Matthew Chapter 16
This chapter, and Mark 8, are both sequential to yesterday's reading. That is, we are moving on from the feeding of the 4000.
"1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven." [Mat 16:1 ESV]
Jesus tells them that they can predict the weather when they see a red sky - morning or evening - but can't see the signs of the times. Then he tells them that only the sign of Jonah will be given - which was about being under water, not about the heavens - and then he leaves them.
This ties in with what I was thinking about only God being able to manipulate the heavens. Satan has no power over the heavens. Any sign there would have to be from God and only from God. The Pharisees and Sadducees were claiming that they would believe this kind of sign. Jesus' answer says that the signs they have seen, the fulfillment of prophecy that even they understood, is more than enough to convince anyone willing to understand, are sufficient, and that it is their unwillingness to believe, rather than the lack of irrefutable proof, that is the problem. And let's not forget that the star showed the way to Jesus while he was still a young child. The Pharisees had to know this story also, and they had to know that even Herod was able to interpret that sign from heaven - yet they ignored this also. Need the verse to go with it, and then it would be a
Possible FB post - showing that the lesser signs are enough
Oh my...this verse:
9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? [Mat 16:9-10 ESV]
So Matthew confirms here that the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 both occurred, and were completely separate events. And yet here are the disciples, again worried about not having any bread. They were truly literal and existential.
Jesus gives them a lesson in how to interpret what he says. They should have remembered from these earlier events that it was not physical bread that was in view. Physical bread was trivial, and they were eye witnesses to that fact. They should have deduced that it was a spiritual point being made. I see also that he said this to his disciples. Since at this point he had already sent out the 12, and he had called them the 12, we can assume he was talking to a lot more than just 12 when he said these things to "the disciples".
2020-The Pharisees and Sadducees (P's and S's) have just asked for a sign, not so they can believe, but so they can find occasion to criticize Jesus. Jesus calls them on it, and then leaves. So when they get to the other side, and the disciples realize there is nothing to eat...again...and Jesus sees an object lesson. Beware the leaven of the P's and C's. Leaven makes bread rise. Leaven has historically represented evil. No leaven during Passover, because they left Egypt in such a hurry the bread didn't have time to rise. They ate unleavened bread. Jesus is NOT telling the disciples how to bake bread, nor is he chastising them because they have forgotten the bread. They should realize by now that Jesus can "produce" enough bread to satisfy their needs whether they remember to bring any or not. This is how Jesus' words are to be taken. If his statements "don't fit", then they are about spiritual matters. It is the difference between "well how much food DO we have?" which is literal, and "beware the leaven". The leaven (evil) is the teaching of the P's and C's - the bread. Don't "consume" their teaching because it contains evil.
These verses:
16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [Mat 16:16-17 ESV]
I was thinking that there was somewhere else where Peter had already said a similar, though not exact thing. Perhaps in John 6? Yes, it was in John 6, right after the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus words are called "a hard saying", and many of his disciples leave. He addresses the 12 and asks if they will leave also, and Peter answers in part, "You are the Holy One of God". I would interpret that to mean that Peter recognized Jesus as the Messiah. But here in Matthew, he recognizes the relationship of Christ to God as Only Son. But...verse 20. He tells them strictly to tell no one that He is the Christ. Why????
2020 - 18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" 19 And they answered, "John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen." 20 Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered, "The Christ of God." [Luk 9:18-20 ESV] So Jesus had asked this question quite a bit earlier. Luke says Peter got it right even way back then. And at that time also, Jesus tells them not to proclaim this part, because he had much suffering yet to do. Perhaps the point was that if the crowds "connected" that Jesus was Christ, the religious authorities would never have been able to succeed in his murder. So...nothing in Matt 16:16 is different from what was seen previously - months or years before - in Luke. But haven't the disciples just had to be reminded yet again to stop worrying about bread? Perhaps Jesus thought it would also be good to remind them just why it is that they don't need to worry about bread? Because the man in front of them is the Christ of God, not some magician doing cool tricks. I think that makes sense. I think Jesus was exasperated - he pretty much says he is - and took them back to the basics yet again. This time through, I am noting that a lot of things are repeated at different times. They weren't taking notes. Things that were important would need to be repeated, to make sure they were remembered. Maybe that is why we have four gospels. To make sure all the important stuff is included...and that the really important stuff is included at least twice - because it takes two witnesses to make it true. Two times Jesus made it clear that he was Christ. One time Luke records, another time Matthew records. Two witnesses say Jesus claimed to be Messiah. There is no doubt then that Jesus claimed it. I wonder how many of these things that have given me so many questions in the last two or three day's reading have been about exactly that same gospel principle?
There's a lot here. The MSB note on vs 19 is very long, and refers to several other notes. The thrust of it is that Jesus was giving this power to the church - to any body of believers who judged (bound or loosed) the condition of a person as saved or lost. MSB says that as long as this was done by the church in accordance with scripture, then as the church recognized it, so God recognized and agreed in heaven. The caveat is that the church must do it in accordance with scripture, and making their own judgements is excluded, since those are likely to be wrong. This seems like a lot of dancing around to me. The note seems designed to defend against a charge that I'm not aware of. Perhaps Peter being given popish authority by the Catholic church is what MSB is refuting? Since that authority was given to Peter - the first pope - all subsequent pope's inherit it, and all priests partake of the authority in some measure. Yep, I bet that is what the note is about , but I am not going to research it right now.
2020-Tried to find my book by White titled something like "The Roman Catholic Controversy", but I cannot find it anywhere. Spent 15 minutes looking for it. It is not anywhere that it "should" be. If I am right about the reasons for MSB's extensive notes, then I will find a lot more information in White's book about this. I haven't read this book yet, but maybe I put it in one of the vehicles to read as I get downtime. But at least now I know where I want to look for more information about this passage. (3/22/21 - I found that book, but still haven't read it. 3/22/22 - and I still haven't read it, though it is on the "Books I want to read" shelf. 2023 - Nope. Still on that same shelf.)
2023 - I note, this year, that the tense of "I will give" is future. Simple, plain old, future tense, and in this case that means the same thing in Greek as it does in English. The keys are not being given at the time Jesus says this, but will be given at some time in the future. Did they do the whole symbolic "key to the city" thing back then? Is this all symbolic, indicating that while Peter is to be honored with a temporary granting of authority he does not have, there is nothing current or forever going on here. Peter WAS prominent in the NT church. He preached that first sermon, he close out the Jerusalem Council - he had the last word there. Because everyone agreed already, and he summed it up. I think the future tense is important here. I think the giving of keys is important here as symbolism, not as some special "over and above" authority or knowledge or even title that Peter was to get. We see the binding and loosing elsewhere also. Need to see if it is always about "one man" or about many. I know that when he sends them out on the second mission there is something about them binding and loosing - which leads to the conclusion that Jesus is speaking of the church in the future, not of Peter in the future. Keys...access, they don't control. I don't know...still a very complicated verse with so very many possibilities. And such temptation to interpret the words according to what you already believe rather than interpret them as Jesus meant them. We ought to hear what is said, not assimilate it into our current thinking. Hmm...Yes. That's an important point.
Last but not least, why tell no one this time? The note on vs 20 refers back to both 8:4, where the concern was that the miracles would overshadow the message, and to 12:16, where the crowd was gearing up to make Jesus King by force. This was a misunderstanding of prophecy, confusing the expected conquering king with Jesus' purpose as suffering servant. Should the disciples proclaim Jesus as Messiah far and wide, the crowds would look to what the Pharisees were telling them about Messiah, and not to the true purpose in history of Jesus' appearance.
2021 - This is the controversial verse:
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [Mat 16:19 ESV] Jesus is still speaking to Peter directly, in response to Peter's proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God. So this verse has been interpreted to say that it was Peter himself, individually, and him only that receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven. From such an interpretation, you can give rise to a long line of Popes, given special knowledge from heaven, as Jesus said Peter was given back in verse 17. You can get to that if you pull this section out and don't look at the rest of the Bible. But there is that big conference in Jerusalem to decide the issue of Gentile circumcision and so on. They didn't all go, and sit, and listen to Peter pronounce how it was going to be...or...did they? Acts 15:7...when all the debating was over, Peter stood up and concluded the matter, and the council of Jerusalem ended. So they would surely tie this in also. One needs to be able to refute such a compelling argument. As in, where do you get that this position that Peter had is to be inherited? Where is the NT evidence of any such thing for hundreds of years after Peter died? I still need to read that book. And then there is vs. 23, which hardly speaks to infallibility...."Get thee behind me Satan..."
The Section title before vs 21 is "Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection". This is consistent with the recognition that Jesus is Messiah, and his presence and purpose is now to be revealed in detail. Peter tells him that his death should not occur, and Jesus rebukes him - right after telling him he is giving him the keys!
In the last section, Jesus tells his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him. That losing their lives is to gain them, and vv. This too is consistent with Jesus not wanting to be overwhelmed by the Pharisees misinterpretations of Messiah as conquering king. He is warning his disciples that they are far more likely to die than to assume positions of authority in Jesus' earthy kingdom - which isn't coming for at least a couple thousand more years. This is also where Jesus asks what profit there is in gaining the world and losing one's soul? Gaining the transient and forfeiting the eternal.
Good FB post, point being that worldly success is not "wrong" per say, but is not to be the priority.
There is a note in the TCR that the Greek word used for "life" in vs 25, can also be translated "soul", depending on context. Same word is also used in vs 26. Always good to read closely, and see if you agree that the context indicates what the translators have done.
Then vs 28:
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:28 ESV]
A verse that has always been confusing, to me and to others I suspect. MSB says it occurs in all three synoptic gospels just before the transfiguration. The glorification of Christ at the transfiguration is the fulfillment of these words. We must see the transfiguration and the Son of Man coming in his kingdom as the same event. Hmm...
2020 - Let's include vs 27 in this....27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:27-28 ESV] Seems to me that if we tie these two verses together as talking about the same "time", then the transfiguration is NOT what is in view. This verse is talking about a far future time - a time we have not yet seen - when Jesus will judge. So it would seem that we either must assume that vs 27 is about one time yet in the future, and that vs 28, when some standing there will see something, is about a different time. Either that, or we must see coming with the angels and judging as being more about the authority to do those things - which may have passed at the transfiguration, rather than the literal fulfillment of this, being what is in view. For me, neither one satisfies. I see nothing in Matt 17:1-13 about judgment. This is a very difficult passage to reconcile. Even though it is not in parable form.
Unless...what if we see the "royal splendor" of the transfiguration as the confirmation for the benefit of Peter, James, and John, that Jesus will come again AS KING and at that time judge his people - judge ALL people? That makes pretty good sense. Jesus told them in 16, and told Peter especially, that he (Jesus) was going to be put to death by the Pharisees. Right after that, he tells them all that he will judge all men. Pretty hard to fit those two things together, even now. So Jesus shows them, at the transfiguration, the glory that awaits him AFTER he dies and is resurrected. He shows them that this life, this "mortal coil" is but for a moment, and is nothing compared to what is to come in eternity. And to drive that point home, a few days later, they see what Jesus anticipates after his resurrection. Yeah. I think this is the way to look at this.
Later- a sermon on the way to church...Peter got it right that Jesus was the Messiah. For THAT, he was given the keys to the kingdom. Special honor for a day! Later, after this, the disciples argued about who was the greatest, not who was second after Peter! You are Peter, but THIS rock. Demonstrative pronoun, not personal pronoun.
2023 - Perhaps this ties right back to the keys to the kingdom. Perhaps this too is about symbolism. If we see it that way, then the transfiguration is the symbolism of Jesus future kingship over all the earth. So Peter being the rock on which the church will be built is about him taking the lead that first sermon - sort of stepping up and being both the spokesman and the lightning rod - the chief source of information - about this new thing called "church". Yeah...I like the way these two tie together, and think their proximity in the text gives some credibility to that idea.