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

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

reading and punctuation, a different rendering to this verse, which should read: "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake not to you concerning bread? But be ware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Christ does not explain; but he chides their dullness, then repeats his warning, and leaves them to study out its meaning for themselves, which they do.

12. But of the teaching of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Not merely the doctrine, that is, the things taught, but the teaching, which includes the spirit and method. Luke, in his account of Christ's use of the same symbol on another occasion (Luke 12: :1), gives Christ's own interpretation, "Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

In considering the practical significance of this teaching, observe that (1) Christ rebukes his disciples, not for a fragrant dereliction, but for a lack of spiritual perception; (2) he teaches in enigma, and requires them to study out its meaning for themselves; (3) their dullness to perceive the spiritual meaning of his teaching was akin to that of the Pharisees, for which he had just before rebuked them (verses 1-4), and both spring from the same source, lack of spiritual life and consequently spiritual perception; (4) false teaching and pernicious influences are ranked by our Lord together and compared to leaven, because subtle, unobserved, and pervasive; (5) the false doctrine of the Sadducees, the worldly spirit of the Herodians, and the religious formalism of the Pharisees are classed together; (6) the disciples are warned to be on the watch against evil teaching in the very quarters where the nation looked and had a right to look for its religious, philosophical, and political leaders.

Ch. 16: 13-20. PETER'S CONFESSION OF CHRIST.THE FALSE AND THE TRUE CONCEPTION OF JESUS CONTRASTED: A PROPHET; THE MESSIAH.-THE SECRET OF ALL TRUE SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE: THE TEACHING OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD (1 Cor. 2: 10).-THE SECRET OF ALL STABILITY IN CHRISTIAN CHARACTER: FAITH IN A LIVING AND LIFE-GIVING CHRIST. THIS MAKES EVERY POSSESSOR A PETER.—THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: LIVING FAITH IN A LIVING SAVIOUR.-HOW TO MAKE THE CHURCH STRONG AGAINST THE GATES OF HELL: A REVIVAL OF THIS LIVING FAITH BY RECEIVING THE SPIRIT OF GOD.-THE POWER OF THE CHRISTIAN IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD: POWER TO BIND AND LOOSE, i. e., TO WALK IN THE PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY.-NECESSITY OF CAUTION IN PREACHING THE TRUTH: PREACH ONLY WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE TRULY PREPARED TO HEAR (John 16: 12).

This significant and solemn colloquy is recorded by Mark (8: 27-30) and Luke (9: 18-21), though less fully than here. Matthew alone gives the blessing of Christ pronounced on Peter in verses 18 and 19. John, who wrote his Gospel to make clear his Lord's divinity (John 20:31), omits this incident altogether. The omission is an indication that he wrote with the other Gospels before him, and supplied only what they lacked. The time is correctly indicated in the course of the narrative here. It was after Christ had closed his public ministry in Galilee, and was seeking repose with his disciples for the purpose of imparting to them especial instruction in the principles of his kingdom.

13. When Jesus came into the region of Cæsarea of Philippi. There were two Casareas in Palestine; one on the coast, midway between Joppa and Mount Carmel, the other north of Galilee at the head waters of the Jordan, about four miles east of Dan, the northernmost town of the Holy Land proper (see map). It was termed Cæsarea in honor of Augustus Cæsar, the great patron of the Herodian family, to whom the great temple erected here by Herod was dedicated, and Philippi, i. e. of Philip, to distinguish it from the other Cæsarea and in honor of Herod Philip the tetrarch (Matt. 14: 1, and note), who made it the site of his villas and palaces. It is probably to be identified historically with the Baal-gad under Mount Hermon, which marked the northern boundary of Joshua's conquest (Joshua 11 : 17). Here, subsequently, was erected a sanctuary to the heathen god Pan, which gave to the town the new name of Paneas, which still lingers in the modern appellation Banias. This sanctuary of Pan was constructed in a cave in the rock (Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 390); Greek inscriptions on the face of the rock, testifying to the former existence of this sanctuary, still remain. Above this sanctuary, and on the cliff itself, Herod built the white marble temple in honor of Augustus. It is conjectured, not unreasonably, that Christ's colloquy with his disciples took place within sight of this temple; that he referred indirectly to the temple thus founded on a rock, yet not to abide. From this same cliff burst forth, in rivulets, which just below unite in a single stream, the waters which constitute the higher source of the Jordan.

Asked his disciples. Apparently the twelve only. Whom do men. Luke says, the people (Greek loc), that is, the common people, the multitude, as distinguished from the Scribes and

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed

art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter;

the Pharisaic leaders. That the Son of man is. This is the reading of the best manuscripts. The Son of man in the N. T. always signifies the Messiah. According to one interpretation, and one which the reading I have given seems to sustain, the question would be, what sort of a person do the public think the expected Messiah to be. But our English version evidently represents the spirit of the question more accurately: What estimate do the public put upon me, the Messiah? For (a) the question is thus reported by both Mark and Luke, where there is no doubt as to the reading, and (b) Christ's second question to his disciples, Whom say ye that I am? shows that he inquires not merely into the commonly received doctrine respecting the Messiah, but into the public opinion, and into his disciples' opinion, respecting himself. Why does he ask this question? To lead his disciples on to a confession of their own higher faith. If one is uncertain respecting the divine character of Jesus Christ, let him, as here, compare that with other hypotheses, and by a comparison reach the truth. 14. They said, Some, John the Baptist. This was the opinion of Herod, who thought John whom he had beheaded was risen from the dead (Matt. 14: 2). Others, Elijah. Malachi (45) had prophesied that Elijah the prophet should come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, a prophesy fulfilled by the advent of John the Baptist. See Matt. 11: 14, and note. Some of the people thought Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and looked forward to the coming of another Messiah. And others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, i. e. "that one of the old prophets is risen again” (Luke 9: 19). Jeremiah is placed first, because in Jewish canon he was placed first among the O. T. prophets.

His

16. And Simon Peter answered. original name was Simon or Simeon. The appellation Peter was given him by our Lord, when he first and but temporarily joined Jesus at the ford of Bethabara (John 1: 40, 41). Chrysostom characterizes him as the "mouth of the apostles and the leader of the apostolic choir." But there is nothing to indicate here that he spoke for them; rather impulsively and ardently, he gave instant expression to his own conviction. Observe his language; not, I say that thou art, nor, We say that thou art, but Thou art. He expresses not an opinion, but an assured and certain fact. Thou art the Christ. That is, the Messiah, literally the Anointed. See note on the names of Jesus, p. 21. The Son of the living God.

:9),

Mark says simply Thou art the Christ; Luke, The Christ of God. The phrase living God was common among the Jews, not merely to distinguish Jehovah from idols (Josh. 3: 10; Acts 14: 15; 1 Thess. 1:9 but also to indicate his character as a personal Being, who enters into sympathetic relations with the soul of man, and by the warmth of his own life imparts to the needs of the human soul. (Psalm 42: 2; 84: 2; 2 Cor. 3:3; 1 Tim. 4: 10). It is thus peculiarly appropriate as a designation of Christ, who is the highest manifestation of this personal, living, and life-giving character of our God.

17. Happy art thou, Simon, son of Jonas. The meaning of Jonas is dove. Some of the commentators see in this an allegorical meaning-Simon, son of the Dove, that is, child of the Holy Spirit. Others think that it recalls his earthly origin in contrast with the spiritual blessing conferred upon him. I should rather regard it simply as an emphatic address, as in John 21: 15-17, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me. Such an employment of the double name is common with us in emphatic address. Why peculiarly happy? A similar confession of faith had apparently been made before; by the disciples when Jesus quelled the storm on the lake of Galilee (Matt. 14:33), and by Nathaniel on his first meeting with Christ (John 1:49). Christ himself answers the question. For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. The previous expressions of faith were produced by wonder, and were founded on extraordinary displays of power or knowledge, which are of themselves very inadequate foundations on which to build such a faith. Peter's language here was the expression, in calmness, of a settled conviction, which was produced by a disclosure of the divine character of Christ to the spiritual apprehension of the disciples, by the direct influence of the Spirit of God. True spiritual blessedness consists not in a merely intellectual belief, but in the spiritual apprehension of Christ's divine characCompare Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:5; Gal. 1:15, 16. Flesh and blood was a phrase in common use among the rabbis to designate man in contradistinction to God. Here, it is equivalent

ter.

to anything human, i. e., Christ declares, No power or faculty of man, in yourself or others, has imparted this knowledge to you. Compare 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Ephes. 6:12; Heb. 2:14. Observe the implication of a direct disclosure of the truth by the Spirit of God to the soul. Observe, too, that, whilst modern theology

ande upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail" against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,

attributes the work of revelation and inspiration to the Holy Spirit, it is here attributed to the Father; one of the many indications that the N. T. makes no such clear philosophical distinction between the three Persons of the Trinity as were later made.

18. Thou art a rock and upon this rock. There is here a play upon the words which it is impossible to preserve fully in the English. The Greek word Peter signifies rock, though there is a difference in the form of the word as Christ uses it; in the first clause of the sentence he employs the masculine form (zétqoç, petros), in the latter clause the feminine form (лirga, petra). Some scholars have drawn important doctrinal conclusions from this variation (see notes below); but the grounds for so doing are very slight. The ordinary form is feminine. In applying the word to a man, Jesus would naturally change it to the masculine form.

I will build my church. The word (izziŋalu) here rendered church, means, etymologically, something called together; it stands in the Septuagint or Greek version of the O. T. for the Great Congregation, or Jewish House of Parliament or Congress, a body half way between a representative gathering and a mass meeting, probably sometimes one and sometimes the other. (Numb. 14:1-5, 10; 27: 18-23; 1 Kings 8: 1-5; 1 Chron. 13: 1-8; Psalm

29:22). "In the N. T. it most frequently occurs in the sense of an assemblage of Christians generally" (Kitto); and if it ever signifies a definite ecclesiastical organization, with officers and spiritual or ecclesiastical powers, this is a secondary meaning, and one which the Apostles could not have attached to it at this time, when no such organization existed. Here it is simply equivalent to my called, i. e. those called out of the world to represent visibly among men Christ's invisible kingdom; in other words, his entire inorganic body of professed disciples.

The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. On the meaning of the word hell or Hades (here didns), see note on Matt. 5:22. The phrase gates of Hades may be regarded as here equivalent to the forces of the kingdom of death sallying out from its gates, as from a fortified city, to attack the Kingdom of Christ, represented in its Great Congregation; or we may conceive the metaphor to be drawn from the attempt of an enemy to hold captives in a walled city, but without effect, the gates being unable to keep them in their captivity. Thus the gates of Gaza did not prevail against Samson (Judges 16 : 1-3). This appears to me to be the better interpreta

tion. Thus the metaphor involves a promise of immortality, both to the Christian and the Church. Death seems to capture and carry captive the Christian, and so to destroy the Church; but the gates of Hades are powerless to hold the captives, and through the death portal they that seem to be captured enter into the assembly and church of the first-born in heaven (Hebrews 12: 22, 23). Of the fulfillment of this promise, historical illustrations are afforded by the deliverance of Peter from death (Acts 12: 1-11), by the resurrection of the Saints at the death of Christ (Matt. 27:52), but most of all by the resurrection of Jesus himself as a first-fruits (1 Cor. 15:20).

THE FOUNDATION OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. This and the following verse have given rise to volumes of bitter controversy. I shall treat them separately, on account both of their difficulty and their importance. The principal interpretations of this verse are the following:

I. The ordinary Roman Catholic view; that Christ declares his purpose to found a great ecclesiastical organization; that this organization was to be built upon Peter and his successors as its true foundation; that they were to represent to all time the authority of God upon the earth, being clothed, by virtue of their office, with a continuous inspiration, and authorized by the word, and fitted by the indwelling Spirit of God, to guide, direct, illumine, and command the disciples of Christ, with the same force and effect as Christ himself. This view is untenable for the following reasons: (a.) Christ does not, as we have seen, refer to a definite ecclesiastical organization by the word church (izziŋola), and would not be so understood by his disciples. (b.) Peter was not by nature rock-like; he was, on the contary, characteristically impulsive and unstable. (See note on Simon Peter, pp. 109, 110.) There must be, therefore, some other significance in the words, Thou art a rock, which the Romish interpretation loses. (c.) Neither he nor the other disciples understood that Christ invested him with any such authority and position. He did not occupy any such place in the church while he lived. In the first council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11) he was simply an adviser, the office of chief, or President, being apparently held by James; Paul withstood Peter to his face as no disciple ever withstood Christ, or would have withstood his acknowledged representative (Gal. 2:11-14); and throughout the N. T. the apostles are all treated as co-equals (Matt. 18:1; 19: 28; 23:8; John 15:1-5; Rev. 21: 14). (d.) There is neither here nor anywhere else in the N. T. any hint of the

appointment of a successor to Peter, or of any authority in him to appoint a successor, or of any such authority vested in any of the apostles, or exercised or assumed to be exercised by any of them. (e.) The N. T. throughout, and the O. T. in all its prophecies, recognizes Christ as the chief corner-stone, the foundation on which the Kingdom of God can alone be built (1 Cor. 3:11; Ephes. 2:20). (f.) Mark and Luke omit from their account this utterance of Christ; if it really designated Peter as the foundation of the visible church, and was thus essential and not incidental to the right understanding of the whole incident, it would not be omitted from their accounts.

II. Various Protestant views. Of these the chief are the following: 1. That the church was built upon Peter, because he was the first to make it known, as to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 14-26) and subsequently to the Gentiles (Acts, ch. 10). But this view is untenable because (a) the words are too solemnly spoken, and too significant, to be reduced to a mere promise of personal priority in time in preaching the Gospel; (b) according | to this view Peter was a builder of the church, not its foundation; and (c) even as a builder he was less a founder than Paul, or perhaps even John and James. 2. That Christ does not refer to Peter, but to his declaration, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, i. e. he declares the rock on which he will build his church is not Peter, but the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, to which Peter has given expression. But this is untenable because (a) it ignores Christ's play upon the words Petros (zétoos), Peter, and petra (rézya), rock; (b) the church is not represented in the N. T. as built upon any doctrine, but upon living souls (see Scripture references below, III, b); (c) in fact churches which have retained this doctrine in their creed, the Roman Catholic for example, have become corrupted and Christless in their life. 3. That Christ refers to himself, as in the prophecy of John 2: 19, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will build it up." Those who hold this view assert that the Rock is throughout the Bible a symbol of God or of Christ (Deut. 32: 4, 31; 1 Sam. 2:2; Psalm 92: 15; Isaiah 26: 4, marg. ; 41: 8, marg. ; 1 Cor. 10:4); that the change in the Greek from the masculine form Petros (лɛzoos), Peter, to the feminine petra (7ɛzoa), rock, indicates a change in meaning, which Christ may have further interpreted by pointing to himself; that the form of his language indicates such a change, since he does not say "upon thee," but "upon this rock." Thus they regard Christ's language as equivalent to, Thou art a piece of rock, and upon the Rock Christ Jesus, from which thou dost derive thy rock-like character, I will build my church. I regard this view untenable because (a) it fails fairly to interpret the play upon the words Peter (781905, petros) and

66

гock (лɛτQα, petra); (b) it contravenes the spirit of the figure, in which Christ, by the words, I will build my church, represents himself as the builder, not as the foundation; (c) it fails to harmonize with the context, in which Christ promises to give to Peter, because of his faith and his place in the church, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. (d.) A careful examination of other passages will indicate that Christ is represented as the Rock on which the church is to be built, only in so far as he is embodied in the life and the faith of his disciples.

III. The view which I believe to be the correct one is as follows: That which makes Simon to be in truth a Peter (a rock) is his vital faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Every one who possesses a like faith is, according to the measure of his faith, a Peter, that is, a rock, and Christ builds his church on this rock, that is, on this living experience of faith in the Christ, the Son of the living God, inspired in the hearts of men by the Spirit of God. If this living faith be wanting, neither a whole college of apostles and their successors, nor the most orthodox creed, nor the most unquestioning belief in the divinity of the historic Christ, can sustain the church. Christ's words, then, as I understand them, might be paraphrased thus: Now, taught the fundamental truth of the Christian system, not by flesh and blood, but by my Father which is in heaven, thy nature is changed, thy native instability is taken away, and henceforth thou art Peter, a rock; and upon this rock, this character thus divinely transformed by the renewing of the Spirit (Rom. 19; 2) and made strong by a vital faith in the Son of the living God, I will build my church, the assembly of my disciples, whose faith is to stand, not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. This living faith in Christ, not an ecclesiastical order, nor a correct creed, nor natural strength of character, shall be the basis of my church, which shall be built out of living men, and upon their living faith in me, as their Messiah and the Messiah of the world. (Compare 1 Cor. 1: 27-31; 2:5; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Pet. 2: 5.) This view I believe to be the correct one, because (a) it accords with the character of Peter, who was not stable by nature, but derived all his true strength from a vital faith in Jesus Christ; (b) it accords with other passages of Scripture, which represent the church as built of living hearts, and upon Christ as embodied in the faith and life of his disciples (Ephes. 2: 20-22; Gal. 2: 9; 1 Fet. 2:4-6; Rev. 21 14); (c) it accords with the subsequent historical fulfillment of this promise, which has proved that the church is strong and stable, just in the proportion in which its members possess a vital faith in Jesus Christ, and are made Peters (rocks) by this their divinely begotten faith in their Head; (d) it embodies whatever

shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples, that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

of truth there is in the other interpretations; the superficial truth in the Roman Catholic view, which seizes the letter, but ignores the spirit; and the deeper truth of the more common Protestant view, which perceives correctly that the doctrine of Christ is the foundation of Christianity as a system of doctrines, and Christ is the foundation of his church as a living organism, but which has failed to recognize the significance of the letter, and so has failed to get Christ's full meaning; (e) it is incidently confirmed by Peter's words in 1 Pet. 2: 4-6, which indicate his understanding of Christ's teaching here, and which certainly point not to himself, but to a vital faith in Christ as the foundation of the Christian Church. In Lange on Matthew, Dr. Schaff's notes, the reader will find a statement of the views of the different commentators. will be interested to observe that the fathers, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others, make either Christ or Peter's confession of a faith in Christ, the rock, not Peter himself; and that the last of the three views I have given above is substantially sustained, by Calvin and by the best modern scholars. Among them may be mentioned Lange, Schaff, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Stier, and Brown.

He

If this interpretation be correct, the passage teaches (1.) That the only condition of membership in the visible church which Jesus Christ recognized is vital faith in himself, wrought by the indwelling Spirit of God, neither moral life nor doctrinal belief being adequate without; for of those who possess this faith he declares he will construct his Great Congregation, his visible church. (2.) The condition of true power in the church is always vital faith in Jesus Christ, in the hearts of its members, without which neither ecclesiastical order nor doctrinal accuracy is of any efficacy. The first step, therefore, toward a revival of power in the church, is always the revival of this living faith in the hearts of both minister and people, by seeking and receiving in docility the teaching of the Spirit of God.

19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. In considering the meaning of this confessedly enigmatical and hotly contested passage, the candid student must bear in mind two canons of criticism: first, in interpreting Bible metaphors, we must ascertain how the hearers would have understood the metaphorical language; second, any principle which we find stated in the Bible in enigmatical or ambiguous language, we may generally expect to find stated elsewhere in the Bible in sim

pler and more perspicuous language. For essential truths do not depend upon isolated passages, still less upon such as are confessedly difficult of interpretation. Applying the first principle, the following facts must be noted: (1.) This verse is not a gift, but a promise of a gift: I will give.

ANCIENT KEY.

(2.) The key, in the East, was a symbol of authority, was made long, with a crook at one end, so that it could be worn round the neck as a badge of office. To this use of the key reference is had in the phrase, "The government shall be upon his shoulder" (Isaiah 9: 6), and in the promise to Eliakim, "The key of the house of David I will lay upon his shoulder" (Isaiah 22: 22). (3.) The phrase "kingdom of heaven" in the Gospels never means the visible, external, organic church, and rarely, if ever, the future state in contrast with the present, but the reign of God in the individual soul, or in the community. (See note on Matt. 3: 2.) The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" do not, then, symbolize power to admit or exclude from the earthly church, or from heaven, but power in the life of allegiance to God, i. e. in the Christian life. (4.) The word bind (déw) is never used in the N. T. as a metaphor for condemnation, or fastening guilt upon the soul, but is used metaphorically for binding the individual by laws, as in Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7: 27, 39; and the word loose (2vw) is never used as a symbol for pardon or deliverance from sin, but always, either literally of unbinding or dissolving, as in Mark 1:7; 2 Pet. 3: 10, 11, 12, or metaphorically of the relaxing or dissolving of a law, as in Matt. 5: 19 (where, see note); John 5: 18; 7: 23; 10:35; 1 Cor. 7:27. The words "bind" and "loose" had also this well established significance among the Jewish rabbis, being nearly equivalent to "prohibit" and "permit.' Lightfoot gives a number of illustrations; one will here suffice. "They do not send letters by the hand of a heathen on the Sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of the week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it (prohibits it) even on the fourth day of the week; but the school of Hillel looseth it (permits it)." (5.) The declaration of Christ is not whomsoever thou shall bind and loose, but whatsoever (ő ɛ ) thou shall bind and loose. Applying these facts, this verse will read thus: I will give thee authority