CHAPTER 16
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. Matthew 16:1
We have an unlikely duo here in this verse. The Pharisees and Sadducees have teamed up in an unholy alliance to test Jesus. These two groups had very little in common, except their hatred for Jesus. We have previously described some of their beliefs in our comments for 3:7. We may remember that the Pharisees were concerned with keeping the minutiae of the law, plus the voluminous man-made material they called the Oral Law. Jesus had just labeled them as hypocrites in 15:7, for undercutting the law with their traditions. The Sadducees were the priestly party who were making a very good living with the temple activities and did not want Jesus to “rock their boat.” The parties were quite different in that the Pharisees believed in a Messiah, in angels, in the resurrection and the Sadducees did not believe in any of these things. Still, they joined together in their hatred of Jesus.
They asked Jesus for a sign from heaven. His many healings and other miracles meant nothing to them. Perhaps they were seeking a heavenly sign like the thunder that Samuel once brought down (1 Sam. 12:16-18) or the shadow of the sun going backwards on the dial that Isaiah through his prayer had caused to be displayed (Isa. 38:8). Moses had even given them manna from heaven (Exo. 16:4).1 We have already mentioned that no sign would have been sufficient for this unbelieving brood. What a sharp contrast these Jewish leaders were to the Gentiles in their response to Jesus’ miracles (15:31).2
We note here that the Pharisees and Sadducees were hypocritical in their request. This is clearly displayed by Matthew’s word for “tested” (Gk. peirasmos). This word has the meaning of giving a test with intent to discredit.3 Their minds about Jesus were fully made up and no sign from heaven or anywhere else would change them. It is obvious that the temptation posed by the scribes and Pharisees was a duplication of the one offered by Satan in 4:5-6, of trying to win the people through the use of the miraculous.4 Jesus absolutely refused to operate in this manner.
“He replied, ‘When evening comes, you say, “It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,” and in the morning, “Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.” You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times’” (16:2-3). Jesus had dealt with the leaders concerning their request for a sign in 12:39, and now they came again with the same request. Likely, there was a saying that went something like this: “A red sky at night is the shepherd’s delight…A red sky in the morning is the shepherd’s warning.” 5 The Pharisees and Sadducees were apparently great weather forecasters but they could not read the signs of the times. Several biblical signs were obvious. Daniel’s prophetic weeks were about to expire (Dan. 9:24-27); John the Baptist (Elijah) had appeared according to the prophetic word (Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; 4:5); the scepter of rule had departed from Judah (Gen. 49:10); all the world was expecting the coming of a deliverer; and one like Moses had appeared (Deut. 18:15-19).6
“‘A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.’ Jesus then left them and went away” (16:4). Mark tells us that Jesus sighed deeply over their repeated request for a sign (Mk. 8:11-12). He assured them that only a wicked and adulterous people would ask for such a sign. The expression “adulterous generation” is no doubt used here in the metaphorical sense. They were unfaithful to God their husband as pictured in many Old Testament passages (i.e., Jer. 3:8; 9:2; 23:10; 29:23; Ezek. 23; Mal. 3:5).7 The only sign that would be given them was the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of the big fish, out of which he was rescued and then went to preach to Nineveh, so the Son of Man would be three days and nights in the heart of the earth (12:40-41). Of course, once the resurrection happened we see no evidence that the Pharisees and Sadducees paid any attention to it. “…The Lord realized the hopelessness of further argument in the case of these deceitful enemies.” 8
Guzik points out many similarities with Jonah and with Jesus. “Jonah sacrificed himself that others would be saved. Jonah disappeared from all human view in doing this. Jonah was sustained the days when he could not be seen. He came back after three days, as one from the dead. Jonah also preached repentance.” 9
LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES
When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matthew 16:5-6
We can only imagine how disgusted Jesus must have been at this point with Israel’s leadership. This marks Jesus’ last withdrawal from the Galilee prior to his final trip south to Jerusalem.10 We can also sense a little disappointment with his own disciples because of their continued lack of understanding. Time was growing short for his ministry and it was critically important that they comprehend.
Based on their lack of bread, Jesus began to teach them about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Of course, the disciples thought he was scolding them for not bringing bread on the trip. After his miracles of loaves, that should have been of small concern to them.
Yeast or leaven is mentioned mostly in the Bible as an evil influence (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6-7; Gal. 5:9) and that is the meaning here. The yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees was primarily hypocrisy (Lk. 12:1). We shall see that their yeast involved other things like the teaching of these two groups (v. 12). In Mark 8:15, Jesus also warned his disciples about the yeast of King Herod. The Sadducees and Herod had in common that they cooperated with the Romans in order to protect their positions and holdings. Thus, they were worldly and deeply compromised with the world system. How tragic that the Sadducee party included Israel’s priestly hierarchy.11
“They discussed this among themselves and said, ‘It is because we didn’t bring any bread.’ Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, ‘You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?’” (16:7-8). The disciples had a persistent tendency to focus on the mundane and thus miss the spiritual aspects of the Lord’s teaching. For this reason, the Lord called them “little faiths” here and in other places (cf. 8:26; 17:20). Somehow they had still not understood that the Heavenly Father would supply his people with daily bread (Matt. 6:25-26, 32).12
“Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?” (16:9-10). Not only did they have the teaching that their heavenly Father would supply their needs, but they actually had two demonstrations of the Lord’s miraculous power to produce the necessary bread. We mentioned earlier how some scholars have doubted that Jesus worked two miracles of loaves and fish. Here the Lord clears up the matter by discussing both miracles together. It is rather amazing that the disciples seemed to have forgotten all about the two great miracles.
“How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (16:11). We know for sure that the Pharisees and Sadducees were hypocrites. Their actions did not correspond to their teachings. But in the next verse we realize that the teachings of these groups also presented a problem.
We might ask ourselves just what they were teaching that so interfered with the Messiah’s program? Although the Pharisees were supposedly great scholars of the word, they were totally ignorant concerning several important and extensive sections of the prophets. In the large section of Isaiah called the Servant Songs (Isa. 42:1 – 53:12) it is made very clear that the Servant or Messiah of Israel would come to suffer and to give his life as a ransom for the nation. He would be despised, poorly esteemed and slain by Israel (Isa. 53:3-9), but as the Lamb of God he would bear their sins. John the Baptist even introduced Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29, 36). Jesus had not come to solve their political problems but their spiritual problems, and not just theirs but the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2).
Now, what the Pharisees and others were teaching was quite the opposite of this. They were teaching that the Messiah would come for the sole purpose of delivering the nation from the Romans. This yeasty teaching had come to permeate the whole theology of Israel and even the disciples were greatly affected by it. Quite simply, the yeast of the Pharisees and others had caused Israel to miss her Messiah.
“Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (16:12). We must face a difficult question here. If the Jews missed the Messiah in his first coming through the yeast of false teaching, are we having a similar problem today? Are we about to miss the Second Coming and our part in it, due to the yeast of false doctrine about the end times?
The doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church began in Scotland in 1830. Through the publication of the Schofield Bible and by other means the doctrine spread like leaven in the church and reached the US about a century later. In the twentieth century it spread to become the most popular end-time belief. This teaching holds that Christians will not have a part in the last day struggles but will be carried off to heaven instead. It is a kind of escapist doctrine, or a “divine Dunkirk” approach to overcoming and victorious living. Quite simply, this teaching is designed to limit Christian action and involvement as the difficult last days approach. It is surely opposed to putting on the full armor of God so that we can stand in the last evil day (Eph. 6:13).
Let me illustrate how rapidly this doctrine has spread. My wife and I grew up in the church and were believers at an early age. Of course, we heard many, many sermons and Bible teachings. We both attended a Christian college and each took several courses on Christianity. However, we were married and I was serving in the military in the 1950s before we ever heard of a pre-tribulation rapture of the church. The idea initially sounded exciting and ear-tickling but we could not find it in scripture and we quickly dropped the idea. I might point out that the older commentaries of the Bible know nothing about the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. I have studied them thoroughly in writing my own set of Bible commentaries. Meyer laments, “There is abroad today much teaching which may be compared to leaven…We must judge these pernicious teachings, not by their pleasant and innocent appearance, but by their effect on heart and character.” 13
PETER’S GREAT CONFESSON OF CHRIST
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” Matthew 16:13
It seems that Jesus and his disciples docked at Bethsaida in the northeastern corner of the lake (Mk. 8:22-26). From there they began the 25 mile (46 km.) journey up the Jordan Valley to Caesarea Philippi, at the foot of Mount Hermon. This was mostly a Gentile area and we can imagine that Jesus and his disciples needed some rest and refreshing. We have no indication that they actually entered the city but they were certainly in the area (Mk. 8:27). As we have noted, Jesus would now begin to concentrate on teaching his disciples and preparing them for the events that would soon happen in Jerusalem.
Let us say a little about Caesarea Philippi and the area around it. The city was located at the foot of towering Mount Hermon (9,232 ft. – 2,813 m.) and from it flowed one of the beautiful sources of the Jordan River. In the past, the city had many names. In Old Testament times it was called Ba’al Hermon (Jud. 3:3), likely because the god Ba’al was worshipped there. In Hellenistic times it was called Paneas because the god Pan and his worship had apparently replaced the ancient Ba’als. The niches for Pan’s images can still be seen in the rock façade at the site. Of course, Pan was the ancient god of fright, who was half man and half goat and is often pictured as playing the flute.
Later in New Testament times the city was rebuilt by Herod Philip and the name changed to Caesarea Philippi (Caesar’s City of Philip). In the New Testament era, Herod Phillip, one of the sons of Herod the Great, ruled this whole area of Gaulanitis on the east side of the Jordan River. He made ancient Paneas his capital city and renamed it after Caesar Augustus. To distinguish it from the Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast it was named Caesarea Philippi. Much later, in the seventh century AD, the Arabs captured the city and it reverted to its old name. Because of their difficulty in pronouncing the “P” sound, the name of the city became simply Banias as it still is today.
It was at this city, the very stronghold of false religion, that Jesus asked the question, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” Guthrie comments, “It is ironical that it was in such a district that the first true confession of the Messiah of the Jews was made.” 14 He was to get a variety of answers to this question asked of his disciples.
“They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (16:14). Coffman says, “How amazing that none of the popular beliefs at that times identified Christ as the Messiah! That showed how effective the Pharisees had been in their evil campaign against Christ. Many folks had at first recognized him as the Messiah (John 1:42; 4:30); but Satan, in the manner of the parable, had come and stolen the truth out of their hearts.” 15
“‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’” (16:15). Barker and Kohlenberger state: “The ‘you’ is emphatic and plural…” 16 It is almost as if this question is being directed to all of us. In fact, this is probably the most important question that the disciples or anyone else has ever answered. Today, the Lord is still asking it to each of us “Who do you say I am?” To this important question Peter arose to give the one perfect answer.
“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16). It is utterly amazing that almost no one in Israel had called Jesus the Messiah. This was no doubt partly because of the awful error the Pharisees and others had sown about the Messiah’s identity. That error was so great that Jesus could not openly proclaim his messiahship in Israel. People would have immediately thought that he was the political messiah and deliverer from Rome. He could only do so in Gentile areas (cf. Jn. 4:25-26).
We need to stop and consider just how perfect and profound this answer of Peter was. He broke the strange silence and announced Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. He announced him as the Christ or the anointed one. Jesus must have been greatly pleased with this answer. Peter not only proclaimed him as Christ and Messiah but he lauded him as the Son of the living God. All other gods were lifeless blocks of wood, metal and stone but the God of Israel was and is the living God.17 The title Son of God was unthinkable for Israel, who had always maintained the unity of God as the Shema states, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4). However, many verses in the Old Testament had spoken of the Son of God (Gen. 49:10; Psa. 2:6-7, 12; 45:6-7; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; 11:10; 42:1-4; Mic. 5:2).
Jesus in his ministry openly claimed to be one with the Father. He said, “I and the Father are one” (Jn. 10:30), and “…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” (Jn. 14:9). It would take a few generations of early Christianity to work out the mysteries of the Son of God and come up with the Trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being manifestations of the One True God. Nevertheless, Peter’s confession was profound. Morris says, “He could not have ascribed a higher place to him. His words bring out the essential being of our Lord in the most comprehensive expression in the gospels.” 18 Wiersbe remarks, “It was in the midst of this pagan superstition that Peter confessed Jesus as the Son of God.” 19
“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven’” (16:17). Here for the first time we learn the full name of Simon. In fact, Simon had several names. Barjonah in the Aramaic language meant “son of Jonah.” 20 His Aramaic name was also Kephas. In the Greek language Simon was called Petros, meaning a rock. In the Old Testament the Hebrew for rock was tsuwr, a name often applied to God himself (Deut. 32:4, 31). Such a name was surely a compliment to Simon.21
It is interesting that Simon Peter himself did not come up with the information about Jesus being the Messiah and Son of God. It came to him by revelation from heaven. Things have not changed much today. People cannot come up with or understand the deep things of God by themselves. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” Even today the deeper things of God are only perceived by revelation, by prayer and biblical meditation.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). In this section commentators have almost gone wild and have written reams of material. Barclay says, “This passage is one of the storm-centers of New Testament interpretation.” 22 We will try to cautiously wade our way through it. First of all, Jesus is obviously making a play of words. Upon Simon, who is now called Peter, or the rock, Jesus would build his church. The Greek word for Peter is petros and the word for rock is petra. The Greek word for church is ekklesia. Blomberg states, “Here is the first use of ekklesia in the gospels. It occurs only three times, all in Matthew, and the other two references are both in 18:17.” 23
The word ekklesia is interesting. At the outset it was not a religious word but rather it meant a group or a called-out group.24 In the ancient Greek Bible or Septuagint (LXX), it was regularly used to translate the Hebrew qahal or congregation.25 So, the ekklesia is really a called-out group of people or a community of believers in Jesus the Messiah. Unfortunately, over the centuries the church has become hopelessly confused with the building that contains it. Today if the average person was asked to point out the church that person would undoubtedly point to a certain building.
We note here that the Lord will build his church on the rock of Peter. I think we would all agree that if the church was built upon Peter alone we would be in a lot of trouble. The Bible is quite clear that the church is built on Christ, who is its chief cornerstone and the only foundation (1 Cor.3:10-11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4-8). No other foundation can be laid or acknowledged.
This section of scripture has been greatly confused over the centuries by the actions of the Catholic Church in naming Peter as its head. It is Catholic belief that there is such a thing as Apostolic Succession, or the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority from Peter and his successors (other popes) through history. This of course is denied by most Protestants.
How then can we make sense of this verse? Pfeiffer and Harrison say that the church is built on the divinely revealed information about Christ as confessed by Peter.26 Barnes feels that the “rock” is the matter of Peter’s confession.27 Coffman is certain that the Lord is speaking of the faith of Peter, that has named Jesus as the Son of God.28 It could be any one of these things or even some combination of them.
Let us look at the other promise the Lord makes concerning his church. He assures us that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. To understand this we need to again picture the location where this promise was made.
The whole area around Caesarea Philippi, with its natural beauty and picturesque setting, had long been a center for false religion. Just a very few kilometers from Caesarea, and also situated on the slopes of Hermon, is the ancient city of Dan. This city was also blessed by cooling springs of water bubbling up to make yet another source of the Jordan River.
Unfortunately, during the days of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat, Dan was made into a cultic shrine where one of the two golden calves was set up. Of course, it was but a short step from the worship of a bull to the worship of Ba’al. Ultimately the beautiful site of Dan helped bring about the fall of Israel, or the northern ten tribes. These tribes have now been in dispersion for 2700 years because of their idolatry. So we can see that Jesus brought his disciples to the very gates of false religion, to the gates of Hades, or the gates of death. Then he made a promise about his church and Hades.
The Greek word Hades corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol. It is known in the Bible as the gloomy and shadowy abode of the dead. In the Old Testament it was regarded as the abode of both the righteous and the wicked (Gen. 37:35; Psa. 9:17; Isa. 38:10).29 In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31) we realize that Hades or Sheol had different compartments for the righteous and wicked dead. It is the belief of many Christians that when Christ arose from the dead he took the righteous dead to heaven with him and led captivity captive (Eph. 4:8). From that point on the righteous in Christ are seen in heavenly places with Christ (2 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:23).30
Now, how do we interpret the “gates” of Hades or Sheol? Simply it is speaking of the gates of death. Probably included here is the aspect of false religion which leads to death and destruction. Barnes sees “gates” as the designs, counsels, machinations and purposes of evil.31 We could add to this the power and policy of Hades or death. Clearly, “…nothing in this world or the next can overthrow the church.” 32
We cannot doubt that Peter was assigned prominence in the church. This is clearly evident in the early chapters of Acts. However, it was not an absolute prominence.33 On one occasion we see Paul publicly rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11ff.). In fact, after the great Jerusalem Council we see Peter totally bowing out of the Acts narrative (Acts 15:7). After that, Paul becomes the prominent one. Also, Guthrie says, “There is no suggestion of any kind that the promise was made to his successors in office…That Peter is to exercise his authority in conjunction with the rest of the apostles is made plain in 18:18.” 34
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (16:19). This verse like the previous one has caused much discussion and has provoked some strange interpretations. Keys speak of authority as we know. We just naturally pick out the person with many keys as a person of authority. Keys open and close the door. Without them there is no admission. No doubt this verse has given us the somewhat humorous and unbiblical picture of St. Peter controlling the gates of heaven.
Let us consider how Peter really did use the “keys” in the early church. He opened the door to thousands of Jewish people on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41); He then opened the door to the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17. Then, he opened the gospel door to all the Gentiles in Acts 10:1-48. Strangely, it was necessary for Peter to be present for these events.
Now, let us consider the matter of binding and loosing. We really need to interpret this verse from a biblical standpoint and consider how the matter of binding and loosing was understood in the time of Christ. Barclay enlightens us saying: “To loose and to bind were very common Jewish phrases. They were used especially of the decisions of the great teachers and the great Rabbis. Their regular sense, which any Jew would recognize was to allow and to forbid… The duty of binding and loosing meant that Peter would have to take decisions about the church’s life and practice which would have the most far-reaching consequences.” 35 We see a clear example of this at the Jerusalem Council where the powerful testimony of Peter helped sway the important decision of the church to accept Gentiles without circumcision and keeping the law (Acts 15:6-12).
Clearly this was not an exclusive thing but something that could be shared with other believers. In John 20:22-23, the Risen Christ said to the disciples: “…Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Also in Matthew 18:19, we read a promise of Jesus: “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” Guzik says, “We should understand this as Jesus giving both the permission and the authority to the first-generation apostles to make the rules for the early church – and indirectly, the inspired writings that would guide all generations of Christians.” 36
There is quite a difference between the authority given to Peter and that of the scribes and Pharisees. Peter used his keys and authority to open the door of salvation to countless millions of people while the scribes and Pharisees used their authority to shut and lock the door of salvation.37 Jesus once said to them: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to” (Matt. 23:13).
Jesus closes this complicated section with this strange command: “Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah” (16:20). Naturally, we would think that the Lord would not only be elated with Peter’s confession but would instruct that it would be shouted out to all Israel. We must not forget that all Israel was all puffed out of shape with the yeast of Pharisaical teaching that the Messiah would only come as a conquering king.38 They were in no condition to accept the truth about Jesus.
Then there was another problem. The disciples themselves did not have a full understanding of who Jesus was. In just three verses we will see Peter reacting with an almost violence at the idea of Jesus giving himself in sacrifice.39 There was still much to learn before the pure gospel could be proclaimed.
THE DEATH OF JESUS PREDICTED
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Matthew 16:21
Now we begin to see what the real Messiahship is all about. Jesus must go to Jerusalem, be mistreated and sentenced by Israel’s leaders and finally be killed and raised to life. It becomes clearer and clearer that the Messiah is not some kind of political leader or conquering general. Rather he is a Suffering Servant intent upon giving his life for the sins of his people and of the world.
The expression “from that time” marks an important turning point in Jesus’ ministry. France says, “Now both the style and the content of Jesus’ teaching enters a new phase. It is focused on the private instruction of his disciples…” 40 It will also focus on his suffering and death. This aspect is so shocking that the Lord will have to repeat it on several occasions (17:9, 12, 22-23; 20:18-19).41 He would be rejected and cut off according to the scripture (Psa. 118:22; Dan. 9:26). All this would happen within a period of three days (cf. Hos. 6:2-3). It would be the elders of Israel, the highest court or Sanhedrin that would be responsible for this travesty.
“Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!’” (16:22). Guthrie says, “Already the blessing had gone to his head.” 42 We can now understand why Jesus still wanted the disciples to keep quiet about Peter’s revelation. The revelation really did not come from him but from God. Peter would need some time to fully understand what he had just proclaimed. It clearly illustrates that Peter and the other disciples were still deeply affected by the leaven of the Pharisees, for “their conceptions of the Messiah did not allow for a Suffering Servant.” 43 France says, “Peter’s ‘gaffe’ vividly illustrates how radically new and difficult to grasp Jesus’ idea of the role of the Messiah must have been for any Jew, however favorably disposed.” 44
“Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns’” (16:23). Coffman comments, “Peter was commanded to forsake his role as instructor and resume that of a follower.” 45 Quite simply Peter had gotten in the way of the Master. He had suddenly become a stumbling block or a snare to the Lord. As Barker and Kohlenberger say, Peter the rock had become Peter the stumbling block.46 He had become an adversary, a Satan to the Lord. Blomberg says, “One could scarcely imagine a more complete about-face. Peter has not yet conceived of a suffering Messiah.” 47
THE CROSS FOR EVERY CHRISTIAN
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.” Matthew 16:24-25
There is a cross of suffering and self-denial for every true Christian. Unfortunately, our concept of the personal cross today is not far removed from the chocolate crosses we see with the Easter candies. We can clearly say that the cross is being slowly and quietly removed from the modern and postmodern church today. In earlier times there was much preaching and singing about the cross but that has mostly disappeared.
It seems, at least in the West, the Prosperity Gospel has mostly taken the place of the cross. Christians expect to be happy and blessed, all the time, with a chicken in every pot and a Lexus in every garage (or perhaps two). In the West we are content to let the rest of the world’s Christians carry our crosses.
There are plenty of places today where the very fact of being a Christian can get a person killed. World Watch tells us that in the recent twentieth century more Christians were martyred than in all previous centuries combined.48 We have mentioned before that three-quarters, or 5.25 billion of the world’s people, live in countries where there are significant restrictions on their religious freedom.49 The theologian N. T. Wright has a word for us in the west: “You don’t get to share God’s life and escape without wounds.” 50
Those who follow the Lord can expect suffering. It can come in the form of self-denial as we take up our cross daily and follow him (Lk. 9:23).51 Wiersbe clarifies the cross for us: “To take up a cross does not mean to carry burdens or have problems…To take up the cross means to identify with Christ in his rejection, shame, suffering, and death.” 52 On April 9, 1945, as World War II was drawing to a close, the Nazis executed the Christian pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Before his death he left us with these precious words: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” 53
Our natural tendency is to want to save our lives. However, Jesus warns us that if we do that at the expense of conscience we will certainly lose our lives.54 Meyer says, “Beware! The voice that bids us spare ourselves is Satan’s.” 55
“What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?” (16:26). In Psalm 49:8-9 we read: “the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—so that they should live on forever and not see decay.” One of the saddest stories in the Bible is that of the Rich Young Ruler who appears later in Matthew 19:16-30. This promising young man wanted to be a disciple of Jesus, but the Lord required that he first sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Only then would he be able to follow. We get the impression that Jesus really loved this young man and wanted him to be one of his disciples. However, the young man could not turn away from his riches. He walked away very sad because he had lost the true riches. That which Jesus gives us is worth more than anything else in the world. There is really no price we can pay for our salvation and yet, it is a free gift.
“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done” (16:27). Truly, suffering comes before glory. This was true in Jesus’ life and it is true in ours. When Jesus appears in the heavens that will be glory for us! The Hebrew word for glory was kabod. It was originally a commercial term and it meant “to be heavy.” 56 Glory is something weighty and something truly precious like gold. To those who live to see the Lord at his coming, it will be precious indeed (1 Pet. 2:7).
It is surprising here to see that the last judgment will be a judgment according to works, to what we have done for the Lord. In our Protestant heritage we might think that it will be according to faith only. The Bible truth is that faith, if it is real, will produce works. Works are thus the evidence of faith and thus the basis of the last judgment. (Jam. 2:26; Rev. 2:2, 19, 23; 3:1-2, 8, 15).
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (16:28). There has been much debate about that to which Jesus was referring here. “Alfred Plummer lists seven principal ways of understanding the passage that have been put forward: (1) the transfiguration, (2) the resurrection and ascension, (3) Pentecost, (4) the spread of Christianity, (5) the internal development of the gospel, (6) the destruction of Jerusalem, and (7) the second advent…” 57 It would seem likely that Jesus could be referring to the soon-coming transfiguration, and if not that, certainly the resurrection or Pentecost could be referred to here.