Saviour was about to disclose his Godhead, he calls himself the Son of man, which marks his humanity, that he was the son of Adam, or rather, the second Adam, the promised Seed. The same name was given Ezekiel, when favoured with high revelations, but in a different sense to this title of Christ: for in Christ it signifies the sovereign Judge of heaven and earth, the Father having given him authority to execute judgment, because he is by preëminence the Son of man. John 5:27.

§ 73. — THE ENDOWMENT OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE WITH THE KEYS, 13-19. Our Saviour’s ministry has now drawn to its zenith. He has exhibited his character and laid his lessons before his disciples. He has trained them so that while the rest of the world is in wonder and doubt about him, expressing its various conjectures, they will be ready to confess him clearly and solidly to be the Christ. He has so impressed upon their minds his history and doctrine, that when he shall leave them, under the aid of the pentecostal spirit they will be able to found his kingdom and Church on earth. He now proceeds after solemn prayer to assemble them together and in a formal manner to require the common profession of faith; to lay them as a foundation for his Church, of which himself was the ground; to promise them the victory over the powers of hell; and to give them the apostolic keys by which, endowed with power from on high, they should be able to open and shut the doors of the Church, in such a way as should be ratified in heaven. After that, he dares fully open before them the prospect of his death and sufferings.

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

13. When Jesus came — Jesus was now on the southeastern side of Lake Gennesaret. He moves, on the east side, northward, and at Bethsaida Julias cures a stammerer. (Mark 8:22-26.) Thence he moves up along the banks of the narrowing and rapid Jordan, toward its sources at the northeastern corner of the Holy Land. He passes Lake Merom, a scene of ancient battle, and arrives in the vicinity of Cesarea Philippi, the most northerly point, probably, at which he ever touched.

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

Coasts — Territories. See note on Matthew 2:16.

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

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

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

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

Verse 13. Cesarea Philippi. — This city was situated at the foot of the mountain Paneas, whence flow the springs or source of the river Jordan. It was anciently called Laish and Paneas, and was rebuilt by Philip the tetrarch, who gave it the name of Cesarea, in honor of Tiberius Cesar, and added Philippi from his own name, to distinguish it from Cesarea, a seaport on the Mediterranean, formerly called Strato’s Tower, and magnificently rebuilt by Herod the Great, Philip’s father, and named in honour of Augustus Cesar. The city is destroyed, but the circuit of the walls is still discernible. — A few miserable huts inhabited by Mohammedans stand upon its site.

Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? — This question, as we learn from Mark, was put to the disciples as he was travelling to visit the towns of this district; and from St. Luke we have the farther particulars, that it was when he was alone with them, and had been engaged in prayer. Some, by altering the pointing, resolve this question into two, “Whom do men say that I am? The Son of man?” But, though the ancient MSS. were written without points, and to supply them is the work of criticism, regard must always be paid to the most obvious sense, and to the construction; and as the second question is made to begin without any interrogative particle, as mh, or mhti, usage is violated. Beside, it is clear from the answer that our Lord did not inquire whether the people said that he was the Son of man or Messiah, to which their reply is as indirect an answer as can be conceived: but indefinitely, what were the reports respecting him. The question must, therefore, be taken as one. Our Lord declares himself, as he had often done, to be THE SON OF MAN; and asks, Whom do men, the people in general, say that I am? There is, however, no reason to suppose, with other commentators, that our Lord intended, by calling himself “the Son of man,” to intimate emphatically his low and humble condition. This is the title of Messiah, as given by Daniel, who, by using it, doubtless predicted his incarnation; but it is one which does not necessarily imply humiliation, inasmuch as he is now, though glorified, as much the Son of man as when he sojourned upon earth; that is to say, as truly a human being. Stephen saw THE SON OF MAN standing at the right hand of God. This was the prophetic designation of the Messiah, and as such our Lord had adopted it; and no other reason can indeed be assigned for its use. It is therefore a most unsupported opinion of Macknight, that our Lord had not yet directly declared to his disciples that he was the Messiah. The use of this very title, from the commencement of his ministry, was a declaration of it; beside that all those of his apostles who had been disciples of John the Baptist had left their master and joined Christ, on the ground of the former having borne his testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, of whom he himself was the forerunner. Under this persuasion too, all his other disciples had joined themselves to him. The question then in the text is the same as if he had said, “Whom do men say that I, THE MESSIAH, am? What are the opinions of those who have not acknowledged me under that character?” Lightfoot, indeed, conjectures that Christ inquires what kind of person they thought him to be; since tina, rendered whom, often relates to the quality of the person: but quality here is no farther intended than as it would be involved with the particular character men might judge our Lord to be, as the answer of the disciples sufficiently proves. Some MSS. omit me, which, however, makes no difference in the sense, since Christ is evidently speaking of himself. Griesbach marks it as only doubtful; but, as it has been well observed, it would be less difficult to account for its omission in some MSS. than for its insertion in others.

V. 14. Jeremiah, or one of the prophets-There was at that time a current tradition among the Jews, that either Jeremiah, or some other of the ancient prophets would rise again before the Messiah came.

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

Ver. 14. Some say thou art John the baptist. Both Herod and the scribes believed in the Pythagorean notion of the transmigration of souls from one body to inform another, as is implied in Matthew 14:2. Some say, Elias. He is mentioned first among the old prophets, having been foretold by Malachi as coming to prepare the way of the Lord; for the jews understood not John the baptist, whose ministry resembled that of Elijah. Others say, Jeremias. This singular opinion seems to have been founded on the enlarged and extraordinary commission given to this prophet, as mentioned in Jeremiah 1:10. “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” Many of the rabbins also, from the words of Malachi 4:5, entertained a notion that Enoch and Elijah would reappear in the days of the Messiah. Hence others said that one of the old prophets was risen again. Luke 9:8.

14. Some say — They might have said, Some say thou art the agent of Beelzebub. But none but the few malignant Pharisees said that; and they could not indoctrinate the people with so dark a calumny. On the heart of the masses Jesus had at least left a reverent impression of himself. Jeremias — This prophet was held by the Jews to be the greatest of the prophetic class.

Verse 14. John the Baptist, &c. — From this answer of the disciples it has been contended by some commentators, that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and supposed that the soul of John, or Elijah, or of one of the prophets, had assumed the body of our Lord; forgetting that these opinions of Christ were not those of the Pharisees, who had no views so honourable of our Saviour, but of the people at large, and especially those of Galilee, among whom this doctrine of the Greek and oriental philosophy was not probably heard of. Nor is it at all clear that any of the Jewish sects held this notion of the metempsychosis. The Sadducees, who were materialists, could not entertain it; and all the evidence for the Pharisees having adopted it, is an equivocal passage in Josephus, which appears rather to regard the resurrection of the body at the last day. But the case is determined by other considerations. It appears from chap. 14:2, that Herod had heard it as a common rumour that John had risen from the dead in the person of Jesus; not that his soul had passed into a new body. And with respect to the prophets also mentioned, St. Luke has it, “And others say that one of the old prophets is risen again;” so that whether they thought Jesus to be John, or Elias, or one of the prophets, they conceived of him as one “risen from the dead.” The notion that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead, could only exist in those parts of the country, distant from the scenes of their joint or neighbouring ministrations. This was, however, in a limited district, and John’s public ministry soon terminated after that of Christ commenced. The report, however, shows the great veneration in which John was held, for the popularity of our Lord in Galilee was now very great. As for Elijah, the Jews, taking the prophecy of Malachi literally, expected that illustrious prophet in person; (see note on Matthew 11:14;) and being greatly perplexed as to the mysterious character of our Lord, the solution in which others rested was, that Elias had risen and appeared in him, though under another name. That the Jews expected Jeremiah, rather than any other of the prophets in particular, appears from this passage, although the addition of, or one of the prophets, shows that they were not very confident. Several reasons have been given by commentators for their having fixed upon Jeremiah, but none of them are satisfactory. They are chiefly taken from the rabbinical writings, and are the speculations of later ages, without having sufficient proof that they preserve the sentiments of our Lord’s time on this point, which was indeed less a rabbinical than a popular notion. Here too it is to be noted that our Lord makes no remark upon these various opinions, or he suffers the statement of them by the disciples to pass in silence; the only reason for his asking the question, as to the opinion entertained of him by others, being to give them an occasion of solemnly declaring their own. Hence he subjoins, But whom say ye that I am?

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

15. Whom say ye — Now comes the important question for which the whole occasion is appointed. Observe, the question is put to them all and not to Peter alone. It is, “Whom say YE?” not whom sayest thou? The disciples as an entire body have, thus far, been concerned. As this question is put to them all, of course the answerer, Peter, is simply the spokesman or representative of them all. He is the foreman of the jury, who answers the Judge and pronounces the verdict for all the rest; and he receives an investiture from Christ for them all. See note on Matthew 4:18.

V. 16. Peter-Who was generally the most forward to speak.

Verse 16. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.] Every word here is emphatic-a most concise, and yet comprehensive, confession of faith.

The Christ, or Messiah, points out his divinity, and shows his office; the Son-designates his person: on this account it is that both are joined together so frequently in the new covenant. Of the living God tou qeou, tou zwntov, literally, of God the Living One. The C. Bezæ has for tou zwntov the Living One, tou swzontov, the Saviour, and the Cant. Dei Salvatoris, of God the Saviour.

Living-a character applied to the Supreme Being, not only to distinguish him from the dead idols of paganism, but also to point him out as the source of life, present, spiritual, and eternal. Probably there is an allusion here to the great name hwhy Yeve, or Yehovah, which properly signifies being or existence.

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

Ver. 16. Simon Peter answered and said, thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the grand confession of faith. This is “the pillar and ground of truth; and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16. Similar confessions occur in numerous other places. See Psalm 2:8. Proverbs 30:4. Isaiah 9:6. Matthew 3:17. 17:5. John 1:49. Acts 8:37. It is apparent that this confession was made by all the apostles, as well as by Peter; for when the multitude were offended, and went away because the Lord had said that he came down from heaven, and would give them his flesh to eat, he put the question, “Will ye also go away? Peter answered, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe, and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” John 6:68, 69. St. Matthew having related this conversation in full, the evangelists Luke and Mark merely name it, saying, “Thou art the Christ of God,” the only Mediator and Saviour of men.

On the subject of the deity and humanity of Christ, I would earnestly recommend all young clergymen to read and study bishop Bull’s Latin work, the defence of the Nicene creed, and primitive fathers of the church, with notes by the learned professor Grabe, editor of the Septuaginta. Ed. London, 1721. There they will find christianity in all its glory, and less than that is not christianity.

Among the cloud of testimonies which might here be collected, I will add that only of Dr. Doddridge, the Socinians having claimed him as an Arian in disguise. “Peter said to him in the name of the rest, Lord, we know that thou art the Messiah; and not only the Son of man, but in a proper and incommunicable sense, the Son of the everliving God.” — Sect. 88.

16. Simon Peter answered — As the senior apostle, and so, on the present occasion, the representative of the whole. This supposes a prominence, but not the primacy over the rest.

The Christ — The Messiah. Son not merely of man but of God. The living God is the source of all existence and life.

Verse 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, &c. — On this confession of Peter it may be remarked,

1. That it was made by Peter in the name of the rest of the apostles, for the question was put to them collectively, “Whom say ye that I am?” And the answer is to be taken in the same way.

2. That the confession has two great parts, “Thou art THE CHRIST,” is the first part; and the Messiah, taken alone, might be held without any higher conceptions of his nature than were entertained by the majority of the Jews and their teachers in that day. That the views entertained of the Messiah by the Jews of that age were very various, is not only a natural inference, for ancient truth does not all at once vanish from the minds of a whole people, but is made certain by the different opinions entertained of our Lord during his ministry, by those who either did acknowledge him to be the Christ, or were withheld from doing so, not by their want of conviction, but from the fear of persecution. A few only, such as Nathanael, attached the ancient idea of Divinity to the title Messiah; others seem to have regarded the Messiah as a glorious but middle being between God and men; others an angel, others a supernaturally endowed man. The two latter were the prevalent notions, and these lower conceptions of his character would prevail just as the expectation of the re-establishment of a temporal sovereignty prevailed, or by a gross interpretation of the prophecies was carnalized by the growing worldliness of their minds. From about the time of the birth of our Lord, they appear to have become increasingly uneasy under the Roman power, and the desire to be avenged of it, and rescued from its control, was at length wrought up to passion and infatuation. The progress of this feeling among the Jews, all through the life of our Lord, will account for the constantly diminishing views of Messiah’s character, as compared with the faith of their fathers. For earthly wars, conquests, and cares, a mere man, if endowed with power to command signs from heaven, thunders, hail storms, lightnings, to blast the enemies of Israel, or at most an angel, would by such be naturally thought a Messiah quite adequate to accomplish all they expected, and, in fact, all they desired. THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD is therefore emphatically added, to express Peter’s own view and that of the other disciples of the true nature of him whom they acknowledged to be the Christ; an acknowledgment not now made by them for the first time; for, after he had walked on the water, and had come into the vessel, all the disciples “worshipped him, saying,” in the most emphatic manner, “OF A TRUTH THOU ART THE SON OF GOD.” That confession, indeed, they had made in a moment of great excitement, occasioned by a most impressive display of his Divine power over the elements; but now they make it calmly and deliberately.

3. That the title SON OF GOD is a designation of nature, not of office, like that of THE CHRIST. The latter, indeed, is a noble part of the confession, for it includes all those high offices to which he was ANOINTED by the Holy Ghost, and which are so largely dwelt upon in the prophetic Scriptures; but the title, “Son of God,” is added, and stands in manifest opposition to the phrase, “the Son of man,” in the question of our Lord, which, though a designation of Messiah, is founded altogether upon his real humanity. By this he was declared both to be the Messiah, and truly a man; but was he nothing more? The disciples in the ship, and now Peter in their name, again reply in the affirmative, and call him THE SON OF GOD, the Son of the LIVING GOD, which is the high and distinguishing appellation of Jehovah, in opposition to dead idols. That this title, the Son of God, was given by the disciples with reference to their faith in our Lord’s Divine nature, although as yet the mystery of the Trinity was not so distinctly revealed to them as afterwards, is rendered indubitable by the sense put upon that very phrase by the Jews themselves. Of its universally received import the gospels afford complete evidence, and that both as to the popular sense in which it was understood, and with which, therefore, the disciples could not be unacquainted, and also of the interpretation put upon it by the learned. As to the first, we have this pregnant instance, that when our Lord, amidst an indiscriminate company of hearers, claimed God as his proper Father, the Jews accused him of blasphemy, and took up stones to stone him. And of the second we have evidence in the fact, that he was tried and condemned before the Jewish sanhedrim on a charge of blasphemy, grounded upon this fact, that he professed to be THE SON OF GOD? “Then said they all, Art thou then THE SON OF GOD? And he saith unto them, Ye say that I am;” thereby affirming it. And they said, “What need we any farther witness? for we ourselves have heard out of his own mouth;” and “the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy. Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy, what think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of DEATH.” So fully demonstrated is it, by these two facts alone, that the title, “Son of God,” was considered by the Jews to involve an assumption of the Divine nature, which Jesus himself did not deny; but, by his entire silence as to his having used the term in any lower sense, most forcibly and infallibly confirmed. See note on chap. 26:63.

V. 17. Flesh and blood-That is, thy own reason, or any natural power whatsoever.

Verse 17. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona] Or Simon, son of Jonah; so Bar-jonah should be translated, and so it is rendered by our Lord, John 1:42. Flesh and blood-i.e. MAN;-no human being hath revealed this; and though the text is literal enough, yet every body should know that this is a Hebrew periphrasis for man; and the literal translation of it here, and in Galatians 1:16, has misled thousands, who suppose that flesh and blood signify carnal reason, as it is termed, or the unregenerate principle in man. Is it not evident, from our Lord’s observation, that it requires an express revelation of God in a man’s soul, to give him a saving acquaintance with Jesus Christ; and that not even the miracles of our Lord, wrought before the eyes, will effect this? The darkness must be removed from the heart by the Holy Spirit, before a man can become wise unto salvation.

Verse 17. Jesus answered, Blessed [or happy, as makariov signifies] art thou, Simon Bar-jona, (or the son of Jonas,) namely, in being brought thus firmly to believe and confess this most important truth, on believing and confessing which the present and everlasting salvation of mankind depends. For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee — “Thou hast not learned it by human report, or the unassisted sagacity of thy own mind; but my Father in heaven has discovered it to thee, and wrought in thy soul this cordial assent, in the midst of those various prejudices against it which present circumstances might suggest.” Our Lord proceeds, and promises, (alluding to his surname of Peter, from petra, a rock,) that he should have a principal concern in establishing Christ’s kingdom. Thou art Peter — As if he had said, “Thou art, as thy name signifies, a substantial rock; and as thou hast shown it in this good confession, I assure thee that upon this rock I will build my church. Faith in me as the Son of God shall be its great support, and I will use thee as a glorious instrument in raising it: yea, so immoveable and firm shall its foundation be, and so secure the superstructure, that though earth and hell unite their assaults against it, and death in its most dreadful forms be armed for its destruction; the gates of hell, or the unseen world, shall not finally prevail against it to its ruin: but one generation of Christians shall arise after another, even to the very end of time, to maintain this truth, and to venture their lives and their souls upon it, till at length the whole body of them be redeemed from the power of the grave.” See Doddridge, who further observes, “This is one of those scriptures, the sense of which might be most certainly fixed by the particular tone of voice and gesture with which it was spoken. If our Lord altered his accent, and laid his hand on his breast, it would show that he spoke, not of the person, but of the confession of Peter, (as most Protestant divines have understood it,) and meant to point out himself as the great foundation.” Compare 1 Corinthians 3:10, 11. In confirmation of this sense, it may be observed, that when our Lord says, Upon this rock, he does not make use of the word petrov, as if he referred to Peter himself, but petra, which is an appellative noun, and immediately refers to Peter’s confession. “But if, when our Lord uttered these words, he turned to the other apostles, and pointed to Peter, that would show he meant to intimate the honour he would do him, in making him an eminent support to his church. This is the sense which Grotius, Le Clerc, Dr. Whitby, and L’Enfant defend. But to be a foundation in this sense, was not Peter’s honour alone; his brethren shared with him in it, (see Ephes. 2:20; Revelation 21:14,) as they did also in the power of binding and loosing, Matthew 18:18; John 20:23. — On the whole, how weak the arguments are which the Papists draw from hence, to support the supremacy of Peter in their wild sense of it, is sufficiently shown by Bishop Burnet On the Articles, p. 196; Dr. Barrow On the Creed, sermon twenty-eight; Dr. Patrick in his sermon on this text, and many more not necessary to be named. There seems a reference in this expression to the common custom of building citadels upon a rock.” The gates of hell — As gates and walls were the strength of cities, and as courts of judicature were held in their gates, this phrase properly signifies the power and policy of Satan and his instruments: shall not prevail against it — Not against the church universal, so as to destroy it. And they never did, for there hath been a small remnant in all ages. And they never will, for faithful is he who hath made this promise, and he will certainly fulfil it.

17. Blessed art thou — Highest of blessings, to be the confessor and apostle of the Son of God. Bar-jonah — Son of Jonah. Spoken simply as a matter of solemn emphasis. Flesh and blood — Mere frail humanity, whether of himself or others. Our Lord had already thanked his Father that while he hid these things from the wise and prudent he had revealed them unto babes. See note on Matthew 11:25. No wisdom of man, therefore, but the guidance of God, had made him an apostle and revealed the Messiah to him.

Verse 17. Simon Bar-jona. — The son of Jona, or Jonah, which was the name of his father; these patronymics being in frequent use among the Jews.

Flesh and blood hath not revealed, &c. — Flesh and blood is the Hebrew periphrasis for man; and the meaning of our Lord is, that Peter had not derived this knowledge of Christ from his own sagacity, or from the teaching of man, or from the notions respecting the nature of Messiah current among the Jews, but from the special teaching of THE FATHER, giving him a right understanding of these great truths, and a docile disposition to yield to those demonstrations of them which he had beheld in the works of Christ. Nor is this to be understood exclusively of Peter, but of all the other apostles, whose knowledge of this mystery could only come from the same source, the revelation of the Father; and as Peter was on this account pronounced blessed, so was the benediction pronounced through him upon them all; for as he had answered in the name of the rest, so he receives the blessing as representing the rest.

V. 18. On this rock-Alluding to his name, which signifies a rock, namely, the faith which thou hast now professed;

I will build my Church-But perhaps when our Lord uttered these words, he pointed to himself, in like manner as when he said, Destroy this temple, John 2:19; meaning the temple of his body. And it is certain, that as he is spoken of in Scripture, as the only foundation of the Church, so this is that which the apostles and evangelists laid in their preaching. It is in respect of laying this, that the names of the twelve apostles (not of St. Peter only) were equally inscribed on the twelve foundations of the city of God, Revelation 21:14.

The gates of hell-As gates and walls were the strength of cities, and as courts of judicature were held in their gates, this phrase properly signifies the power and policy of Satan and his instruments.

Shall not prevail against it-Not against the Church universal, so as to destroy it. And they never did. There hath been a small remnant in all ages.

Verse 18. Thou art Peter] This was the same as if he had said, I acknowledge thee for one of my disciples-for this name was given him by our Lord when he first called him to the apostleship. See John 1:42. Peter, petrov, signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and our Lord, whose constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, to point out the solidity of the confession, and the stability of that cause which should be founded on THE CHRIST, the SON of the LIVING GOD. See Clarke’s notes at “Luke 9:62”.

Upon this very rock, epi tauth th petra-this true confession of thine-that I am THE MESSIAH, that am come to reveal and communicate THE LIVING GOD, that the dead, lost world may be saved-upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psalm 118:22, The STONE which the builders rejected is become the HEAD-STONE of the CORNER: and to Isaiah 28:16, Behold I lay a STONE in Zion for a FOUNDATION)-will I build my Church, mon thn ekklhsian, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord’s words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Ephesians 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers,) was built on this living foundation stone: 1 Peter 2:4, 5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, epi tauth th petra, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this. On the meaning of the word Church, see at the conclusion of this chapter.

The gates of hell, pulai adou i. e, the machinations and powers of the invisible world. In ancient times the gates of fortified cities were used to hold councils in, and were usually places of great strength. Our Lord’s expression means, that neither the plots, stratagems, nor strength of Satan and his angels, should ever so far prevail as to destroy the sacred truths in the above confession. Sometimes the gates are taken for the troops which issue out from them: we may firmly believe, that though hell should open her gates, and vomit out her devil and all his angels, to fight against Christ and his saints, ruin and discomfiture must be the consequence on their part; as the arm of the Omnipotent must prevail.

Ver. 18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. These words are a confirmation of Peter’s confession of faith. The reference is to the surname which the Lord gave to Peter, when he was first called to the ministry. John 1:42. “Thou art Simon the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.” The name is just; for Peter abides in the temple of the Lord as a stone remains in the building. In this view, the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the foundation, and the chief corner-stone. Ephes. 2:20, 22. A glorious testimony that Peter was pure in faith, and sincere in piety.

Upon this rock I will build my church. The Vulgate, edited by Leo 10. puts “rock” in the feminine gender; super hanc petram. But how does this agree with Peter in the masculine? In Biblia Magna, the jesuits contend that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, and that the popes of Rome, as his successors, are also the rock of the church. Blasphemy beyond example! If so, the glorious confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, is superseded; the stone which God hath laid in Zion for a foundation, the rock cut out of the mountain without hands, is rejected. Paul is in error to say, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11. Rome once hardened with a million of martyrs lost all shame.

I will build my church. The Hebrew has two words rendered by the LXX promiscuously, Sunagwgh, synagogue, and ekklhsia ecclesia or church; these are lhq cahal, and hd[ edah. Thus we find the congregation of the Lord, the congregation of the people, the princes of the congregation. Exodus 12:6. Numbers 16:3. 20:4. Psalm 22:23. 35:18. 89:6. It is also applied to the assembly of the wicked. Psalm 26:5. In the new testament, the word ekklhsia ecclesia designates an assembly for the worship of God. 1 Corinthians 14:34. The saints. Ephesians 5:17. The house of God. 1 Timothy 3:15. The faithful in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:22. Colossians 1:18.

The Gothic word kirk, and the Greek kuriov kurios are both primitive words, equivalent to the house of the Lord.

And the gates of hell, or hades, shall not prevail against it. The gates of fortified towns were doubly defended with a tower, and possession of the tower was to have the command of the city. The first effort of the powers of darkness to destroy the church was in Judea, as described in Acts 8:4. The second was the violent persecutions of pagan Rome, as referred to in Revelation 12:4. The third struggle was to destroy the church by arianism in the east, followed by the mahommedan scourge, which removed the candlestick out of its place. Revelation 2:5. The fourth effort of the enemy was to gain possession of the church by the idolatries and tyrannies of papal Rome. The fifth was long-continued; for after the old Roman empire was dismembered, the northern nations, under the names of Thyrkenos, Teutones, Thuscos, Thyrsa-Getes, Titanes, Scythas, Gebros, Cumeos, Umbros, Gallos, Germanicos, Francos, Ascanios, Oscos or Scotæ, overran Europe, stormed Rome, marked their route with blood to the rock of Gibraltar, and drove the old Cimbrians to the mountains of Wales. The issues were, that christianity converted and softened the ferocious manners of all those bloody nations. The sixth, and present struggle is, the alliance of atheism and unitarian infidelity; a struggle we have referred to in the war of the Lamb, mentioned in Ezekiel 39. — Is it possible, we ask, for the church to subsist through all the revolutions of empires, with apostasy within, and legions without; is it possible for a church so weak to subsist, and convert her murderers to the faith; unless she had been built on the rock of ages, and defended by an Omnipotent arm?

18. Thou art Peter — With thy renewed apostleship (for it is indeed a new one) I give thee a renewed name. As Peter signifies stone, and as thou and thy fellow-disciples are to be the foundation stones of my new Church, I name thee forever by that symbolical title of Peter, that is, stone. Upon this rock — The material of which thou art composed, as the apostolic foundation stone. In the Syriac language, in which our Lord spoke, the word Peter and this word rock were doubtless the same word. But they were all as truly stones, and made of rock, as he. But as he alone spoke the verbal confession, so to him alone was addressed and belonged the verbal title which commemorated it. Indeed, they are expressly called stones, (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14,) though the word in the original, lithos, is a different without being a less expressive word than Petros.

The expression, this rock upon which I will build my Church, has received very different interpretations from the doctors of the Church in various ages. The first is the construction given by the Church of Rome, and made the basis of the enormous imposture of the papacy. It affirms that the rock is Peter individually, that the commission constituted him supreme apostle, with authority, inherited from him by the bishops of Rome. But —

1. As may be shown, not Peter alone, but each apostle, was a rock and a recipient of the keys, and all were coequal in powers. 2. Were the authority conveyed to Peter alone and personally, it must still be shown that this personal prerogative was among the successional attributes conferred upon him. 3. That Peter was ever bishop of Rome is without historical foundation; and the pretense of a succession from him by the Romish bishop is a fable.

Some have made the word rock designate Christ himself. They hold it to be derogatory to Christ’s dignity for there to be any other foundation stone of his Church than Christ himself. They hold that our Lord said: Thou art Peter, a stone, and upon this rock (pointing perhaps to himself) I will build my Church. But this is inconsistent with the laws of a natural interpretation. Others understand that the confession which Peter made was a rock. Thou art a stone, and upon this rock of truth which thou hast confessed, and upon this faith which thou hast professed, will I build my Church. But Biblical language always holds men, not truths, to be foundation stones. The rock is not the doctrine, nor the confession, but the confessor.

I understand that it is the apostle himself who is the rock; yet not as a man, nor as a private confessor of the Saviour’s Messiahship, nor as Lord of the apostolic twelve, but as a specimen and representative of what all the twelve were. For the Church is said by this same Peter (no doubt in allusion to this celebrated passage) to be built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. It is plain that the question which Peter answered was put to the whole twelve, and that he confessed for the whole twelve, and that the keys which are given in the nineteenth verse were given to the whole, (xviii, 18.) They were all Peters, or stones of the foundation, as well as he; only he, being the front stone of the pile, bore the inscription of the name of Peter, which essentially belonged to all. This image of a rock, as Stanley remarks, may have been suggested by the rock above the town, upon which stood the temple of Cesar Augustus. It is a limestone cliff, some eighty feet high, and from beneath it the streams of the Jordan issue.

Gates — The warlike habits of ancient nations required that all great cities should be girt with massy walls, able to resist the enginery of assault then in use. And as the gates would be special points of attack, they were fortified so as to be specially impregnable. And as through the gates the whole city went in and out, there were always the concourse and the crowd. There men resorted for news, for marketing, and for proclamations. The gates became structures with chambers, in which courts were held, legislation was performed, and negotiations with foreign nations transacted. Hence the word gate became a symbol of power and of empire. The gates of death, the gates of hell, were the powers of death or hell. Hell, here, is in the original Hades. The word properly signifies the invisible state or place of departed spirits, both of the righteous and the wicked. In this sense it is opposed or antithetical to the state of the living. But in a stricter or more usual sense it stands opposed to paradise, and signifies the abode of the departed wicked, for which we have no other English word than hell. The gates of hell are therefore the infernal powers, who from their invisible stronghold manifest their visible hostility. The rock-built Church and the gates of hades are thence two opposing potencies. Shall not prevail — Shall not overpower. The battle may waver long and fearfully, but the rock-built fortress shall finally prove victorious.

Verse 18. And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, &c. — Here, again, the key to our Lord’s meaning is that peculiarity in his teaching which, by the use of beautiful and easily understood enigmas, and by taking terms in a literal and figurative sense in the same sentence, or giving a lower and a higher application of the same term, for the moment involves his meaning in obscurity, only to unveil it in greater force and clearness to attentive minds. In this passage our Lord confirms to Simon the new name of Peter, which had before been given him, instead of his old name Simon Bar-jona. It was not unusual for the Jewish doctors to impose new names upon their disciples; and our Lord, in this instance, had followed the example, having given the name of Cephas to Simon, “which is by interpretation a stone,” at his first calling, John 1:42. That it was not considered improper in a Jew to use a name derived from the Greeks or Latins, is also clear from the example of Saul, who assumed the name of Paul, or Paulus. Peter, Petrov, signifies a stone or rock, and from this signification of his name our Lord declares that he should be a foundation stone upon which he would build his Church: “Thou art Peter,” a stone, and epi tauth th petra, upon this stone, this foundation stone, “will I build my Church.” The Papists take the words to have been addressed to Peter exclusively, and ground upon this famous and oft-controverted passage their notion of the supremacy of Peter and his successors; while many Protestants, in order to rebut this conclusion, contend that the foundation on which the Church was to be built, was either Christ, who is supposed to have pointed to himself with his finger; or the profession of faith which Peter had just made. The latter view was also that of Chrysostom, th petra — toutesti th pistei thv omologiav, “Upon the rock, that is, the faith of his profession.” In favour of this, an argument has been founded by some upon the difference of termination between Petrov and Petra. If the apostle, say they, had himself been the rock, our Lord would not have changed the term to h petra; and it would have been more direct to have said, Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build, &c. But this change of gender is sufficiently explained by the figurative manner in which our Lord must on every scheme of interpretation be supposed to have spoken. After all that has been said, the most natural interpretation of the words is that which refers them to Peter. His name signified a stone, and our Lord, taking the term figuratively in his usual manner, says, Upon this stone will I build my Church, meaning unquestionably not upon Peter’s person, but upon Peter’s office and ministry, which — as that necessarily includes Peter’s doctrine, for his ministry was to teach that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and the only true object of the trust of men for salvation — brings us, in fact, around to the opinion of those who hold that the true foundation referred to is Peter’s profession of faith. No ill consequence can therefore result from allowing that Peter was intended as the foundation on which the Church was to be built, when that necessary distinction is made, that Peter is not spoken of as a man, but as an apostle, whose sole office it was to bring men to trust in Christ alone for salvation; for from hence it follows that the doctrine he taught was the true foundation of the Church. But here again it is to be observed that although Peter is addressed; it is still as before, not exclusively, but as the representative of the rest of the apostles. They had all joined in the same confession: they had all been taught of the Father, not by flesh and blood; they had all been pronounced blessed in the blessing pronounced upon Peter; and now Peter’s name is enigmatically made use of to show that they were all, collectively, in their office and doctrine, to be the foundation of the Christian Church; and thus this passage is in entire harmony with that of St. Paul: “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:” where we see no distinction made among the apostles, but all are represented as constituting the foundation of a building the chief corner stone of which is Christ. It corresponds also with the representation of the city or Church of God, the new Jerusalem, which had twelve foundations, bearing “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Peter stands foremost on several occasions in the history of the gospels, and he was chosen, notwithstanding his foul offence, the denial of his Master, to preach the first evangelical sermon to the Jews, and to be the first also to open the gate of faith to the Gentiles: but the notion of his supremacy over the other apostles is a pure fiction: no shadow of evidence appears in the history of the New Testament in favour of it; nay, on the contrary, he was “withstood,” by St. Paul, “to the face,” in a matter of indecision, for which that apostle declares “he was to be blamed.” St. Paul, therefore, allowed him neither infallibility nor supremacy.

My Church. — The Church of Christ is the assembly of true believers. The word itself, ekklhsia, signifies a public assembly; but, in a religious sense, an assembly collected for the public confession and worship of Christ, united in affection as brethren, and pledged to walk by the rules of their Divine Master. Every society of true Christians is a Church, for such particular societies are so denominated in the New Testament; but the body of the faithful throughout the world constitutes THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, and it is in this general sense that the term is here used. It is not the Church of Jerusalem, nor the Church of Rome, nor the Church of Antioch, or of any other place, nor any body of Christians distinguished from others by some external peculiarity; but all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in every place. This Church is here and in other places compared to a building, “a spiritual house,” “a temple,” because it is established for spiritual ends, and for holy services; and its members are called “living stones” in the building, not merely as they are living men; but as persons quickened into spiritual life, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And the gates of hell, &c. — Aidhv, rendered hell in our translation, does not necessarily mean the place of the punishment of the wicked, but generally the world of the dead, the unseen world, from a privative and eidw, to see. It is the vast receptacle of disembodied human spirits until the resurrection, having two regions, one of the blessed, or, as the Hebrews called it, paradise; the other, the abyss or gehenna, the place where the wicked are collected, and are in a state of misery. This lower region is also the abode of evil spirits or devils, though not rigidly so, since they are permitted to have access to our world; while paradise is inhabited not only by the departed faithful, but by the angels of God. Figuratively, this region of the dead, and particularly with reference to them, is said to have gates, the keys of which are in the hands of Christ, so that “he opens and no man shuts, and shuts and no man opens;” by which we are to understand his absolute power over life and death, and that his dominion extends not only over earth, but into the world of spirits, and is absolute over all the beings which it contains, — angels, devils, and men. The promise, that the gates of hades shall not prevail against the Church has been differently understood by interpreters. Since hades is the place of the spirits of the dead, the gates of hades have been understood to mean death. Thus Isaiah 38:10, “I shall go to the gates of the grave, en pulaiv adou, meaning I shall die. And Wisdom 16:13,” Thou leadest to the gates of hades, eiv pulav adou, and bringest up again.” The import of the promise is therefore taken to be, My Church shall endure for ever; death shall not so prevail against it that it shall ever become extinct, but it shall continue from generation to generation to the end of time. But though this be an important and encouraging sense, it does not well comport with the imagery of the text. The idea suggested by the Church being built upon massive foundation stones, intimates its power to resist assaults of war, like the strong fortresses of antiquity, built upon the strongest sites; and the word katiscuw, used in the text, indicates the application of violent force, as of an assault of enemies to vanquish and subdue; a metaphor which cannot well be applied to express the slow and silent wastes of death. We must therefore look for another interpretation, and this is intimated to us by other scriptures. In the book of Revelation hades is represented as a region under the government of death as its sovereign: this is one instance of striking personification applied to this subject. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the devil is represented as a sovereign who has “the power of death,” whose dominion our Lord was “to abolish.” This is an instance in which we see Satan brought into immediate collocation with the ravages of death, and the state of separate spirits. By hades we may therefore understand that region which is not only the receptacle of the wicked dead, but the abode of the devil and his angels, who are represented as having dominion there, and who issue from this ABYSS to carry on their ravages among men, to oppose the life-giving and saving doctrine of Christ, and to disturb and destroy the Church, which is the shelter of souls from their malice and wiles. Now, as the strongly fortified GATES of cities were anciently the places, not only where the sovereign and his chief men, the elders, sat to give judgment, but also to hold their councils and arrange their plans of peace or war; by a metaphor easily understood, our Lord promises that all the counsels of Satan against the Church, and the wars he may wage by his agents to overthrow it, shall never so prevail against it as to vanquish and subdue it. Such has been the glorious fact; the Church still survives the conflicts of centuries; it still lives and flourishes, in spite of persecutions and corruptions: from its lowest depressions it has risen with renovated vigour; and it is again seen carrying on offensive and successful warfare against the kingdom of darkness throughout the world. To this day the fulfilment of this prophetic promise gives clear and powerful evidence to the truth of the Gospel. These words of our Lord also secure to us the continuance of the Church, not of any particular Church, but of the Church universal; the world shall never be without true believers, openly confessing Christ and maintaining the institutions of his religion; for authv is more naturally taken to refer to the ekklhsian, and not to the foundation stone, because the former is the nearest antecedent; but in either way the sense is the same, for the foundation would only be declared perpetual with reference to the edifice which it is in all ages to sustain.

V. 19. I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven-Indeed not to him alone, (for they were equally given to all the apostles at the same time, John 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, Acts 1:15. And he first by preaching opened the kingdom of heaven, both to the Jews, Acts 2:14 &c., and to the Gentiles, Acts 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. Matthew 18:18.

Verse 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, Acts 2:41; and to the Gentiles, Acts 10:44-47; 11:1; 15:7.

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. Lev. fol. 26; and see Lightfoot and Schoettgen. These words will receive considerable light from Leviticus 13:3, 23: The priest shall look upon him (the leper) and pronounce him unclean. Hebrew wta amcw vetime otho, he shall pollute him, i.e. shall declare him polluted, from the evidences mentioned before. And in Leviticus 13:23: The priest shall pronounce him clean, הכהנ wrhcw 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, &c., 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, rtwmw rwsa 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, Matthew 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; Acts 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 Saviour, John 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, &c.”

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.

Verse 19. I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven — This expression is metaphorical. As stewards of great families, especially of the royal household, bore a key or keys in token of their office, the phrase of giving a person the keys naturally grew into use, as an expression significative of raising him to great authority and power. See note on Isaiah 22:22. The meaning of the promise here is, that Christ would give Peter, (but not to him alone, for similar promises are made to all the apostles,) power to open the gospel dispensation, (which he did, both to Jews and Gentiles; see Acts 3:14; 10:34; being the first who preached the gospel to them;) and to declare authoritatively the laws thereof, and the terms of salvation, as also to exercise discipline in the Christian Church, namely, to refuse admission into it to all those who did not comply with those terms, and to exclude from it all such as should violate those laws. According to this sense of the words, the power of binding and loosing, added to the power of the keys, may be considered as partly explicatory thereof. “It can be no objection,” says Dr. Macknight, “against this interpretation, that it connects the idea of binding and loosing with that of the keys, contrary to the exact propriety of the two metaphors; for all who have studied the Scriptures know, that in many passages the ideas and expressions are accommodated to the subject matter, rather than to the precedent metaphor.” In further proof that the power of binding and loosing, now conferred on Peter, and afterward on all the apostles, chap. 18:18, included a power of declaring the laws of the gospel and the terms of salvation, as well as all those acts of discipline which Peter and his brethren performed as apostles, it may be observed, that “in the Jewish language, to bind and loose were words made use of by the doctors, to signify the unlawfulness or lawfulness of things, as Seldon, Buxtorf, and Lightfoot have proved. Wherefore our Lord’s meaning, at least in part, was, Whatever things thou shalt bind up from men, or declare to be forbidden to them, on earth, shall be forbidden by Heaven; and whatever things thou shalt loose to men, or permit to be done, shall be lawful and obligatory in the esteem of Heaven. Accordingly the gender made use of in both passages agrees to this interpretation.” There are some, however, who by the power of binding and loosing understand the power of actually remitting and retaining men’s sins; and in support of their opinion they quote John 20:22. But it may be justly doubted whether our Lord ever bestowed on his apostles, or any other of his ministers, any other power of remitting or retaining men’s sins, than, 1st, the power of declaring with authority the Christian terms of pardon, that is, whose sins are remitted and whose are retained; as is done in the form of absolution contained in the Liturgy: and, 2d, a power of inflicting and remitting ecclesiastical censures, that is, of excluding from and readmitting into a Christian congregation; together with a particular power of remitting and retaining, in certain instances, the temporal punishment of men’s sins, which it is evident from some passages of the Acts and the Epistles, the apostles occasionally exercised. “This high power of declaring the terms of salvation and precepts of the gospel, the apostles did not enjoy in its full extent till the memorable day of pentecost, when they received the Holy Ghost in the plenitude of his gifts. After this their decisions, in points of doctrine and duty, being all given by inspiration, were infallible definitions, and ratified in heaven. Here then was an immense honour conferred on the apostles, and what must yield great consolation to the pious. There is nothing doubtful in the gospel, much less false: but we may safely rest the salvation of our souls on the discoveries there made to us, since they have all come originally from God.”

Ver. 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter’s keys were all reality. With one key he principally opened the door to the circumcision on the day of pentecost; and with the others, he opened the door to the gentiles in the house of Cornelius. Acts 10. And as to the remission of sins, that in the absolute sense belongs to Him alone who reads the heart. But he can commission his servants to preach remission of sins, and to tell Zion that her iniquity is pardoned. Ministers have plenary powers to apply promises to penitents, and afflicted believers; yea, to all sincere souls according to the light they have, and God can realize all those promises by the comforts of the Holy Ghost. Yea, ministers, consulting the elders of the church, have power to bind and loose, to receive and expel members; and what is worthily done on earth will be confirmed in heaven. But at the same time, the other apostles here believed as well as Peter; and Christ gave them all the same power to bind and loose, as in Matthew 18:18. St. Paul had the keys to open a larger door to the gentiles in Europe, than St. Peter ever did in Asia. All the apostles had power to bind men with the yoke of Christ, and to loose them from the yoke of the ceremonial law.

19. Keys — The Church is as a fortress, or rather temple, built upon these twelve stones; and the temple has keys. The authority over the whole is conferred upon Peter, and through him on all the apostles, by bestowing upon him and them the keys. This is according to an ancient custom of surrendering the government of a city or fortress by yielding the keys. The ancient Oriental key usually bore not much resemblance to the artistic little metallic instrument which we mean by the word, and which Italian painters pictured in Peter’s hands. It was a wooden apparatus, which would heavily lade a man’s arm. Hence the language in Isaiah 22:22, which is a suitable parallel to these words of our Lord: “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. Bind… loose — These words, perhaps, carry out the image of the keys. Doors and gates were in ancient times often fastened by tying instead of locking. Our Lord therefore here confers upon the twelve an inspired and miraculous authority and power to found and to govern his Church after his resurrection, by decisions which should be ratified in heaven. Yet the rabbins used the words binding and loosing, to signify affirming or denying a point of the law. There is no proof whatever that this miraculous power of these twelve apostles ever descended to any successors. As ministers and preachers they have many successors; as apostles, none. Such was the inauguration of his apostolic college by our Saviour preparatory to his departure from the world. Having found them rocks in faith, he makes them foundation rocks of his kingdom. He is now prepared to open a new chapter of his own history. He is not to be a conquering Messiah, as even yet they may be imagining, but a suffering Messiah! He has given them a kingdom, but he is now himself to die.

§ 74. — Predictions Of His Own Sufferings And Ultimate Coming To Judge The World, 20-28.

Verse 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c. — Some who apply these words to Peter exclusively, understand by the gift of the keys the honour assigned to Peter to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the perfected evangelical dispensation, to the Jews at the day of pentecost, and then afterward to the Gentiles, when he went down to Cornelius at Cesarea. Others, as the Papists, understand by the phrase the committal of a special authority to Peter over the Church of Christ, of which it is certain that we have no evidence or illustration in the New Testament. The emblem of the keys was a familiar one to the apostles, if the later Jewish writers have correctly described the ancient ceremony of constituting a rabbi or doctor of the law; for according to them the person admitted to this office had a key given to him as an emblem both of his ability and duty to OPEN THE MEANING of the law, which key he wore as a badge of his office. Still, without any reference to this custom, supposing it as old as our Lord’s day, the figure very naturally expresses the opening of “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” BY PUBLIC TEACHING, and so setting open the doors of evangelical knowledge, and, by consequence, of the Christian Church. — This is a much more natural exposition of the emblem in this connection, than that which regards it as significant of the committal of power and authority to govern the Church; and is indeed pointed out with great clearness to be its meaning, by what follows as to the power of binding and loosing, which must be taken as exegetical of the power of the keys. These expressions are manifestly Jewish, and may therefore be satisfactorily explained by reference to this mode of speaking. With the Jews to bind and loose was a usual phrase for declaring what was lawful or unlawful; what was BINDING upon men’s consciences; and that from the obligation of which they were LOOSED or free. Lightfoot, Schoetgenius, and others, have produced a great number of examples from the rabbinical writings; one or two instances will suffice. “He asked one wise man, and he bound; do not ask another, lest perhaps he loose.” “The school of Shammai binds it; the school of Hillel looseth it.” “Get thyself a heart to hear the words of them that pronounce unclean, and the words of them that pronounce clean; the words of them that bind, and the words of them that loose; the words of them that reject, and the words of them that declare it right.” Under these terms, therefore, our Lord gave his disciples authority to declare the laws of the Gospel dispensation under the guidance of his own teaching and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; which authoritative declaration of the terms of man’s forgiveness, and how Christians ought to walk so as to secure the approbation of God, and that infliction of the Divine displeasure which should follow disobedience, he promises should be confirmed in heaven; as constituting his own law and rule of moral government to be laid down by them, first in their preaching and then in their writings. — It is this which distinguishes those writings from all others. They not only contain a revelation of truth from God, but they have an authority as LAW derived from this, — that God himself acts upon them. Whatever the apostles have in those writings BOUND is a matter of conscience: it must be obeyed, not of choice merely, but necessity, since our salvation depends upon it; but whatever they have not bound is LOOSE to us: we are free from it, and no lower authority can make it binding upon the conscience, or connect with our disregard of it the penalty of the Divine displeasure. But that this promise looked to that future time when they should be fully qualified for this great office, is evident from what took place after Christ’s resurrection, when the same power, under a somewhat different form, but of precisely the same import, was ratified. After breathing upon them, he said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” To qualify them for this authoritative declaration of what was obligatory upon men or otherwise, and of the terms upon which sins are remitted, and the circumstances under which they are retained, they previously received the Holy Ghost; a sufficient proof that this power was connected with the plenary inspiration of the apostles, and beyond them it cannot extend. The manner, also, in which the apostles exercised this power elucidates the subject, which has been greatly abused in the Romish and some other Churches. We have no instance of their forgiving the sins of any individual by virtue of any authority deposited with them, much less did they affect to transmit this power to their successors. — They merely proclaimed and laid down the terms of pardon under the authority of Christ. And we have no instance of their “retaining the sins” of any one, except by declaring the offender condemned by the laws of the Gospel, of which they were the teachers. — They authoritatively explain in their writings the terms of forgiveness; and, as to duty, they state what is obligatory, or not obligatory, upon Christians; they pronounce sinners of various kinds to be under God’s wrath, and they declare certain apostates to be put beyond forgiveness, but by their unbelief and blasphemies, and not by apostolic excommunication; and thus they bound or loosed, remitted sins or retained them. It is also to be remarked, as on the preceding verses, that whatever this power was, it was not given exclusively to Peter. Still he stands before the Lord as the representative of the rest of the apostles, and receives nothing but what they all received; and hence, in chapter 18:18, our Lord says to them collectively, and in the plural form of address, “Whatsoever YE shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever YE shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” God will act upon your inspired decisions.

V. 20. Then charged he his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ-Jesus himself had not said it expressly even to his apostles, but left them tb infer it from his doctrine and miracles. Neither was it proper the apostles should say this openly, before that grand proof of it, his resurrection. If they had, they who believed them would the more earnestly have sought to take and make him a king: and they who did not believe them would the snore vehemently have rejected and opposed such a Messiah.

Verse 20. Then charged he his disciples] diesteilato, he strictly charged them. Some very good MSS. have epetimhsen, he severely charged-comminatus est,-he threatened. These are the readings of the Cod. Bezæ, both in the Greek and Latin.

The Christ.] The common text has Jesus the Christ; but the word Jesus is omitted by fifty-four MSS., some of which are not only of the greatest authority, but also of the greatest antiquity. It is omitted also by the Syriac, later Persic, later Arabic, Slavonic, six copies of the Itala, and several of the fathers. The most eminent critics approve of this omission, and Griesbach has left it out of the text in both his editions. I believe the insertion of it here to be wholly superfluous and improper; for the question is, Who is this Jesus? Peter answers, He is, o cristov, the Messiah. The word Jesus is obviously improper. What our Lord says here refers to Peter’s testimony in Matthew 16:16: Thou art the Christ-Jesus here says, Tell no man that I am the Christ, i.e. the MESSIAH; as the time for his full manifestation was not yet come; and he was not willing to provoke the Jewish malice, or the Roman envy, by permitting his disciples to announce him as the Saviour of a lost world. He chose rather to wait, till his resurrection and ascension had set this truth in the clearest light, and beyond the power of successful contradiction.

Verse 20. Then charged he his disciples — Greek, diesteilato, he strictly charged them: (Luke says, epitimhsav autoiv, parhggeile, having severely charged, or charged with threats, he commanded to tell this to no one:) that he was Jesus the Christ — The word Jesus is omitted here in many MSS., some of which are of great authority and great antiquity, and in several ancient versions, and the omission is approved of by some eminent critics. Certainly the insertion of it is superfluous, and apparently improper: for the context shows, that what our Lord forbade them to tell was simply that he was the Christ, that is, the Messiah, or, as Luke expresses it, the Christ of God. This truth, however important to be known and believed, the disciples were not to announce to the people till the grand proof of it was given, namely, his resurrection. Then they were by office to be his witnesses, and to declare openly and publicly that he was the Christ, because then they could do it, not only without suspicion of confederacy, but with greater advantage and better success, as Christ would then be no longer subject to those humbling circumstances and sufferings, and that death, which could not fail to be a great obstruction to men’s receiving him as the Messiah, as well as a great stumbling-block in the way of his disciples, but would have taken possession of his kingdom, and given evidence of it, by sending down upon his followers the Holy Ghost, in his extraordinary gifts and operations, to enable them to confirm this testimony. Whereas, had his own disciples publicly declared him to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews, and the Son of God, while he was on earth, as this would have looked like a confederacy between them and their Master, so, on the one hand, it would have encouraged the attempt of a part of the Jews to come and take him by force to make him a king, John 6:15, and, on the other, would have provoked both the Jewish rulers and the Roman government. “Certainly,” says Mr. Locke, “the Romans would not have suffered him, if he had gone about preaching that he was the king whom the Jews expected; and such an accusation would have been forwardly brought against him by the Jews, if they could have heard it out of his own mouth, and if that had been his public doctrine to his followers, which was openly preached by his apostles after his death. For though the magistrates of this world paid no great regard to the talk of a king who had suffered death, and appeared no longer anywhere; yet if our Lord had openly declared this of himself in his lifetime, with a train of disciples and followers, everywhere owning and crying him up for their king, the Roman governors of Judea could not have forborne to take notice of it, and to make use of their force against it. The Jews well understood this, and therefore they made use of it, as the strongest accusation, and likeliest to prevail with Pilate against him for the taking away his life, it being treason, and an unpardonable offence, which could not escape death from a Roman deputy, without the forfeiture of his own life.”

Ver. 20. Tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. See on Matthew 17:9.

20. Tell no man… the Christ — At this difficult juncture none but himself could properly preach the Messiahship. See note on Matthew 17:9.

Verse 20. That they should tell no man, that he was Jesus the Christ. — Many Greek MSS. and several versions omit in this clause the name Jesus, which indeed appears superfluous, and under this impression might be omitted by some transcribers; it may, nevertheless, be emphatic. The apostles were here strictly prohibited from telling, or openly proclaiming, their faith in his high character, not merely as the Christ; but, as St. Luke has it, “the Christ of God;” which appears to be but an elliptical mode of stating the whole confession they had just made, that he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The sense appears to be, not that they were inhibited from generally expressing their faith in him as the Messiah, though that they were not to do officiously, and rather by their conduct as following him under that character as his disciples; but that they were not openly to declare their belief that he was “the Christ of God,” Christ, under those high conceptions of his nature which they had received from the teaching of the Father. The reason appears to be, not fear of the Romans, as stated by some, lest they should connect the confession of his Messiahship with the intention of making him king; but more probably, either because they were not as yet qualified to defend those deep doctrines which were involved in these views of his character; or, more especially, because he, as yet, reserved it wholly to himself, in the difficult circumstances in which he was placed, to explain who he was at the most fitting times and seasons, and to confirm every claim as he should advance it, both by his arguments of superhuman wisdom, and his miraculous works. This reason for the prohibition is free from the difficulty which the usual interpretation suggests. For why, it may be asked, should the apostles at that period of Christ’s ministry, have been restrained from telling any man simply, that they believed him to be the Messiah, when they openly followed him as such, and when he himself, in no mysterious manner, had so often intimated the same thing, and grounded his whole ministry upon it? But around the character of the Messiah himself, a great obscurity hung in the minds of the Jews, and with great mystery our Lord had generally chosen to invest his own. The apostles who had been now so long “with him,” had glanced within this veil, and been favoured with special manifestations of his concealed glory; but even they were yet “weak in faith,” and of obscure understanding in what “the prophets had spoken.” The faith they had was not as yet, therefore, to be openly proclaimed: it was their office yet to abide with their Master to learn, and his exclusively to teach. See the note on Mark 3:12.

V. 21. From that time Jesus began to tell his disciples, that he must suffer many things-Perhaps this expression, began, always implied his entering on a set and solemn discourse. Hitherto he had mainly taught them only one point, That he was the Christ. From this time he taught them another, That Christ must through sufferings and death enter into his glory. From the elders-The most honourable and experienced men; the chief priests-Accounted the most religious;

and the scribes-The most learned body of men in the nation. Would not one have expected, that these should have been the very first to receive him? But not many wise, not many noble were called.

Favour thyself-The advice of the world, the flesh, and the devil, to every one of our Lord's followers. Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22.

Verse 21. From that time forth began Jesus, &c.] Before this time our Lord had only spoken of his death in a vague and obscure manner, see Matthew 12:40, because he would not afflict his disciples with this matter sooner than necessity required; but now, as the time of his crucifixion drew nigh, he spoke of his sufferings and death in the most express and clear terms. Three sorts of persons, our Lord intimates, should be the cause of his death and passion: the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes. Pious Quesnel takes occasion to observe from this, that Christ is generally persecuted by these three descriptions of men: rich men, who have their portion in this life; ambitious and covetous ecclesiastics, who seek their portion in this life; and conceited scholars, who set up their wisdom against the wisdom of God, being more intent on criticising words than in providing for the salvation of their souls. The spirit of Christianity always enables a man to bear the ills of life with patience; to receive death with joy; and to expect, by faith, the resurrection of the body, and the life of the world to come.

Verse 21. From that time forth — When they had made that full confession of Christ that he was the Messiah, the Son of God; began Jesus to show unto his disciples — Another most important point, namely, that he must suffer and be put to death, as a malefactor. If they had not been well grounded in their belief of Christ’s being the Son of God, it would have been a great shock to their faith to be informed that he must suffer and die. Some hints, indeed, our Lord had already given of his sufferings, as when he said, Destroy this temple, and spoke of the Son of man being lifted up, and of eating his flesh and drinking his blood; but hitherto he had not spoken plainly and expressly of the subject, because the disciples were weak, and could not have borne the notice of a thing so very strange and so very melancholy. But now, as they were more advanced in knowledge and stronger in faith, he began to reveal this to them: for he declares his mind to his people gradually, and lets in light as they can bear it, and are prepared to receive it. How that he must go unto Jerusalem — The holy city, the royal city, and suffer there. Though he had lived most of his time in Galilee, he must die at Jerusalem; there all the sacrifices were offered; and there, therefore, He must die who was to be the great sacrifice. Thither he was to go within the short space of a few months, this declaration being made in the last year of his life: and instead of being owned, under the royal character he bore, and submitted to by the princes and people, must suffer many things from the elders — The most honourable and experienced men; from the chief priests — Accounted the most religious, and the scribes — The most learned body of men in the nation. These made up the great sanhedrim, which sat at Jerusalem, and was had in veneration by the people: and these one would have expected to have been the very first to receive him. But instead of this, they were the most bitter in persecuting him! Strange, indeed, that men of knowledge in the Scriptures, who professed to expect the Messiah’s coming, and sustained a sacred character, should use him with such contumely and cruelty when he came! It was the Roman power, indeed, that condemned and crucified Christ; but the principal share of the guilt of the whole business lies at the door of the chief priests and scribes, who were the first and principal movers in it. From them he suffered many things, things which manifested their insatiable malice, and his invincible patience, and in the issue was killed: for nothing short of his death would either satisfy the malice of his enemies, or render him a proper sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Our Lord, however, while he brought to his disciples these melancholy tidings, added, for their support and encouragement under this gloomy prospect, that in the third day he should be raised again. And thus, as all the prophets had done, when he testified beforehand his sufferings, he bore witness likewise to the glory that should follow, 1 Peter 1:11. His rising again the third day proved him to be the Son of God, notwithstanding his sufferings, and therefore he mentions it in order that the faith of the disciples might not fail.

21. From that time forth — The Ministry of sorrow now commences. His apostolic rocks are firm enough now to bear the full announcement of those woes which had heretofore been but obscurely intimated. Must go unto Jerusalem — Matthew’s history has, thus far, scarce once found our Lord at Jerusalem. His is almost exclusively a Galilean gospel. But though the Saviour has mostly laboured in Galilee, he must suffer at Jerusalem; and thence the preaching of his name must properly go forth. There is the site of the Old Testament theocracy. There have the sacrifices of the law, and the blood of the Old Testament atonements, shown forth his death for ages. And from there, the royal city of David, must go forth an announcement of the kingdom of the son of David to all the world.

Verse 21. Began Jesus to show unto his disciples. — That is, more particularly and explicitly than before; not in dark sayings or occasional instructions.

Elders, chief priests, and scribes. — These three orders composed the sanhedrim or great council. The elders were the senators, and are to be distinguished from the elders of cities, who were heads of the inferior courts of justice. From the term elders, which included the idea of both rank and age, the council was sometimes called Presbuterion. The chief priests, the heads of the courses of the priests, appear to have been members of the council by virtue of their office, and the scribes were assessors as learned assistants.

Verse 22. Then Peter took him] proslabomenov-took him up-suddenly interrupted him, as it were calling him to order-see Wakefield. Some versions give proslabomenov the sense of calling him aside. The word signifies also to receive in a friendly manner-to embrace; but Mr. Wakefield’s translation agrees better with the scope of the place. A man like Peter, who is of an impetuous spirit, and decides without consideration upon every subject, must of necessity be often in the wrong. Be it far from thee Lord] ilewv soi kurie. Be merciful to thyself Lord: see the margin. {Pity thyself} So I think the original should be rendered. Peter knew that Christ had power sufficient to preserve himself from all the power and malice of the Jews; and wished him to exert that in his own behalf which he had often exorted in the behalf of others. Some critics of great note think the expression elliptical, and that the word qeov, God, is necessarily understood, as if Peter had said, God be merciful to thee! but I think the marginal reading is the sense of the passage. The French, Italian, and Spanish, render it the same way. Blind and ignorant man is ever finding fault with the conduct of God. Human reason cannot comprehend the incarnation of the Almighty’s fellow, (Zechariah 13:7,) nor reconcile the belief of his divinity with his sufferings and death. How many Peters are there now in the world, who are in effect saying, This cannot be done unto thee-thou didst not give thy life for the sin of the world-it would be injustice to cause the innocent to suffer thus for the guilty. But what saith God? His soul shall be made an offering for sin-he shall taste death for every man-the iniquities of us all were laid upon him. Glorious truth! May the God who published it have eternal praises!

Verse 22. Then Peter took him — Proslabomenov auton. What the evangelist meant precisely by this expression, commentators are not agreed. Dr. Doddridge renders it, taking him by the hand; Mr. Wesley, taking hold of him: others again render it, embracing him; and others, interrupting him. Dr. Campbell renders it, taking him aside, a translation which, he observes, evidently suits the meaning of the verb in other places, and is necessary in Acts 18:26, which cannot be interpreted otherwise. And began to rebuke [or reprove] him — So the expression, hrxato epitiman autw, properly signifies. “Some interpreters, indeed, to put the best face on Peter’s conduct on this occasion, render the words thus, Began to expostulate with him. But when the verb, epitiman, relates to any thing past, it always implies a declaration of censure or blame; and if it be thought that this would infer great presumption in Peter, it may be asked, Does not the rebuke which he drew on himself, verse 23, from so mild a Master, evidently infer as much? When we consider the prejudices of the disciples in regard to the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom, we cannot be much surprised that a declaration, such as that in verse 21, totally subversive of all their hopes, should produce, in a warm temper, a great impropriety of behaviour, such as (admitting the ordinary interpretation of the word) Peter was then chargeable with.” Be it far from thee, Lord — Or, ilewv soi seems to be more accurately rendered in the margin, Pity thyself or be merciful to, or favour, thyself — “The advice of the world, the flesh, and the devil,” says Mr. Wesley, “to every one of our Lord’s followers.” The common use of this phrase, however, in the LXX., would lead one to understand it as signifying, absit, God forbid. In this sense, also, it is used in the Apocrypha, thus, 1 Mac. 2:21, ilewv hmin katalipein nomon, God forbid that we should forsake the law. Peter, to whom the power of the keys, or place of high-steward, in the kingdom, as he would understand it, was promised, could not help being very much displeased to hear his Master talk of dying at Jerusalem, immediately after he had been saluted Messiah, and had accepted the title. Therefore he rebuked, or reproved him, as has been just observed.

22. Peter took him — Took him perhaps aside from the apostles for expostulation. Officiously affectionate, he will set our Lord right, and banish this dismal conception of death instead of royalty. Be it far from thee, Lord — Be corrected, dear Lord. We were just talking of a kingdom, and now thou talkest of a cross.

Verse 22. Then Peter took him. — Of the various senses given to proslabomenov, in this passage, some of a rude, and others of a tender and respectful import, the most probable is that of taking by the hand or arm: an action natural to one who would remonstrate with another to whom he was fervently attached.

And began to rebuke him. — The term rebuke, in our translation, appears too strong. The earnest remonstrance of one who, neither on his own account, nor that of his Master, could bear to hear the subject of his sufferings and death, appears all that is indicated; and our Lord’s stern reproof is not directed against the manner of Peter’s address; but against those gross and carnal views of the Messiah’s kingdom and glory which still clung to him, and influenced his judgment and feelings. Be it far from thee. — Ilewv soi, literally, Be merciful to thyself, but a phrase used by the Septuagint for a Hebrew word, which signifies God forbid, or far be it; and is here to be taken not as an entreaty of Peter to Christ, to deliver himself from impending danger by an exertion of his power, but as a passionate exclamation of forbidding or aversion: hence he adds, This shall not be unto thee: it cannot be; it is a thought not to be conceived.

V. 23. Get thee behind me-Out of my sight. It is not improbable, Peter might step before him, to stop him.

Satan-Our Lord is not recorded to have given so sharp a reproof to any other of his apostles on any occasion. He saw it was needful for the pride of Peter's heart, puffed up with the commendation lately given him. Perhaps the term Satan may not barely mean, Thou art my enemy, while thou fanciest thyself most my friend; but also, Thou art acting the very part of Satan, both by endeavouring to hinder the redemption of mankind, and by giving me the most deadly advice that can ever spring from the pit of hell.

Thou savourest not-Dost not relish or desire. We may learn from hence,

1. That whosoever says to us in such a case, Favour thyself, is acting the part of the devil:

2. That the proper answer to such an adviser is, Get thee behind me:

3. That otherwise he will be an offence to us, an occasion of our stumbling, if not falling:

4. That this advice always proceeds from the not relishing the things of God, but the things of men.

Yea, so far is this advice, favour thyself, from being fit for a Christian either to give or take, that if any man will come after Christ, his very first step is to deny, or renounce himself: in the room of his own will, to substitute the will of God, as his one principle of action.

Verse 23. Get thee behind me, Satan] upage opisw mou satana. Get behind me, thou adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word ˆcc Satan, from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly never designed that men should believe he called Peter, DEVIL, because he, through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which he predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes away that harshness which before appeared in our Lord’s words. Thou art an offence unto me] skandalon mou ei Thou art a stumbling-block in my way, to impede me in the accomplishment of the great design.

Thou savourest not] That is, dost not relish, ou froneiv, or, thou dost not understand or discern the things of God-thou art wholly taken up with the vain thought that my kingdom is of this world. He who opposes the doctrine of the atonement is an adversary and offence to Christ, though he be as sincere in his profession as Peter himself was. Let us beware of false friendships. Carnal relatives, when listened to, may prove the ruin of those whom, through their mistaken tenderness, they wish to save. When a man is intent on saving his own soul, his adversaries are often those of his own household.

Verse 23. But he turned and said unto Peter — Mark reads, When he had turned about and looked on his disciples, (who by the air of their countenances, probably, seemed to approve what they had heard Peter say to him,) he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan — That is, out of my sight. “He looked at him,” says Baxter, “with displeasure, and said, I say to thee as I did to the devil when he tempted me, Get thee behind me, for thou doest the work of Satan, the adversary, in tempting me, for self-preservation, to violate my Father’s command, and my undertaking, and to forsake the work of man’s redemption and salvation. As thy counsel savoureth not the things that be of God, (namely, his will, work, and glory,) but the things that be of men, (or the love of the body and this present life,) so it signifies what is in thy heart; take heed lest this carnality prevail.” Our Lord is not recorded to have given so sharp a reproof to any other of his apostles, on any occasion. He saw it was needful for the pride of Peter’s heart, puffed up with the commendation lately given him. Perhaps the term Satan may not barely mean, Thou art my enemy, while thou fanciest thyself most my friend; but also, Thou art acting the very part of Satan, both by endeavouring to hinder the redemption of mankind, and by giving me the most deadly advice that can ever spring from the pit of hell. Thou savourest not — Dost not relish or desire. We may learn from hence, 1st, that whosoever says to us in such a case, Favour thyself is acting the part of the devil: 2d, that the proper answer to such an adviser is, Get thee behind me: 3d, that otherwise he will be an offence to us, an occasion of our stumbling, if not falling: 4th, that this advice always proceeds from the not relishing the things of God, but the things of men. Yea, so far is this advice, Favour thyself, from being fit for a Christian either to give or take, that if any man will come after Christ, his very first step is, To deny or renounce himself: in the room of his own will, to substitute the will of God, as his one principle of action. We see in this example of Peter, how soon a person favoured with the peculiar approbation of the Lord Jesus may, through pride and self-confidence, fall under his heavy displeasure, and incur a severe rebuke from him. “Our Lord, immediately after pronouncing Peter blessed, on account of his faith and the noble confession which he made of it, and after conferring on him the high dignity before mentioned, did openly, in the hearing of all the disciples, call him Satan, or adversary, and declare that he had then no relish for the divine appointments, but was influenced merely by human views and expectations of worldly interest. If the papists rightly attended to this passage of the history, they would see their fancies about the primacy of Peter, which they build upon it, in a better light than they now seem to do.”

Ver. 23. Get thee behind me, Satan. The speech was Satan’s to frustrate our redemption, though Peter was not aware of it.

23. Get thee behind me, Satan — Our Lord seems to call Peter Satan. Not quite so. But he recognizes a Satan speaking in the words that Peter utters. His own human nature would say, like Peter, “Far be the terrible suffering from thee.” The same Satan had once tempted him in his own person to fall down and worship him, in order to gain the whole world; and that same Satan seems now to speak in Peter’s voice. As he repelled Satan then, so he repels the same devil now that seconds Peter’s words. An offence — A snare. See note on Matthew 18:7. Those that be of men — Is there not something prophetic in these words? The Church of Rome has claimed that her supremacy was predicted in the rock and the keys. But is it not the ambitious Peter who would have the kingdom without the cross, and who spake the things of man and not of God, which is the type of ambitious Rome?

Verse 23. But he turned. — St. Mark says, “When he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter;” from which it appears that Peter, in taking hold of Christ, had drawn him a little aside from the rest of the disciples; but, as our Lord designed to rebuke Peter in the presence of them all, he turned to them to be the more distinctly heard. Get thee behind me, Satan. — It was nearly in these words that our Lord rebuked Satan himself at the close of his great temptation, and the force of this rebuke as to Peter was greatly heightened by applying to him the name of Satan himself. This was not done in the sense of adversary, the import of the word; for this scarcely suggests a meaning as applied to Peter; but as intimating to him and the rest that in this, though unconsciously, he was the agent of Satan, who, making use of Peter’s remaining worldly views as to the Messiah, and his consequent repugnance to the doctrine of his Lord’s death, did in fact, by his instrumentality, attempt to assail our Lord’s constancy, and to excite in him a reluctance to suffer. This appears the most satisfactory way of accounting for the apparent severity of Christ’s calling Peter by the name Satan: for he was, in fact, thereby told that he had rendered himself, by his want of spiritual views, the agent of him whose grand design was to obstruct the work of human redemption. And we can conceive of no occasion more fitly chosen than this by the wily tempter, to produce an impression upon the natural feelings of our Lord, when one of his disciples, who no doubt fully expressed the sentiments of the rest, remonstrated with him, from the very fulness of his affection, not to expose himself to danger and death. This is farther confirmed by what follows, Thou art an offence to me, skandalon, a stumbling block, a hinderance; for by appealing to the natural horror of suffering and death to which our Lord’s human nature was subject, and to resist which by an invincible resignation was one of his most illustrious virtues, Satan, through Peter, did what in him lay to shake his resolution, and to hinder the accomplishment of the purposes of his infinite love.

Thou savourest not the things that be of God, &c. — The word fronew in Romans 8:5, is rendered “to mind,” or to regard, and has here the same sense. Peter acknowledged the glory of Christ’s nature, but, with the expectation of spiritual blessings from him as Messiah, mingled that of an external national reign, and all those external benefits most pleasing to worldly men. The death of Christ at the hands of the great council of the nation was fatal to anticipations of the latter kind; and this consideration, united with his affection for Christ, had excited in him so great an impatience at the annunciation of Christ that he must suffer and die. Or the meaning may be, that he regarded in the case only what was agreeable to human nature, as all exemption from suffering must be; and not those counsels, and that supreme will of God, to which every thing ought to be sacrificed.

V. 24. If any man be willing to come after me-None is forced; but if any will be a Christian, it must be on these terms,

Let him deny himself, and take up his cross-A rule that can never be too much observed: let him in all things deny his own will, however pleasing, and do the will of God, however painful.

Should we not consider all crosses, all things grievous to flesh and blood, as what they really are, as opportunities of embracing God's will at the expense of our own? And consequently as so many steps by which we may advance toward perfection? We should make a swift progress in the spiritual life, if we were faithful in this practice. Crosses are so frequent, that whoever makes advantage of them, will soon be a great gainer. Great crosses are occasions of great improvement: and the little ones, which come daily, and even hourly, make up in number what they want in weight. We may in these daily and hourly crosses make effectual oblations of our will to God; which oblations, so frequently repeated, will soon amount to a great sum. Let us remember then (what can never be sufficiently inculcated) that God is the author of all events: that none is so small or inconsiderable, as to escape his notice and direction. Every event therefore declares to us the will of God, to which thus declared we should heartily submit. We should renounce our own to embrace it; we should approve and choose what his choice warrants as best for us. Herein should we exercise ourselves continually; this should be our practice all the day long. We should in humility accept the little crosses that are dispensed to us, as those that best suit our weakness. Let us bear these little things, at least for God's sake, and prefer his will to our own in matters of so small importance. And his goodness will accept these mean oblations; for he despiseth not the day of small things. Matthew 10:38.

Verse 24. Will come after me] i.e. to be my disciple. This discourse was intended to show Peter and the rest of the disciples the nature of his kingdom; and that the honour that cometh from the world was not to be expected by those who followed Christ.

The principles of the Christian life are: First. To have a sincere desire to belong to Christ-If any man be WILLING to be my disciple, &c. Secondly. To renounce self-dependence, and selfish pursuits-Let him deny HIMSELF. Thirdly. To embrace the condition which God has appointed, and bear the troubles and difficulties he may meet with in walking the Christian road-Let him take up HIS CROSS. Fourthly. To imitate Jesus, and do and suffer all in his spirit-Let him FOLLOW ME.

Let him deny himself] aparnhsasqw may well be interpreted, Let him deny, or renounce, himself fully-in all respects-perseveringly. It is a compounded word, and the preposition apo abundantly increases the meaning. A follower of Christ will need to observe it in its utmost latitude of meaning, in order to be happy here, and glorious hereafter. A man’s self is to him the prime cause of most of his miseries. See Clarke’s note “Mark 8:34”.

Verse 24. Then said Jesus unto his disciples — In Mark we read, When he had called the people unto him, and his disciples also, he said unto them; and in Luke, He said to them all, If any man will come after me — Ei tiv qelei, If any man be willing, no one is forced: but if any will be a Christian, it must be on the following terms. Let him deny himself — A rule that can never be too much observed: let him in all things deny his own will, however pleasing, and do the will of God, however painful. And take up his cross — Of the origin and meaning of this phrase, see note on Matthew 10:38. And we may here further learn, that after having undergone many afflictions and trials, the disciples of Christ may still look for more, which, when laid upon them, they must endeavour, by the grace of God, to sustain with equal patience, following their Master in the footsteps of his sufferings. This, indeed, is a very hard and difficult lesson, but at the same time it is absolutely necessary. Because if we grow impatient under sufferings, and endeavour to avoid the crosses which God is pleased to lay upon us, we shall displease God, grieve his Spirit, and bring ourselves under guilt and condemnation. And should we not consider all crosses, all things grievous to flesh and blood, as what they really are, as opportunities of embracing God’s will, at the expense of our own? and consequently as so many steps by which we may advance in holiness? We should make a swift progress in the spiritual life, if we were faithful in this practice. Crosses are so frequent, that whoever makes advantage of them will soon be a great gainer. Great crosses are occasions of great improvement: and the little ones which come daily, and even hourly, make up in number what they want in weight. We may, in these daily and hourly crosses, make effectual oblations of our will to God: which oblations, so frequently repeated, will soon amount to a great sum. Let us remember, then, (what can never be sufficiently inculcated,) that God is the author of all events: that none is so small or inconsiderable as to escape his notice and direction. Every event, therefore, declares to us the will of God, to which, thus declared, we should heartily submit. We should renounce our own to embrace it. We should approve and choose what his choice warrants as best for us. Herein should we exercise ourselves continually; this should be our practice all the day long. We should in humility accept the little crosses that are dispensed to us, as those that best suit our weakness. Let us bear these little things, at least, for God’s sake, and prefer his will to our own in matters of so small importance. And his goodness will accept these mean oblations; for he despiseth not the day of small things.

Ver. 24. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself. See on Mark 8:34, 38, where the narration is more copious.

24. If any man will come after me — As a disciple following his master. Take up his cross — See note on Matthew 10:38. Follow me — As a suffering servant of a suffering Lord.

Verse 24. If any man will come after me, &c. — Our Lord not only rebuked Peter for endeavouring to turn him from his own purpose of surrendering himself to suffering and death; but takes occasion from it to prepare his disciples not for the honours of an earthly kingdom, but for a similar course of self-denial, and for submission to death itself. The verb aparneomai, to deny, has two significations. The first is, to disown acquaintance or connection with any; and in this sense it is well illustrated by St. Jerome: “He that putteth off the old man with his works denieth himself; the unchaste, being converted to modest manners, does by his present chastity deny his former licentiousness; he that was once cowardly and timid, by becoming strong in fortitude knows not his former self; the unjust man who now cultivates justice denies his former iniquitous course; and not only in times of persecution and martyrdom, but in all our conversation, thoughts, doings, and discourse, we must deny what we were before.” The second sense is to renounce and disregard; and for the disciple in this respect to deny himself, is to disregard all personal consideration of ease, honour, liberty, and life, when they come into competition with his allegiance to Christ. And take up his cross, patiently submitting to every kind of sufferings, and even to die an ignominious and cruel death, like Christ himself, when called to it. “Not making the cross,” says Mr. Baxter, “but taking and bearing it when it is laid upon him, and follow Christ by sufferings to glory.” See note on Matthew 10:38.

V. 25. Whosoever will save his life-At the expense of his conscience: whosoever, in the very highest instance, that of life itself, will not renounce himself, shall be lost eternally. But can any man hope he should be able thus to renounce himself, if he cannot do it in the smallest instances?

And whosoever will lose his life shall find it-What he loses on earth he shall find in heaven. Matthew 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33; John 12:25.

Verse 25. For whosoever will save his life] That is, shall wish to save his life-at the expense of his conscience, and casting aside the cross, he shall lose it-the very evil he wishes to avoid shall overtake him; and he shall lose his soul into the bargain. See then how necessary it is to renounce one’s self! But whatsoever a man loses in this world, for his steady attachment to Christ and his cause, he shall have amply made up to him in the eternal world.

Verses 25-27. Whosoever will save his life — At the expense of his conscience: whosoever, in the very highest instance, that of life itself, will not renounce himself, shall be lost eternally. But can any man hope he should be able thus to renounce himself, if he cannot do it in the smallest instances? And whosoever will lose his life, shall find it — What he loses on earth he shall find in heaven. See note on Matthew 10:39, where this sentence is explained more at large. For what is a man profited, &c. — “To carry home the argument more closely, he puts them in mind of the method according to which men estimate things. If God should offer the riches of Solomon, the strength of Samson, the policy of Ahithophel, the beauty of Absalom, the eloquence of Apollos, universal monarchy, and all kinds of pleasures, and should say, Take them for one hour, and then die; who is the man that would not immediately reject the proposed condition, and reply, that life is better than them all? But will men forego every earthly thing for life, the life of the body? and will they not part with them, nay, and with life itself, for their souls? since the longest any one can enjoy this life with its pleasures, is, in comparison of eternity, no longer than he enjoys the good things mentioned, who dies in the same hour he receives them.” — Macknight. Or, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul — Namely, at the day of judgment? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father — For you may certainly depend upon it that, howsoever he may be now despised and rejected of men, there is a day appointed when he will come in all the glory of the Godhead, encircled in the most pompous manner with his holy angels: and then shall he convene the whole world before him, that he may determine the final happiness or misery of each, and recompense every man according to his conduct. Thus, “that the argument, by which the necessity of self-denial is so clearly established, might have the greater weight, our Lord speaks more particularly concerning the rewards and punishments of a future state, assuring his disciples that they are all to be distributed by himself, the Father having appointed him the universal Judge, so that his enemies cannot flatter themselves with a hope of escaping condign punishment, nor his friends be in the least afraid of losing their reward.”

25. Save his life… lose. See note on Matthew 10:39. The present paragraph, indeed, is in general a reiteration of the substance of that chapter — apostolic suffering, in view of a future reward, in order that Christ’s kingdom may be established in the earth.

Verse 25. Save his life shall lose it. — See note on Matthew 10:39.

Verse 26. Lose his own soul] Or, lose his life, thn yuchn autou. On what authority many have translated the word yuch, in the 25th verse, life, and in this verse, soul, I know not, but am certain it means life in both places. If a man should gain the whole world, its riches, honours, and pleasures, and lose his life, what would all these profit him, seeing they can only be enjoyed during life? But if the words be applied to the soul, they show the difficulty-the necessity-and importance of salvation. The world, the devil, and a man’s own heart are opposed to his salvation; therefore it is difficult. The soul was made for God, and can never be united to him, nor be happy, till saved from sin: therefore it is necessary. He who is saved from his sin, and united to God, possesses the utmost felicity that the human soul can enjoy, either in this or the coming world: therefore, this salvation is important. See also Clarke’s note on “Luke 9:25”.

Verses 25-27. Whosoever will save his life — At the expense of his conscience: whosoever, in the very highest instance, that of life itself, will not renounce himself, shall be lost eternally. But can any man hope he should be able thus to renounce himself, if he cannot do it in the smallest instances? And whosoever will lose his life, shall find it — What he loses on earth he shall find in heaven. See note on Matthew 10:39, where this sentence is explained more at large. For what is a man profited, &c. — “To carry home the argument more closely, he puts them in mind of the method according to which men estimate things. If God should offer the riches of Solomon, the strength of Samson, the policy of Ahithophel, the beauty of Absalom, the eloquence of Apollos, universal monarchy, and all kinds of pleasures, and should say, Take them for one hour, and then die; who is the man that would not immediately reject the proposed condition, and reply, that life is better than them all? But will men forego every earthly thing for life, the life of the body? and will they not part with them, nay, and with life itself, for their souls? since the longest any one can enjoy this life with its pleasures, is, in comparison of eternity, no longer than he enjoys the good things mentioned, who dies in the same hour he receives them.” — Macknight. Or, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul — Namely, at the day of judgment? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father — For you may certainly depend upon it that, howsoever he may be now despised and rejected of men, there is a day appointed when he will come in all the glory of the Godhead, encircled in the most pompous manner with his holy angels: and then shall he convene the whole world before him, that he may determine the final happiness or misery of each, and recompense every man according to his conduct. Thus, “that the argument, by which the necessity of self-denial is so clearly established, might have the greater weight, our Lord speaks more particularly concerning the rewards and punishments of a future state, assuring his disciples that they are all to be distributed by himself, the Father having appointed him the universal Judge, so that his enemies cannot flatter themselves with a hope of escaping condign punishment, nor his friends be in the least afraid of losing their reward.”

26. Gain the whole world, and lose his own soul — As Peter, in his preference for a worldly monarchy, would in fact do, and even persuade Jesus to do.

Verse 26. And lose his own soul. — The word yuch, here translated soul, is the word used for life in the preceding verse; for, in fact, the word signifies both bodily life, and the immortal soul; and that it here means the higher life of man, that is, the soul, is so manifest from the scope of the argument, that one may be greatly surprised that any should have chosen to render it otherwise, and to argue that our Lord speaks primarily, at least, if not exclusively, of the loss of animal life. It is very true that a man would be nothing profited, were he to gain the whole world and lose his life; but had this been our Lord’s proposition it would have been an argument to enforce upon the disciples an extreme carefulness about the preservation of their lives, rather than a noble readiness to lay them down for the sake of the truth, which it was the intention of Christ to inculcate. But as our Lord had said, in the preceding verse, “Whosoever will save his life,” his bodily life, by a cowardly desertion of my cause, “shall lose it,” shall lose his life in a higher sense, namely, his soul; “and whosoever will lose his life,” his bodily life, “for my sake, shall find it,” shall find an immortal life in a future state; so here he sets the loss of life in this higher sense, that is, the loss of eternal life, or, what is the same thing, the loss of the soul’s future happiness, against that worldly gain which might be the inducement to save life at the expense of a good conscience. And most strongly does our Lord thus convey the general and most important truth, that there is nothing earthly, no, not the gain of the whole world, of all its riches, honours, and pleasures, were that possible, which could compensate for the loss of the immortal soul, which consists in its exclusion from eternal life. So entirely ought the safety of the soul to engross our attention and call forth our efforts. Had our word life, like the Greek yuch, been commonly used, both for the animal life of the body, and for the immortal spirit in men, it would have been allowable to translate, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his LIFE;” but, as the term life conveys but one meaning, our translators could not have expressed the true sense otherwise than by translating yuch in this verse soul. This could not be done in the preceding verse because of the paronomasia; the rhetorical figure employed by our Lord in this and many other of his discourses. In exchange for his soul. — The word antallagma signifies a thing given in exchange, a ransom; which also applies directly to the soul, as is manifest from the next verse, where the proceedings of the day of final judgment are immediately introduced. A man might in many cases offer such a ransom for his life as would be accepted; and nothing was more common anciently than to redeem life by gifts: but when “the Son of man shall come in his glory, to reward every man according to his works,” and the soul of the wretched man who has renounced Christ from the fear or love of the world has been doomed to the loss of eternal life, and to positive punishment, what shall he offer as a ransom? A question which has the force of the strongest negation. There is no ransom then; the only acceptable ransom of souls from the condemnation of death, the sacrifice of Christ, having been neglected or cast away in that period of probation during which it can be pleaded.

V. 27. For the Son of man shall come-For there is no way to escape the righteous judgment of God.

Verse 27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father] This seems to refer to Daniel 7:13, 14. “Behold, one like the Son of man came-to the ancient of Days-and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, and nations, and languages should serve him.” This was the glorious Mediatorial kingdom which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the destruction of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of his Gospel through the whole world. If the words be taken in this sense, the angels or messengers may signify the apostles and their successors in the sacred ministry, preaching the Gospel in the power of the Holy Ghost. It is very likely that the words do not apply to the final judgment, to which they are generally referred; but to the wonderful display of God’s grace and power after the day of pentecost.

Verses 25-27. Whosoever will save his life — At the expense of his conscience: whosoever, in the very highest instance, that of life itself, will not renounce himself, shall be lost eternally. But can any man hope he should be able thus to renounce himself, if he cannot do it in the smallest instances? And whosoever will lose his life, shall find it — What he loses on earth he shall find in heaven. See note on Matthew 10:39, where this sentence is explained more at large. For what is a man profited, &c. — “To carry home the argument more closely, he puts them in mind of the method according to which men estimate things. If God should offer the riches of Solomon, the strength of Samson, the policy of Ahithophel, the beauty of Absalom, the eloquence of Apollos, universal monarchy, and all kinds of pleasures, and should say, Take them for one hour, and then die; who is the man that would not immediately reject the proposed condition, and reply, that life is better than them all? But will men forego every earthly thing for life, the life of the body? and will they not part with them, nay, and with life itself, for their souls? since the longest any one can enjoy this life with its pleasures, is, in comparison of eternity, no longer than he enjoys the good things mentioned, who dies in the same hour he receives them.” — Macknight. Or, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul — Namely, at the day of judgment? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father — For you may certainly depend upon it that, howsoever he may be now despised and rejected of men, there is a day appointed when he will come in all the glory of the Godhead, encircled in the most pompous manner with his holy angels: and then shall he convene the whole world before him, that he may determine the final happiness or misery of each, and recompense every man according to his conduct. Thus, “that the argument, by which the necessity of self-denial is so clearly established, might have the greater weight, our Lord speaks more particularly concerning the rewards and punishments of a future state, assuring his disciples that they are all to be distributed by himself, the Father having appointed him the universal Judge, so that his enemies cannot flatter themselves with a hope of escaping condign punishment, nor his friends be in the least afraid of losing their reward.”

27. For — This particle shows that the verse which it introduces explains and enforces the consideration of the previous verses. To save one’s life to gain the world with the loss of the soul, is a bad bargain, for the judgment day is coming. Shall come — From heaven at the end of the world. In the glory of his Father… angels — The same words describe the scenic splendour of his judgment advent in Matthew 24:31. Reward — For every suffering there shall then be a compensation. In view of this reward at the judgment day, they were to toil and suffer for the consummation (described in the next verse) of Christ’s kingdom on earth.

Verse 27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory, &c. — In the full manifested glory of the Godhead; accompanied by the whole host of holy angels; in strange contrast to his then humble condition, surrounded by a few poor disciples, despised and rejected of men! Thus if our Lord, on the one hand, represses the lingering expectation of the apostles that he would assume an earthly glory, by declaring that it was in the counsel of God that he should suffer and die, on the other he elevates their hopes to the higher final glories of his second advent. That these words relate, not to the setting up of his mediatorial kingdom, as predicted by Daniel, nor, figuratively, to his coming to judge the nation of the Jews, is most evident from what follows: And then he will reward every man according to his works. This is an act, not of gracious mediation, but of strict judgment; so that the coming of Christ in the fulness of his glory, as mediator, could not be intended; nor is a national judgment a rewarding of every or each man according to his work; for sinners of widely different degrees of delinquency are involved in the same public calamities, and the comparatively innocent share the penalty equally with the most guilty. Besides, those who apply this to the desolation of Judea by the Romans, which was no doubt a judicial act of Christ in his exalted state, ought to show how the pious and faithful, as well as the wicked, were then rewarded; which is undoubtedly in rendering to “every man according to his works.” The passage has clearly no meaning but as it refers to the end of the world, and the general judgment; for then only can those be fully rewarded who, have laid down their lives for the sake of Christ, one of the subjects on which he had been discoursing, and which stands intimately connected with these words.

V. 28. And as an emblem of this, there are some here who shall live to see tho Messiah coming to set up his mediatorial kingdom, with great power and glory, by the increase of his Church, and the destruction of the temple, city, and polity of the Jews.

Verse 28. There be some-which shall not taste of death] This verse seems to confirm the above explanation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment of the Christian Church after the day of pentecost, and its final triumph after the destruction of the Jewish polity; as if he had said, “Some of you, my disciples, shall continue to live until these things take place.” The destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish economy, which our Lord here predicts, took place about forty-three years after this: and some of the persons now with him doubtless survived that period, and witnessed the extension of the Messiah’s kingdom; and our Lord told them these things before, that when they came to pass they might be confirmed in the faith, and expect an exact fulfilment of all the other promises and prophecies which concerned the extension and support of the kingdom of Christ.

To his kingdom, or in his kingdom. Instead of basileia, kingdom, four MSS., later Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Saxon, and one copy of the Itala, with several of the primitive fathers, read doxh, glory: and to this is added, tou patrov autou, of his Father, by three MSS. and the versions mentioned before. This makes the passage a little more conformable to the passage already quoted from Daniel; and it must appear, very clearly, that the whole passage speaks not of a future judgment, but of the destruction of the Jewish polity, and the glorious spread of Christianity in the earth, by the preaching of Christ crucified by the apostles and their immediate successors in the Christian Church.

1. THE disciples, by being constantly with their Master, were not only guarded against error, but were taught the whole truth: we should neglect no opportunity of waiting upon God; while Jesus continues to teach, our ear and heart should be open to receive his instructions. That what we have already received may be effectual, we must continue to hear and pray on. Let us beware of the error of the Pharisees! They minded only external performances, and those things by which they might acquire esteem and reputation among men; thus, humility and love, the very soul of religion, were neglected by them: they had their reward-the approbation of those who were as destitute of vital religion as themselves. Let us beware also of the error of the Sadducees, who, believing no other felicity but what depended on the good things of this world, became the flatterers and slaves of those who could bestow them, and so, like the Pharisees, had their portion only in this life. All false religions and false principles conduct to the same end, however contrary they appear to each other. No two sects could be more opposed to each other than the Sadducees and Pharisees, yet their doctrines lead to the same end-they are both wedded to this world, and separated from God in the next.

2. From the circumstance mentioned in the conclusion of this chapter, we may easily see the nature of the kingdom and reign of Christ: it is truly spiritual and Divine; having for its object the present holiness and future happiness of mankind. Worldly pomp, as well as worldly maxims, were to be excluded from it. Christianity forbids all worldly expectations, and promises blessedness to those alone who bear the cross, leading a life of mortification and self-denial. Jesus Christ has left us an example that we should follow his steps. How did he live?-What views did he entertain?-In what light did he view worldly pomp and splendour? These are questions which the most superficial reader may, without difficulty, answer to his immediate conviction. And has not Christ said that the disciple is not ABOVE the Master? If HE humbled himself, how can he look upon those who, professing faith in his name, are conformed to the world and mind earthly things? These disciples affect to be above their Lord; and as they neither bear his cross, nor follow him in the regeneration, they must look for another heaven than that in which he sits at the right hand of God. This is an awful subject; but how few of those called Christians lay it to heart!

3. The term CHURCH in Greek ekklhsia, occurs for the first time in Matthew 16:18. The word simply means an assembly or congregation, the nature of which is to be understood from connecting circumstances; for the word ekklhsia, as well as the terms congregation and assembly, may be applied to any concourse of people, good or bad; gathered together for lawful or unlawful purposes. Hence, it is used, Acts 19:32, for the mob, or confused rabble, gathered together against Paul, ekklhsia sugkecumenh, which the town-clerk distinguished, Acts 19:39, from a lawful assembly, ennomw ekklesia. The Greek word ekklhsia seems to be derived from ekkalew, to call out of, or from, i.e. an assembly gathered out of a multitude; and must have some other word joined to it, to determine its nature: viz. the Church of God; the congregation collected by God, and devoted to his service. The Church of Christ: the whole company of Christians wheresoever found; because, by the preaching of the Gospel, they are called out of the spirit and maxims of the world, to live according to the precepts of the Christian religion. This is sometimes called the Catholic or universal Church, because constituted of all the professors of Christianity in the world, to whatever sects or parties they may belong: and hence the absurdity of applying the term Catholic, which signifies universal, to that very small portion of it, the Church of Rome. In primitive times, before Christians had any stated buildings, they worshipped in private houses; the people that had been converted to God meeting together in some one dwelling-house of a fellow-convert, more convenient and capacious than the rest; hence the Church that was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Romans 16:3, 5, and 1 Corinthians 16:19, and the Church that was in the house of Nymphas, Colossians 4:15. Now, as these houses were dedicated to the worship of God, each was termed kuriou oikov kuriou oikos, the house of the Lord; which word, in process of time, became contracted into kurioik kurioik, and kuriakh, kuriake; and hence the kirk of our northern neighbours, and [Anglo-Saxon] kirik of our Saxon ancestors, from which, by corruption, changing the hard Saxon c into ch, we have made the word church. This term, though it be generally used to signify the people worshipping in a particular place, yet by a metonymy, the container being put for the contained, we apply it, as it was originally, to the building which contains the worshipping people.

In the proper use of this word there can be no such thing as THE church, exclusively; there may be A church, and the CHURCHES, signifying a particular congregation, or the different assemblies of religious people: and hence, the Church of Rome, by applying it exclusively to itself, abuses the term, and acts as ridiculously as it does absurdly. Church is very properly defined in the 19th article of the Church of England, to be “a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ’s ordinance.”

ST. MATTHEW

Verse 28. Verily, there be some standing here, &c. — And that you may not doubt that there shall be a day of judgment, when I shall come clothed with divine majesty, to render unto men according to their actions in this life, let me assure you there are some here present that shall not die till they shall see a faint representation of this, in events which will soon take place, especially in my coming to set up my mediatorial kingdom with great power and glory, in the increase of my church, and the destruction of mine enemies. Accordingly the disciples saw their Master coming in his kingdom, when they were witnesses of his transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension, and the miraculous gifts of his Spirit conferred upon them; and lived to see Jerusalem, with the Jewish state, destroyed, and the gospel propagated through the greatest part of the then known world.

Ver. 28. There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Till they see my resurrection from the dead, the descent of the Holy Spirit, with tongues and miracles, and the gospel preached to the Roman world.

28. Verily I say — The accomplishment of the enterprise for which they toil and earn a martyr’s reward is now stated. Son of man coming — Is parallel with Matthew 10:23; both are fulfilled at Christ’s resurrection. As the Son of man would be come before the apostles had gone over the cities of Israel, so these same apostles standing here should see the Son of man coming. Some standing here would refer to the eleven apostles, excluding Judas, who did not behold Christ in his resurrection power. These eleven were only some, not all, of those standing here; for it appears by Mark 8:34, that Jesus had called the people to be present at this discourse with his disciples. The declaration that they should see the Son of man at that time is too plainly literal for any fulfilment at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Instead of the phrase “Son of man coming in his kingdom,” Saint Mark has, (Matthew 9:1:) “Until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” Luke has: “Until they see the kingdom of God.” We may fairly suppose that our Lord used the expressions given both by Matthew and Mark, which include that of Luke. It would then be that some there standing should not taste of death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom; and the kingdom itself come with power. These two phrases express the commencing and continuative points of the same thing. The coming in his kingdom was at his resurrection; the coming of the kingdom of God with power was the consequent miraculous establishment of Christianity on earth. The latest surviving apostles saw both of these before their death. Our Lord’s “coming in his kingdom,” was when he came from Paradise to resume his body, now glorified, and was invested, as prophetically seen by Daniel, (Daniel 7:13-14,) with “a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.” He then declared that “ALL POWER” was given into his hands, and commissioned his disciples to go and disciple all nations. The keys of the kingdom of heaven were put into their hands, and they were to open the doors to the believers of all peoples. Compare on Matthew 28:18.

It has been objected that the “phrase shall not taste of death until,” implies a considerable distance of time. This objection is correct, and it refutes the application of the passage, which some commentators have made, to the transfiguration, and even its exclusive application to the resurrection of the Lord. But of the whole then present, including the people, none but the eleven disciples saw the resurrection, which was the Son of man coming in his kingdom; and some of these same eleven lived until they saw the kingdom of God come with power by the complete miraculous establishment of Christianity in the earth, as well as the disappearance of the old dispensation before it. To this interpretation, therefore, of both phrases taken together, the implied length of time is no objection.

Verse 28. Till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. — That this coming of the Son of man relates to the setting up of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ in its fulness and perfection, is as certain as that the coming of the Son of man in the preceding verse relates to his second advent, as Judge. The parallel passages sufficiently explain the meaning. St. Luke says, “Till they see the kingdom of God;” and St. Mark, “Till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” “The kingdom of Christ,” “the kingdom of God,” and “the kingdom of heaven,” are all phrases used to express the Gospel dispensation, or Christian economy. It is called a kingdom, because all men are placed under the power of Christ as MEDIATOR, to redeem, govern, and save; and, under his power as LORD, to correct, and, if impenitent, to condemn: and it has this appellation also because the administration of his Gospel, under his authority, was a new species of control introduced into human society, regulating the hearts and conduct of obedient men; attractively influential by its kindness, admonitory by its threats, and, in the case of determined rebellion, terrible in the penalties which it has established. This kingdom our Lord began to found by his personal ministry; but it was not completed till his ascension, when according to the prophecy of Daniel, “the Son of man came to the Ancient of days,” “and there was given to him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him;” and then, to give efficiency to the means by which the sons of men should be thus brought into a state of willing, gracious subjection to him as their Lord, he poured out the Holy Spirit, in his plenitude of graces and gifts, upon the disciples at the day of pentecost. This he himself termed enduing them “with power from on high;” which sufficiently explains the words of St. Mark: “Till they have seen the kingdom of God come with POWER” To taste of death is a Hebrew mode of expression, equivalent to see death. It merely signifies to die, and is constantly so used by the Jewish writers. “All the children of men taste the taste of death.” Thus were the apostles encouraged; for although he had assured them that he must die, yet they were not to die till they had seen his kingdom set up in its power; from which they might also have inferred, had they not been as yet “slow of heart to understand,” that even their Master’s death was in some manner mysteriously connected with the full establishment of his kingdom. This they afterward understood; they died not till they had witnessed the glorious triumphs of his kingdom over both Jews and Gentiles, the glorious earnest of its universal prevalence throughout the whole world. Those commentators who apply these words to the judicial visitation of the Jewish nation, and the destruction of Jerusalem, adopt an interpretation which is wholly forbidden by the parallel places from Mark and Luke, above referred to; for how that direful event could be the “coming of the kingdom of God with power,” is utterly inconceivable, when the established sense of the phrase, “the kingdom of God,” as used in the gospels, is considered. For though the infliction of punishment upon the Jewish nation by the exalted and glorified “Lord and Christ,” whom they had rejected, be spoken of figuratively, as a “coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” the imagery being taken from the circumstances of the general judgment; yet this is never called “the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom,” nor “seeing the kingdom of God.” It is true that our Lord says, “There be SOME standing here which shall not taste of death,” which has been thought to intimate that the event alluded to was so distant that all but a very few of the disciples must, in the course of nature, be dead before it arrived; and this they state best agrees with the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened about forty years afterward. But a better reason may be found for the use of the word tinev, some or certain persons. ONE, at least, then present, was to be excluded; ONE was to taste of death before “the glorious resurrection, and ascension, and coming of the Holy Ghost,” which the others were to witness. That excepted person was Judas, who “went out and hanged himself.” The declaration could not then include all; and it is restricted, accordingly, by an indefinite limitation. The opinion of those is not better founded which refers the text to the transfiguration mentioned in the next chapter. Then, indeed, the Son of man appeared invested with glory; but in no good sense can it be said that he then “came in his kingdom,” or that then “the kingdom of God came with power.” The glory was great, but transient; and it was so because it was merely symbolical of something future to this illustrious event itself.