Matthew 16:1-20
The Gospel Of Matthew • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 42 viewsNotes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
MAKE SURE TO READ THE COC COMMENTARY
Almost Everyone has a Favorite Apostle
I Want to Run a Little Survey
Raise Your Hand if Your Favorite Apostles is:
Matthew
Thomas
John
Paul
Peter
I Expected the Majority to Be Either Paul or Peter
Paul, Because We Know a Lot About Him…
And He Wrote More Books than Anyone Else
Peter, Because He is Someone We See Ourselves in
We can Relate to Him with His Ups and Downs/Successes and Failures
But Did You Know that Peter is Not His Real Name?
Jesus Gave Some of the Disciples Nicknames?
Peter’s Real Name is Simon
Mark 3:16 (NASB95)
16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter),
Up to this Point, Matthew has Called Him “Peter”…
More Times Than He has Called Him “Simon”
Why Did Jesus Give Him the Name, “Peter”
That’s Just the Thing, We Haven’t Been Told
As Far as We Know, Jesus Called Him this for Absolutely No Reason
But That’s Not Really How Nicknames Work, is it?
My Grandfathers on Both Sides of My Family…
Were Known for Giving Nicknames to Everyone
Some of Them Seemed Completely Random…
But They Weren’t
They All had Meaning Behind Them
The Same is True for “Peter”
There is a Powerful Meaning Behind Why Jesus Gave Him that Name
And We are Going to Find Out in Our Text
We have Reached the First Climax of the Book
We’ve Been Following the Ministry of Jesus in Galilee…
Since Chapter 4
We’ve Seen Him Work Many Miracles…
And Teach Many Things About His Coming Kingdom
Matthew’s Point in Showing Us All this…
Is to Prove to Us that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah
But Up to this Point…
No One has Explicitly Said that
That’s All About to Change
And One of Our Favorite Apostles is About to…
Solidify Himself as a Leader Amongst the Kingdom Movement…
Because He is Going to Be the First…
To Outwardly Acknowledge the True Identity of Jesus
Matthew 16:1-20
Matthew 16:1-20
Matthew 16:1–4 (NASB95)
1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven.2 But He replied to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’3 “And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?4 “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away.
Already, We See Something Strange
The Pharisees and Sadducees Were Working Together to Test Jesus
This is Strange Because These 2 Sects Don’t Like Each Other
They had Very Little in Common
They had little in common, but it could be said that they both stood for the old ways as against Jesus, whom they saw as a dangerous innovator. They apparently reasoned that it was better to combine to discredit him; that done, they could resume their normal opposition to each other with which they were familiar and which represented the old paths. Matthew has 14 references to the Sadducees (Mark and Luke 1 each, Acts 5, and they are mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament); it accords with his interest in this group that he alone mentions them in connection with this incident. This is the only place in the New Testament where they are mentioned outside Judea. They were a comparatively small party with a great interest in the temple.
The two groups came testing Jesus, where the verb mostly has a bad meaning, testing with a view to failure. It signifies that they were not sincere in their seeking a sign. They evidently thought that Jesus could not produce it, and their intention was not so much actually to see a sign as to show people that Jesus could not produce one.
Now they made a request for a sign (see on 12:38) from heaven. In the Synoptic Gospels the word is mostly used in the sense of wonderfully impressive miracles accrediting the person who performed them
The Pharisees enjoyed the support of the people; the Sadducees controlled the political power in Jerusalem. Together, they were formidable opponents of Jesus.
2 But He replied to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’
3 “And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?
Verses 2–3 present a comparison between the signs of the sky and the signs of the times. As clouds move from west to east, the dawn sunlight will tint them in the west, portending rain as the day progresses. In the evening the same phenomenon suggests that the clouds have almost disappeared, bringing good weather instead. We preserve this proverb today with the rhyme: “Red sky at morning, sailors take warning. Red sky at night, sailors delight.” If the Jewish leaders can recognize what the weather is likely to be by the appearance of the sky, why can they not recognize the dawning of the kingdom of heaven and the messianic age by what Jesus does and teaches? Jesus has already provided plenty of signs to this end.
It is interesting that this dubious text is the only New Testament occurrence of the phrase signs of the times, often used today in relation to eschatological predictions, but here referring to discerning the significance of Jesus’ earthly ministry (particularly such ‘signs’ as have just been recorded in 15:21–39).
Jesus’ point is that the Jews could predict the weather based on simple observations, but they could not discern the presence of the kingdom of heaven through His miracles (“the signs of the times”
4 “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away.
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread.
6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Mark 8:15 has “Herod” instead of the “Sadducees,” but since the latter, unlike the Pharisees, were the group that had made its peace with the Roman Empire and its client rulers, both versions mean approximately the same thing.
In a different context, Luke 12:1 has Jesus refer to “the yeast of the Pharisees” as hypocrisy, which should explain why he warned against their teaching here, a point Matt 23 will elaborate in much greater detail.
Since the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees is grouped together, and since the two sects disagreed on so many specific points of law, their common “yeast” may be their more general rejection of God’s will for people to respond to Jesus with discipleship. Hyperconservatism and hyperliberalism in contemporary religion and politics also share the common features of dogmatism and judgmentalism and remain an insidious threat to the true church of Jesus Christ.
Leaven was a piece of last week’s dough used to make this week’s dough rise, and it lends itself to metaphorical uses for something that works away unseen but in the end produces considerable effects. It may be used of a moral tendency, normally in the New Testament for an evil tendency (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6–8; Gal. 5:9), although the parable of the leaven is an exception (13:33). Jesus is warning his hearers to be on their guard against the insidious and pervasive influence that the Pharisees and Sadducees represent (in the Marcan equivalent we have “the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod” [Mark 8:15], which is difficult but also points to evil influence; Lenski points out that one of Herod’s wives, Mariamne, was a daughter of the high priest and reasons that the high-priestly party, the Sadducees, “must thus be classed as Herodians,”
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.”
Because they forgot to bring any, they think that Jesus must be warning them against buying food from these groups of Jewish leaders.
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
For little faith, see on 6:30. It is a favourite term of Matthew, here substituted for the charge of lack of understanding and hardness of heart in Mark 8:17–18.
9 “Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 “Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 “How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
There may be an underlying Aramaic play on words in v. 12b, given the similarity between “teaching” (ʾamîrʾā) and “yeast” (hămîrʾa).
It is curious that teaching is singular when followed by of the Pharisees and Sadducees, for the two groups had many differences and in fact were strongly opposed to one another. Thus the Pharisees put a great deal of emphasis on the “tradition of the elders” with its stress on the written and oral law, whereas the Sadducees would accept nothing but the law written in the Bible. The Sadducees were politicians; they were a comparatively small, but wealthy, aristocratic party, very anxious to work with the Romans. The Pharisees were not politically minded but would live under any government that allowed them to practice their religion. But in different ways both were conservative, and over against Jesus and his followers they might be said to be united and form a unit. At the very least they were linked by their inability to see that Jesus was the Messiah, by their hatred of him, and by their determination to overthrow his teaching if they could.
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Having crossed the lake, Jesus and his followers head upstream along the Jordan River to its headwaters near Caesarea Philippi, approximately twenty-five miles north of the Sea of Galilee. Formerly known as Paneas, a center of worship for the Greek god Pan, the city recently had been renamed by Philip the tetrarch in honor of himself and Augustus Caesar. Matthew does not tell us why Jesus and the disciples went here, but it is easy to imagine them once again foreshadowing the more extensive Gentile ministry that lies ahead. Matthew, however, focuses solely on the dialogue Jesus initiates with the Twelve. He questions their perception of the crowds’ views of his identity, not for his own information but to correct the misconceptions that have arisen.
In 20 B.C. Augustus gave the district to Herod the Great and built a temple of white marble in honor of the emperor at Paneas. When Herod died in 4 B.C. the area became part of the tetrarchy of Philip, and this man rebuilt the city. He called it Caesarea in honor of the emperor Augustus and added “Philippi” (which distinguished it from Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast and, of course, honored Philip himself).
14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew has Been Singling Peter Out a Lot in the Past Couple Chapters
Now We are Finding Out Why
Because Peter is About to Make a Great Statement of Faith
And Then Jesus is Going to Put Him in a Place of Prominence
The Church will Be Built Upon Peter and He is Going to Have the Keys to the Kingdom
This Doesn’t Mean that Peter is THE Leader/Head of the Church
It Simply Means Exactly What We See in Acts
Peter had a Place of Prominence in Bringing the Gospel to the Jew and Gentiles
Peter is the disciples’ spokesman, but as their representative and not just their leader. Ephesians 2:20 and Rev 21:14 will refer to all the apostles as the “foundation” of the church. Peter’s primacy is more chronological, in the unfolding events of early Christianity, than hierarchical. Commentators often argue that Matthew has the highest view of Peter of any of the Gospel writers and closest to that of early Catholicism. But, as has already been seen, Matthew paints a consistently negative or at least ambiguous portrait of Peter, which may make it more probable that he was trying to temper an already overexalted view of that apostle.
At any rate, there is obviously nothing in these verses of the distinctively Catholic doctrines of the papacy, apostolic succession, or Petrine infallibility or of the Protestant penchant for Christian personality cults.
Here is the first time in Matthew that anyone in Jesus’ audiences has unambiguously acknowledged him as the “Christ” (Christos—Messiah—see under 1:1).
It was thus a nationalistic term, and one which was hard to separate from the political aspirations of a subject people. We shall see in vv. 22–23 that Peter himself will find it impossible to associate Messiahship with Jesus’ proclaimed mission of suffering and death (which takes up one relatively limited strand of OT expectation); for him apparently the title conveys glory and success, not defeat and execution. So we must not read into Peter’s declaration here all that later Christian theology has found in the term “Messiah.” His understanding of Jesus’ way of “saving his people from their sins” (1:21) still has a long way to go. But, however limited his grasp of Jesus’ actual mission, he has gone beyond the popular acclamation of Jesus as a prophet to the point of recognizing him as not just one among many, not even, like John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets (11:11), but as the one climactic figure in whom God’s purpose is finally being accomplished. In that he has made the crucial breakthrough.
17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Bariōna has been frequently translated as “son of Jonah” (as in the NIV), but this would contradict John 1:42 and 21:15 unless Simon is simply seen as a spiritual son of Jonah. It is better, therefore, to recognize that the Greek spelling is a legitimate transliteration and abbreviation of bar Johanan (“son of John”).
Jesus’ calling Peter “son of John” nicely balances Peter’s address to his Lord as “Son of God.”
18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Acknowledging Jesus as the Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname, “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
It is often alleged, however, that the “rock” must be Christ or Peter’s confession of Christ, especially since the days of Luther and the Protestant Reformation. These alternatives understandably react against traditional Roman Catholic equation of Peter with the first pope and against an elaborate ecclesiology built on this verse. But a legitimate interpretation of vv. 18b–19, as below, predicates nothing of this, so there should be no theological objections to taking Peter as “this rock.”
We should not understand the words to mean that Jesus was giving the name at this point; that would more likely be in the form “You will be called” (cf. John 1:42); rather, Jesus was drawing attention to the significance of a name already familiar. He proceeds to make his point with a play on words: the Greek words for Peter and for rock are related.
Once Matt 13 is recognized as in no sense an absolute rejection of the Jews as a whole, it is virtually impossible to sustain the view that Jesus is here offering the church as an alternative to the kingdom. Instead, Christ’s “church” will comprise the community of people who submit to God’s kingly rule (recall that kingdom equals kingship—God’s rule or reign). The popular view that the church is somehow to separate itself from society, based on the derivation of ekklēsia from ekkaleō (to call out) affords a classic example of what linguists call the etymological fallacy. Words often develop meanings over time that differ from their roots. The only sense in which the word church in New Testament times means those who are called out is that believers routinely gather together by leaving their separate places of residence or work.
In v. 18b Jesus promises the indestructibility of his church. That the “gates of Hades will not overcome it” proves cryptic because gates are naturally seen as defensive protection, while “overcome” suggests an army on the offense. Is Jesus saying that Hades (Heb. Sheol—the grave—probably, as with hell, in the sense of Satan’s domain) cannot conquer the church or that it cannot resist the church’s advances? Is Satan on the defense or offense here? The latter seems more likely. In other Jewish literature “gates of Hades” is frequently idiomatic for “powers of death” (based on Isa 38:10). This interpretation fits better into the historical context of the increasing hostility against Jesus and his small band of disciples. The parables of the mustard seed and yeast (13:31–33) have already promised surprisingly large results and a widespread impact, despite inauspicious beginnings. Similarly here Jesus encourages his followers that, irrespective of how Christianity may be attacked in a given place and time, the church universal will never be extinguished. Sects and cults which claim that true Christianity entirely disappeared from the world during certain periods of church history contradict Jesus’ teaching here.
Jesus goes on to say, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” The word gate is normally used in the New Testament for some impressive gate, such as the gate of a city (Luke 7:12), of the temple (Acts 3:10), or of a prison (Acts 12:10); it may indicate the gate to life (7:13–14). Hades is the underworld, the place of the dead; it may be contrasted with heaven (11:23). That the gates … will not overpower the church is a little puzzling, since we think of gates as part of the defense rather than as a weapon of offense. But gates were important parts of fortifications in the first century and were usually flanked by bastions. Wooden gates would be overlain with bronze. They thus lend themselves to the imagery of strength. The gates of Hades were probably regarded as especially strong (did not they keep in all the dead?). The expression may, of course, be metaphorical (cf. “powers of death,” REB). Jesus is then saying that the gates of Hades are not strong enough to prevail against his church; that church will never die. There may also be the thought that though Hades is strong and the dead do not come back from it, it is not strong enough to contain Jesus and it is not strong enough to contain the Christian dead. Whether we can understand all the detailed imagery or not, it is clear that Jesus is giving his followers the assurance that nothing in this world or the next can overthrow the church.
It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kêpā’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim (which of course has no foundation in the text), that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. And it is, of course, a matter of historic fact that Peter was the acknowledged leader of the group of disciples, and of the developing church in its early years. The foundation-stone image is applied in the New Testament primarily to Christ himself (1 Cor. 3:10ff.; 1 Pet. 2:6–8; etc.), but cf. Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14 for the apostles as foundation.
What is striking is not so much the idea of ‘building a community’, but the boldness of Jesus’ description of it as my community, rather than God’s.
The gates of Hades (RSV mg.) occurs in Isaiah 38:10 (representing Heb. ‘gates of Sheol’); Wisdom 16:13 and other Jewish sources, where it means the same as ‘the gates of death’ (Ps. 9:13; 107:18; etc.), the place of the dead. To say that the powers of death (so RSV, correctly) shall not prevail against the community is thus to say that it will not die, and be shut in by the ‘gates of death’. The words do not indicate an attack by the ‘powers of evil’, but simply the process of death. Still less does the text support the picturesque idea of an attack on death’s gates by the church. (What could this mean? A sort of descensus ad inferos by the church?!) So Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community of the restored people of God, a community which will last for ever.
Matthew’s record of Jesus’ wordplay on Peter’s name is significant. Petros is a masculine singular noun. Petra is feminine. And while clearly related, they represent a distinction. The masculine singular form refers to Peter as one singular rock. The feminine form may be understood to represent bedrock or a rock quarry. It is reasonable to understand Jesus’ statement to mean that Peter was one rock among a rock quarry (the disciples). It was upon this quarry of disciples (cf. “living stones,” 1 Pet. 2:5) and their understanding of Peter’s confession that Jesus would build his church.
What the disciples heard from Jesus that day was, “On this rock quarry of disciples, I will build my community of believers.”
19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
But in what sense is Jesus building his church on Peter? Verse 19a gives the answer. Jesus promises Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” apparently to be interpreted by v. 19b as the authority to “bind” and “loose.” The metaphor of binding and loosing was variously employed in ancient Judaism but often was used for the interpretation of Torah and for decision making more generally. Many therefore support the GNB’s “prohibit” and “permit,”106 which would fit Jesus’ use of these terms in 18:18 in the context of church discipline. But this translation reflects a fairly late, rabbinic usage; more immediate parallels suggest that one should pursue the imagery of keys that close and open, lock and unlock (based on Isa 22:22) and take the binding and loosing as referring to Christians’ making entrance to God’s kingdom available or unavailable to people through their witness, preaching, and ministry. This entrance to the kingdom will include the forgiveness of sins, tying this text in closely with John 20:23, which displays a very similar structure, and also with Jesus’ use of the phrase “keys of knowledge” in Luke 11:52. Illustrations of Peter’s privilege may then be found throughout Acts 1–12, in which Peter remains at the forefront of leadership in the early Christian proclamation of the gospel.
Jesus continues with the promise that he will make Peter a gift, where the future tense probably points to the time subsequent to the resurrection (about which Jesus is about to speak, v. 21). He says that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom, of course, is not to be identified with the church. The kingdom has reference to the divine rule; the church to the people of God. They are closely related, but not identical.
Later in this Gospel Matthew will report that Jesus spoke of the scribes and Pharisees as shutting up the kingdom before people and thus preventing them from entering (23:13). Peter, by contrast, was to open the way. We see him doing this in Acts 2 and 3, where his preaching brought many into the kingdom, and in Acts 10, where he opened the way for the Gentile Cornelius to come in. We should see another aspect of the use of the keys in Acts 8:20–23, where he is excluding an impenitent sinner. And while the gift of the keys indicates that Peter is clearly given a certain primacy, we should not exaggerate this. The right to bind and loose, here connected with the gift of the keys, is given to the disciples as a whole in 18:18; thus we are not to think of Peter as elevated to a plane above all the others.
With respect to its significance in this passage Chamberlain remarks: “This is wrongly translated ‘shall be bound’ and ‘shall be loosed,’ seeming to make Jesus teach that the apostles’ acts will determine the policies of heaven. They should be translated ‘shall have been bound’ and ‘shall have been loosed.’ This makes the apostles’ acts a matter of inspiration or heavenly guidance.” He adds, “This incorrect translation has given expositors and theologians a great deal of trouble”
Shall be bound and shall be loosed are literally future perfects (‘shall have been bound’ and ‘shall have been loosed’), and as the future perfect sounds as stilted in Greek as in English, the tense is apparently deliberate. In that case it is not that heaven will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.
20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
If the disciples had gone out proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, both they and their hearers would have thought of a glorious, conquering Messiah. They would have looked for armies and bloodshed and victories. To know that Jesus was the Messiah was one thing; to understand what messiahship really meant was quite another. To have proclaimed Jesus’ messiahship would have been to invite misunderstanding. Better by far for Jesus to get on with the completion of his mission and to keep the knowledge that he was the Messiah within the inner circle. The disciples are to follow the same path as the Master: he knew he was the Messiah, but he did not proclaim it publicly; they are to take up the same position.
For Jesus’ commands to silence, see above on 8:4. Here the subject is specifically his Messiahship. Verses 21–23 will show how even Peter had not yet grasped the true nature of Jesus’ mission, as one of rejection and suffering rather than popularity and triumph. The danger of misunderstanding in a wider circle was much greater (see on 14:22), and the explicit use of the nationalistically loaded term Christ (‘Messiah’) could only foster such misguided enthusiasm and so hinder Jesus’ true mission. Peter’s confession, properly understood, was true and God-given, but the title ‘Christ’ alone, without the interpretation which v. 21 gives to it, was worse than inadequate.
Application
Application
We are the Temple
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
We are Living Stones
Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone on Which the Rest of the Temple is Built
The Apostles are the Foundation
We are Stones that Continue to Build it Up