Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 16:13 - 16:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Christ presents the future history of the Kingdom of Heaven, in opposition to the Ancient World and the Theocracy
FIRST SECTION
The historical succession of events was as follows:—In company with His disciples, the Lord passed along the left bank of the Jordan, toward the mountains. At Bethsaida Julias He performed the cure of a blind person (recorded in Mar_8:22), at the same time enjoining strict silence upon him. Thence they continued their journey to the immediate neighborhood of Cæsarea Philippi, touching (as it would seem from Mar_8:27) only the adjoining villages, but avoiding the town itself. It was in these coasts, or district, that the Lord evoked the confession of Peter, which was followed by the announcement of the foundation of His Church, ἐêêëçóßá . Immediately afterward, Jesus distinctly announced His impending sufferings, since these were connected with the foundation of His Church, as the latter was with the confession of His name. On this occasion Peter began to rebuke Him; and he who had lately been commended as confessing, was now reproved as tempting. The event just recorded led to the admonition, addressed to His disciples generally, on the subject of taking up the cross and following Him. A week later, the Lord called His three most intimate disciples to witness His transfiguration on the Mount. As they came down, Jesus explained to them the advent and mission of Elijah. At the foot of the mountain, the healing of the lunatic boy, possessed with a devil took place. From thence Jesus secretly passed through Galilee, probably for the purpose of acquainting His friends with those impending sufferings, for which He had already prepared His disciples. Refusing the solicitation of His brethren to join the caravan going up to the feast, He went secretly to Jerusalem, to the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated in autumn. Thus the history advances to the month of October of the year 782 (according to Wieseler, to the 12th October), Joh_7:1-10. In Jerusalem the events recorded in Joh_7:11, etc., took place, when Jesus pointed to the fulfilment of the Old Testament symbols in His life. The healing of the man blind from his birth (John 9), hastened the full and final determination of the Jewish authorities to put Him to death. But in all probability Jesus did not continue in Judea during the interval between the Feast of Tabernacles in October, and the festival of the Dedication of the Temple in December (according to Wieseler, the 27th December). During that period He appears to have paid a farewell visit to Galilee, and to have passed from Samaria to Perea, where He tarried till the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 1003). After His return to Galilee, Jesus again appeared in public, though probably, as in Jerusalem, only surrounded by a large number of His friends. For the last time Jesus now came to Capernaum, where He was asked for the payment of the temple tribute, Mat_17:24-27. Thus far our section.
(The Gospel for the Festival of St. Peter and Paul—Parallels: Mar_8:27-30; Luk_9:18-21.)
20Then charged he his [the] disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ [he is the Christ].
Who [not whom] do men say that I am?—How do men explain the appearance of the Son of Man? Meyer: What do they understand by the designation, Son of Man? De Wette: I who am a humble, lowly man. But this completely misses the peculiar import of the expression, Son of Man.
Mat_16:14. Some say.—“The reply shows that, in general, He was not yet looked upon as the Messiah.” Meyer. But according to the representation of the evangelist, we must rather infer that Christ’s enemies had by their calumnies succeeded in lowering the popular estimate concerning Him.
John the Baptist,—See Mat_14:2. This, for a time, had been the opinion of the courtiers of Herod.—Elijah,—as the precursor of the Messiah. Such was the view professed by those whom fear of their superiors induced to deny His claims to the Messianic office, while, from a desire of not entirely surrendering the expectations which had been excited by His appearance, they still regarded Him as a prophet.—Jeremiah.—Of course, in the same sense as Elijah,—not in the sense of literally revisiting the earth, nor in that of implying the doctrine of the transmigration of souls [metempsychosis]. The opinion of these persons concerning Jesus was evidently lower than that of those who regarded Him as Elijah (Mar_15:35; Joh_1:21). The one party referred especially to what might be designated as the reformation inaugurated by Jesus, while the other had regard to His denunciations of the corruptions of the times.—Or one of the prophets.—According to the lowest view, He was represented by discouraged friends as one of the old prophets. Three points are clearly brought out in this conversation: 1. That, to a certain extent, Jesus was still generally acknowledged by the people. 2. That the faith of the majority had been lowered and misled by the influence of their superiors, so that diverging opinions were now entertained regarding Him. 3. That this inconstancy and wavering led to a decreasing measure of homage.
Mat_16:15. But who say ye that I am?—This was the decisive moment in which the separation of the New Testament ἐêêëçóßá from the Old Testament theocracy was to be made. The hour had come for the utterance of a distinct Christian confession.
Mat_16:16. Simon Peter.—Peter answered not merely in his own name, but in that of all the disciples.—Thou art the Christ,—i.e., the Messiah Himself. And this not in the sense in which carnal Jewish traditionalism held the doctrine of the Messiah, but in the true and spiritual import of the title—the Son of the living God—The latter expression must not be taken merely in a negative sense, as denoting the True God in opposition to false deities; it must also be viewed in a positive sense, as referring to Him whose manifestations in Israel were completed in and crowned by the appearance of His Son as the Messiah. This, however, implies Sonship not only in a moral or official, but also in the ontological sense. Thus the reply of Peter had all the characteristics of a genuine confession—being decided, solemn, and deep.
[The confession of Peter is the first and fundamental Christian confession of faith, and the germ of the Apostles’ Creed. It is a confession, not of mere human opinions, or views, or convictions, however firm, but of a divinely wrought faith, and not of faith only (I believe that Thou art), but of adoration and worship (Thou art). It is christological, i.e., a confession of Jesus Christ as the centre and heart of the whole Christian system, and the only and all-sufficient fountain of spiritual life. It is a confession of Jesus Christ as a true man (Thou, Jesus), as the promised Messiah (the Christ), and as the eternal Son of God (the Son—not a son—of the living God.), hence as the God-Man and Saviour of the world. It is thus a confession of the mystery of the Incarnation in the widest sense, the great central mystery of godliness, “God manifest in the flesh.”—Compare also the excellent remarks of Olshausen (in Kendrick’s Am. ed., vol. i p. 545 sq.) and Alford, who, following Olshausen, says in loc.: “The confession is not made in the terms of the other answer: it is not ‘we say,’ or “I say,’ but ‘Thou art’. It is the expression of an inward conviction wrought by God’s Spirit. The excellence of this confession is, that it brings out both the human and the divine nature of the Lord: ä×ñéäôüò is the Messiah, the Son of David, the anointed King; äõἱὸò ôï í ͂ Èåïí ͂ ôïí ͂ æῶíôïò is the Eternal Son, begotten of the Eternal Father, as the last word most emphatically implies, not ‘Son of God’ in any inferior figurative sense, not one of the sons of God, of angelic nature, but the Son of the living God, having in Him the Sonship and the divine nature, in a sense in which they could be in none else. This was the view of the person of Christ quite distinct from the Jewish Messianic idea, which appears to have been (Justin Mart. Dial. p. 267) that he should be born from men, but selected by God for the office on account of his eminent virtues. This distinction accounts for the solemn blessing pronounced in the next verse. Æῶíôïò must not for a moment be taken here, as it sometimes is used (e.g., Act_14:15), as merely distinguishing the true God from dead idols: it is here emphatic, and imparts force and precision to õἱüò . That Peter, when he uttered the words, understood by them in detail all that we now understand, is not of course here asserted, but that they were his testimony to the true Humanity and true Divinity of the Lord, in that sense of deep truth and reliance, out of which springs the Christian life of the Church.” Meyer, indeed, takes ôïῦ æùíôïò simply as the solemn epithet of the true God in opposition to the dead idols of the heathen; but there was no reason here for contrasting the true God with heathen idols, and Peter must have meant to convey the idea, however imperfectly understood by him at the time, that the Godhead itself was truly revealed in, and reflected from, the human person of Christ in a sense and to a degree compared with which all former manifestations of God appeared to him like dead shadows. He echoed the declaration from heaven at Christ’s baptism: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” and recognized in Him the essential and eternal life of the great Jehovah.—P. S.]
Mat_16:17. Jesus answered.—Also a confession decided, solemn, and deep; being the divine confession of the Lord in favor of the Church, which had now confessed His name, and of her first witness.
Blessed art thou (comp. Rom_10:9), Simon, son of Jonah.—Meyer denies in vain the antithesis between this address and the new title given to Peter. Different views have been taken in reference to this antithesis. 1. Paulus explains it: Simon, or obedient hearer,—son of Jonas, or son of oppression. 2. Olshausen: éåֹåä , dove, with reference to the Holy Spirit under the figure of a dove. Thou, Simon, art a child of the Spirit. 3. Lange (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 469): Thou, Simon, son of a dove (which makes its nest in the rock, a figure of the Church), shalt be called a rock (the rocklike dwelling-place of the dove, i.e., of the Church). With this antithesis the other in the same verse is connected. According to the flesh, thou art a natural son of Jonah; but according to this revelation of the Spirit, a child of the Father who is in heaven (referring to his regeneration, and consequent faith and confession). [Similarly Alford: The name “Simon Bar Jonas” is doubtless used as indicating his fleshly state and extraction, and forming the greater contrast to his spiritual state, name, and blessing, which follow. The name Óßìùí ̓ Éùíᾶ , Simon, son of Jonas or Jonah, is uttered when he is reminded by the thrice-repeated inquiry, “Lovest thou me?” of his frailty, in his previous denial of his Lord, Joh_21:15-17.—P. S.]
Flesh and blood.—Various views have been taken of this expression. 1. Calvin, Beza, Neander, de Wette, refer it to our physical nature in opposition to the ðíåῦìá . To this Meyer objects, that our physical nature is termed in Scripture only óÜñî , not óὰñî êáὶ áῖìá (in 1Co_15:50, “flesh and blood” should be literally understood). 2. According to Light foot and Meyer, it must be taken (with special reference to the fact, that the Rabbins use áָּùִׂø åøִí as a kind of paraphrase for Son of man, including the accessory idea of the weakness involved in our corporeal nature), as simply denoting weak man, equivalent to nemo mortalium (as in Gal_1:16). 3. We explain it: the natural, carnal descent, as contrasted with spiritual generation. Joh_1:13 : ïἳïὐê ἐî áἰìÜôùí , ïὐäὲ ἐê èåëÞìáôïò óáñêüò ê . ô . ë . This appears still further from the connection between the expressions, “flesh and blood” and “son of Jonah,” and from the antithesis, “My Father who is in heaven.” Hence Gal_1:16 must mean: When I received a commission to preach to the Gentiles, I conferred not with my Jewish nationality; and Eph_6:12 : In reality, we wrestle not with beings of human kind, but with the powers of darkness, whose representatives and instruments they are; and 1Co_15:50 : The kind which is of this world (of the first man, who is of the earth) shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but we must enter it by a complete transformation into a second and new life which is from heaven. Accordingly, the antithesis in the text is between knowledge resulting from natural human development, or on the basis of natural birth, and knowledge proceeding from the revelation of the Father in heaven, or on the basis of regeneration.
Hath not revealed it,—but My Father.—A difficulty has been felt, how to reconcile this declaration with the fact, that the disciples had at a much earlier period recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Joh_1:42; Joh_1:46; Joh_1:50). 1. Olshausen holds that this confession of Peter indicates a much more advanced state of knowledge: ä õὶὸò ôïí ͂ Èåïí ͂, ôïῦ æùíôïò . 2. Neander thinks that all earlier revelations had more or less proceeded from flesh and blood. 3. Meyer suggests that the text refers to that first acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, in consequence of which the disciples came and surrendered themselves, to Him. 4. In our view, the new element in this confession lies, first of all, in its ethical form. It was no longer a mere knowledge (or recognition) of Christ. While the general knowledge of the Jews concerning the Messiah had retrograded, and degenerated into discordant and self contradictory opinions, the knowledge of the disciples had advanced, and was now summed up and concentrated into an act of spiritual faith in Peter’s confession, which, in view of the hostility of the Jewish rulers, may be characterized as a real martyrdom ( ìáñôõñßá ). Another new element lay in the view now expressed concerning the Messiah. On all the main points, the Jewish and traditional notions of the Messiah had evidently been thrown off, and a pure and spiritual faith attained from converse with the life of Jesus. In both these respects, it was a revelation of the Father in heaven, i.e., a heavenly and spiritual production. The new life was germinating in the hearts of the disciples.—De Wette regards this passage as incompatible with the earlier acknowledgments of the Messiah; while Fritzsche, Schneckenburger, and Strauss talk of a twofold period in Christ’s ministry: the first, when He was a disciple of John; the second, when He attained to consciousness of His Messianic dignity. But these critics have wholly misunderstood this narrative.
Mat_16:18. But I also say unto thee.—The expression shows in a striking manner the reciprocity existing between Christ and His disciples. Their confession solicits His confession.
Thou art Peter, -- ÉÉÝôñïò , in Aramaic ëֵּøôָà the stone, or the rock (see Meyer). The Greek masculine noun arose from the translation of the name into Greek; the name itself had been given at an earlier period, Joh_1:42. It was now bestowed a second time to indicate the relationship subsisting between Peter and the Ecclesia, rather than to prove that Peter really was what his name implied (Meyer). From the first this name was intended to be symbolical; although its real meaning was only attained at a later period in the history of Peter. But at the same time the words of Jesus imply the acknowledgment that his character as Peter had just appeared in this confession. [It should be observed that in Joh_1:42 (in the Gr. text, 16:43) we read: “Thou shalt be called ( êëðèÞóð ) Cephas,” but here: “Thou art ( åῖ ) Peter.”—P. S.]
And on this rock.—For the various interpretations of this passage, see Wolf’s Curœ. We submit the following summary of them: 1. The term “rock” is referred to Christ Himself. Thus Jerome, Augustine, Chemnitz, Fabricius, and others.*—2. It is referred to Peter’s confession. Thus most of the Fathers, several Popes, Leo I., Huss in the Tractat. de ecclesia, the Articuli Smalcald. in the Append., Luther, Febronius, and others,—3. It is applied to Peter himself, (a) In the popish sense, by Baronius and Bellarmin, [Passaglia,] as implying that Peter was invested with a permanent primacy. (b) With reference to the special call and work of Peter as an Apostle. By thee, Peter, as the most prominent of My witnesses, shall the Church be founded and established: Acts 2, 10. So, many Roman Catholics, as Launoi, Dupin,—and later Protestant expositors, as Werenfels, Pfaff, Bengel, and Crusius. Heubner thinks that the antanaclasis, or the connecting of Peter with ðÝôñá , is in favor of this view. But he [as also nearly all other commentators who represent this view] combines with it the application of the term to the confession. —4. It is applied to Peter, inclusive of all the other Apostles, and, indeed, of all believers. Thus Origen on Mat_16:18 : “Every believer who is enlightened by the Father is also a rock.”—5. In our opinion, the Lord here generalizes, so to speak, the individual Peter into the general ðÝôñá , referring to what may be called the petrine characteristic of the Church—viz., faithfulness of confession,—as first distinctly exhibited by Peter. Hence the words of Jesus only refer to Peter in so far as by this confession he identified himself with Christ, and was the first to upbuild the Church by his testimony. But in so far as the text alludes to an abiding foundation of the Church, the expression refers not to the Apostle as an individual, but to ðÝôñá . in the more general sense, or to faithfulness of confession. That Peter was here meant in his higher relation, and not in himself, appears from the change of terms, first ðÝ ô ̣ ñïò , then ðÝôñá ; also from the contrast in Mat_16:22; while the fact that his distinction conferred no official primacy is evident from this, that the same rights and privileges were bestowed upon all the Apostles: Mat_18:18; Joh_20:23; Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14. That he himself claimed no preëminence appears from his First Epistle, in which he designates Christ as the corner-stone, and Christians as living stones, 1Pe_2:5-6 (as themselves Peters, or related to Peter). Lastly, that he knew of no successors in the sense of the Papacy, is proved by his exhortation to the presbyters not to be lords over God’s heritage (the êëð ͂ ñïé , 1Pe_5:3).
My Church.—Here the ὲêêëðóßá of Christ appears for the first time in distinct contrast to the Jewish congregation, ÷ָäִì . Hence the passage refers not simply to a community of believers, but to a definite organization of this community (compare what follows on the keys). Accordingly, the passage alludes to the Church as the organized and visible form of the âáóéëåßá ôùí ïí ̓ ñáíùí . The Church is not the kingdom of heaven itself, but a positive institution of Christ by which, on the one hand, the kingdom of heaven becomes directly manifest in the world by its worship, while, on the other hand, it spreads through the world by means of its missionary efforts. The Church bears the same relation to the kingdom of heaven as the Messianic state under the Old Testament to the theocracy, the two being certainly not identical.
The gates of hades (underworld).—De Wette: “Here, equivalent to the kingdom of Satan.” But this is not the scriptural conception of hades or sheol. Throughout the Bible hades means the kingdom of death; which is, indeed, connected with the kingdom of Satan, but has a more comprehensive meaning. Hades is described as having gates; it is figuratively represented as a castle with gates (Son_8:6; Job_38:17; lsa. 38:10; Psa_107:18). These gates serve a hostile purpose, since they opened, like a yawning abyss of death, to swallow up Christ, and then Peter, or the Apostles and the Church, in their martyrdom. For a long time it seemed as if the Church of Christ would become the prey of this destroying hades. But its gates shall not ultimately prevail—they shall be taken; and Christ will overcome and abolish the kingdom of death in His Church (see lsa. 25:8; Hos_13:14; 1Co_15:15; Eph_1:19-20). Of course, the passage also implies conflict with the kingdom of evil, and victory over it; but its leading thought is the triumph of life over death, of the kingdom of the resurrection over the usurped reign of the kingdom of hades.—Erasmus, Calvin, and others, refer it to the victory over Satan; Grotius, to that over death; Ewald, to that over all the monsters of hell, let loose through these open gates; Glöckler, to that over the machinations of the kingdom of darkness (the gate being the place of council in the East); Meyer, to the superiority of the Church over hades, without any allusion to an attack on the part of hades. The idea, that the Old Testament ἐêêëçôßá would fall before the gates of hades, is here evidently implied (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 887.)
Mat_16:19.The keys of the kingdom of heaven.—Luk_11:52; Rev_1:18; Rev_3:7; Rev_9:1; Rev_20:1. It is the prerogative of the Apostles, either to admit into the kingdom of heaven, or to exclude from it. Meyer: “The figure of the keys corresponds with the figurative expression ïἱêïäïìô ̀ óù in Mat_16:18; since in Mat_16:18 the ὲêêëçóßá , which, at Christ’s second appearing, is destined to become the âáóéëåßá ôáí ïὐñáíáí —(as if this were not already its real, though not its open character, which at Christ’s second coming shall only become outwardly manifest!)—is represented as a building. But, in reference to Peter, the figure changes from that of a rock, or foundation, to that of an ïἰêïíüìïò ; or, in other words, from the position and character of Peter to his office and work.” But evidently the antithesis here presented is different from this view. Peter is designated the foundation-stone as being the first confessing member of the Church, though with an allusion to his calling; while in his official relation to the Church he is represented as guardian of the Holy City. Hence the expression, rock, refers to the nucleus of the Church as embodied in Peter; while the keys allude to the apostolic office and vocation in the Church.
[Alford: “Another personal promise to Peter, remarkably fulfilled in his being the first to admit both Jews and Gentiles into the Church; thus using the power of the keys to open the door of salvation?” Wordsworth applies the promise in a primary and personal sense to Peter, but in a secondary and general sense also to the Church, and especially the ministers who hold and profess the faith of Peter and are called to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to exercise discipline. Augustine: “Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit ecclesiœ.”—P. S.]
And whatsoever thou shalt bind.—A somewhat difficult antithesis, especially with reference to the preceding context. Bretschneider (Lexicon): “The expression ‘binding’ means to bind with the Church; and ‘loosing,’ to loose from the Church.” But this is to confound ideas which are very different. Olshausen understands it of the ancient custom of tying the doors. But the text speaks of a key. Stier regards it as in accordance with rabbinical phraseology, taken from the Old Testament; binding and loosing being equivalent to forbidding and permitting, and more especially to remitting and retaining sins. But these two ideas are quite different. Lightfoot, Schöttgen, and, after them, von Amnion, hold that the expression implied three things: 1. Authority to declare a thing unlawful or lawful. Thus Meyer regards äååéí and ëí ̇ åëí as equivalent to the rabbinical àñø and äúéø , to forbid, and to permit. 2. To pronounce an action, accordingly, as criminal or innocent. 3. Thereupon to pronounce a ban or to revoke it. But as the Lord here speaks of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, He can only have referred directly to the last-mentioned meaning of the expression, though it involved the first and second, as the sentence of the Apostles would always be according to truth. A comparison of the parallel passage in Mat_18:18 confirms this view. There Church discipline is enjoined on the disciples collectively, to whom precisely the same assurance is given which in the text is granted to Peter alone; while in Joh_20:23 the order is reversed: the expression, remitting sins, being equivalent for loosing, and retaining sins, for binding. The whole passage forms a contrast to the ecclesiastical discipline of the Pharisees, Matthew 23. From the evangelical character of the New Testament ministry, it seems to us impossible to interpret the expression as meaning to forbid and to permit, according to the analogy of rabbinical usage. To bind up sins, as in a bundle, implies coming judgment (Job_14:17; Hos_13:12); while, on the other hand, sins forgiven are described as loosed (LXX. Isa_40:2). Both figures are based on a deeper view of the case. When a person is refused admission into the Church, or excluded from it, all the guilt of his life is, so to speak, concentrated into one judgment; while its collective effect is removed, or loosed, when he is received into the Church, or absolved. The object of this binding and loosing is stated only in general terms. No doubt it combined all the three elements of the power of the keys, as the non remission or remission of sins (Chrysostom and many others,—viz.: 1. The principle of admission or non-admission into the Church, or the announcement of grace and of judgment (the kingdom of heaven is closed to unbelievers, opened to believers). 2. Personal decision as to the admission of catechumens (Acts 8.). 3. The exercise of discipline, or the administration of excommunication from the Church (in the narrower sense, i.e., without curse or interdict attaching thereto). In the antithesis between earth and heaven, the former expression refers to the order and organization of the visible Church; the latter, to the kingdom of heaven itself. These two elements then—the actual and the ideal Church—were to coincide in the pure administration of the Apostles. But this promise is limited by certain conditions. It was granted to Peter in his capacity as a witness, and as confessing the revelation of the Father (Acts 5.), but not to Peter as wavering or declining from the truth (Mat_16:23; Galatians 2.).
Mat_16:20. That they should tell no man.—Since the people would not give up their carnal notions of a worldly millennium. The Christian acknowledgment of the Messiah was not to be mixed up with Jewish expectations. Christ’s Messianic life had to be actually completed before His disciples were to testify of Him as the Christ Nay, the Lord Himself was to be the first publicly to announce it to the people, in the hour of His martyrdom (Mat_26:64).
2. In what passed between our Lord and His disciples we are led to observe,—(1) The contrast between human opinions of religion and a confession of faith prompted and evoked by the grace of God:—in the former case, fear, dejection, uncertainty, and discordance; in the latter, courage, frankness, certainty, and unity. (2) The indissoluble connection between true confession and a life of revelation and in the Spirit, or regeneration; (3) between a common confession and the formation of the visible Church; (4) between the confession of the Church to Christ and Christ’s confession to the Church; (5) between the character of the first believing confessor and his official calling.
3. In the text, Peter is presented to us in a twofold relationship: (1) As Peter; (2) as receiving the keys. The former designation applied to him as the first believing confessor, the first member of the ἐêêëçóßá , to which others were afterward to be joined. Hence it referred to his practical life as a Christian bearing witness to Jesus, rather than to his official position in the Church. This spiritual character formed the basis of his office in the narrower sense, the main purport of which was to arrange individual believers into a community, and, by organizing a visible Church, to separate between the world and the kingdom of heaven. As being the first witness to Jesus, Peter, so to speak, laid the foundation of the Church: (1) By his confession on this occasion; (2) by his testimony, Acts 2; (3) by his admission of the Gentiles into the Church, Acts 10; (4) by being the means of communicating to the Church the distinguishing feature of his character fidelity of confession.
4. On the fact that the Church indelibly bears not only the characteristic of Peter, but of all the Apostles; or that all the apostolic offices are unchangeably perpetuated in it, comp. Com. on Matthew 10. (against Irvingism), and Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, § 129, p. 516 sqq.
5. In its apostolic nucleus, its apostolic beginning, and its apostolic depth and completeness, the Church is so thoroughly identified with the kingdom of heaven itself, that its social determinations should in all these respects coincide with the declaration of God’s Spirit. But this applies only in so far as Peter was really Peter—and hence one with Christ, or as Christ is in the Church. That there is a difference between the Church and the kingdom of heaven, which may even amount to a partial opposition, is implied in the antithesis: “on earth”—“in heaven.”
6. The present occasion must be regarded as the initial foundation, not as the regular and solemn institution, of the Church. The promises given to Peter still relate to the future. For the strong faith which prompted his confession was rather a prophetic flash of inspiration (the blossom), than a permanent state of mind (the fruit). This appears from the following section.
7. In this passage Peter is represented as the foundation-stone, and Christ as the builder; while in 1Co_3:11, Christ is designated the foundation, and the Apostles the builders. “The latter figure evidently alludes to the relation between the changing and temporary laborers in the Church, and her eternal and essential character, more especially her eternal foundation; while the figurative language of Jesus applies to the relation between the starting-point and commencement of the Church in time, her outward and temporal manifestation, and her eternal Builder.” (From the author’s Leben Jesu. ii. 2, p. 886). Richter (Erklärte Hausbibel, 1:157): “The Church opens the way into the kingdom of heaven. Christ built on Peter and the Apostles, not His kingdom, but His Church, which is one, though not the only, form in which Christianity manifests itself.” Hence Olshausen is mistaken in regarding the ἐêêëçóßá as simply tantamount to the âáóéëåßá ôïí ͂ Èåïῦ .
[Wordsworth observes on the words: they shall not prevail: “That these words contain no promise of infallibility to St. Peter, is evident from the fact that the Holy Spirit, speaking by St. Paul in Canonical Scripture, says that he erred (Gal_2:11-13). And that they do not contain any promise of infallibility to the bishop of Rome is clear, among other proofs, from the circumstance that Pope Liberius (as Athanasius relates, Historia Arian., 41, p. 291) lapsed into Arianism, and Honorius was anathematized of old by Roman pontiffs as an heretic.”—P. S.]
8. For special treatises on the supposed primacy of Peter, see Heubner, p. 236; Danz, Universal wörterbuch, article Primat; Bretschneider, Systematische Entwicklung, p. 786, etc
9. On the power of the keys, see Heubner, p. 240; The Author’s Positive Dogmatik, p. 1182,—the literature belonging to it, p. 1196; Berl. Kirchl. Vierteljahrsschrift, 2:1845, Nr. 1; Rothe, Ethik, 4:1066. [Compare also Wordsworth, Alford, Brown, and the American commentators, Barnes, Alexander, Owen, Jacobus, Whedon, Nast, on Mat_16:19.—P. S.]
Starke:—It is useful, and even necessary, for preachers to be aware of the erroneous fancies which are in vogue among their hearers on the subject of religion.—Cramer: Every man should be able to give an account of his faith, Joh_17:8.—The discordant thoughts respecting the person of Christ.—Majus: The just must live by his own faith.—Osiander: Be not vacillating, but assured in your own minds.—Jerome: Quemadmodum os loquitor pro toto corpore, sic Petrus lingua erat Apostolorum et pro omnibus ipse respondit.—The other two confessions of Peter, Mat_14:33; Joh_6:68.—If we acknowledge Christ aright in our heart, we shall also freely confess Him with our mouth, Rom_10:10.—The divine and human natures combined in the person of Christ.—Blessedness of faith.—To know Christ is to be saved, Joh_17:3.—Quesnel: True blessedness: 1. It consists not in the advantages of birth, nor in natural gifts, nor in riches, nor in reputation and dignity; but, 2. in the possession of the gifts of grace through Christ.—Hedinger: All true faith is the gift of God.—Osiander: If the truth of God is mixed up with human fancies, it does more harm than good.—Let no one hastily talk of the good which he has received, but let him first make experiment of its reality, Ecc_5:1.
Gerlach:—The Christian Church possesses this power of the keys, not in its outward capacity or organization, but in so far as the Spirit rules in it. Hence, whenever it is exercised as a merely outward law, without the Spirit, the Lord in His providence disowns these false pretensions of the visible Church.
Heubner:—In order to be decided, and to become our own faith, we must publicly profess it.—How little value attaches to the opinions of the age on great men!—The independence of Christians of prevalent opinions.—Peter’s confession not his faith only, but that of all disciples, Joh_6:68.—Peter’s confession the collective confession of the Apostles.—See what value Christ sets on this faith.—It is impossible for any man, even though he were an apostle, to impart faith to another. This is God’s prerogative.
Footnotes:
Mat_16:13.—The pers. pron. ìÝ in Cod. C. after ëÝãïõôé , fin the text. rec. before the verb], Is wanting in Cod. B. [and in Cod. Sinaiticus] and in several versions, and is omitted by Tischendorf [and Tregelles and Alford]; Lachmann retains it, but in brackets. The insertion is more easily explained than the omission.—[If we omit ìÝ , we must translate, with Campbell and Conant: Who do men say that the Son of Man is ? Or with Alford, who retains the grammatical anomaly, if not blunder, of the Author. Vera.: Whom ( ôéíá ) do men say that the Son of Man is? Ôὸí õἱὸí ôïῦ ἀíèñþðïõ is equivalent to I in the corresponding sentence below, Mat_16:15. Some who retain ìÝ in the text (Beza, Clerious, etc.) translate: Who do men say that I am? the Son of Man? i.e., Do they believe me to be the Messiah? But this does not suit the form of the answer, and would require either an affirmative Yea, or a negative No. In the received text ôὸíõß ὸíôïῦ èåïῦ must be regarded as in apposition to ìÝ , and is so rendered in the E. V.—P. S.
Mat_16:17.—[Bur ( Î = ) is the Aramaic or Chaldaic word used by Daniel in the prophetic passage, 7:13 (“ I saw... and one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven,” etc.), for the Hebrew ben ( áֵּï ), son. In the Authorized E. V. it is retained as the patronymic of Peter, as Matthew retained it in Greek: Âὰñ ̓ É ùíᾶ ; Jerome In Latin: Bar-Jona; Bengel, de Wette, and Ewald in their German Versions: Bar-jona; while Tyndale. Cranmer’s, and the Geneva Bibles, also Luther and Lange translate it into the corresponding vernacular. Compare similar compound names: (Bar-Abbas, Bar-Jesus, Bar-Nabas, Bar-Sabas, Bar-Timœus, Bar-Tholomæus. The translation depends on whether the name is here simply the patronymic, or whether it has an allegorical meaning, as Olshausen and Lange contend. In the latter case it must be translated: son of Jonah, or Jonas. See Lange’s Exeg. Note, and my protesting footnote, on Mat_16:17. —P. S.
Mat_16:18.—[ Óὺåἰ ÉÉ Ýôñïò , êáἰ ἐðὶ ôáýôç ôῆ ðÝôñᾳ —one of the profoundest and most far-reaching prophetical, but, at the same time, one of the most controverted sayings of the Saviour, the exegetical rock on which the Papacy rests its gigantic claims (but not by direct proof, but by inference and with the help of undemonstrable intervening assumptions, as the transferability of Peter’s primacy, his presence in Rome, and his actual transfer of the primacy upon the bishop of Rome), under the united protest of the whole Greek Catholic and Protestant Evangelical Churches, who con tend that Christ says not a word about successors. Leaving the fuller exposition to the Exegetical Notes, we have to do here simply with the verbal rendering. In our Engl. Vers., as also in the German, the emphasis is lost, since rock and Fels are never used as proper names. We might literally translate: “Thou art Peter and upon this petress;” or: “Thos art Stone, Rockman, Man of rock (Felsenmann), and upon this rock;” but neither of them would sound idiomatic and natural. It is perhaps remarkable that the languages of the two most Protestant nations cannot render the sentence in any way favorable to the popish identification of the rock of the church with the person of Peter; while the Latin Vulgate simply retained the Greek Petrus and petra, and the French translation: “Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre,” even obliterates the distinction of the gender. The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word áֵéôָà (hence the Greek Êçöᾶò applied to Simon. Joh_1:42; comp. 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5; 1Co_15:6; Gal_2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N. T. renders the passage in question thus: “Anath-her kipha, v’ all hode kipha.” The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. Yet it should not be overlooked that Matthew in rendering the word into Greek, no doubt under the influence of the Holy Spirit, deliberately changed the gender, using the masculine in the one case and the feminine in the other. He had, of course, to use Ðåôñïò in addressing a man (as Maldonatus in loc. correctly remarks: Petrus, quia vir erat, non petra fœmineo, sed Petrus masculino nomine vocandus erat); but he might with perfect propriety have continued: ἐðὶ ôïí ́ ôøôø ͂ ÉÉ Ýôñø , instead of ἐðὶôáý ôῆ ôῆ ðÝôñᾳ (which change Maldonatus less satisfactorily accounts for simply on the philological reason that the masculine ðÝôñáò et Atticum et rarum est). The masculine ðÝôñïò in Greek (in Homer and elsewhere) means generally only a piece of rock, or a stone (like the corresponding prose word ëéèïò ), and very rarely a rock. (Meyer, howover, quotes for the latter signification a passage from Plato: Óéóýöïõ ðåôñïò , one from Sophocles, and one from Pindar); but the feminine ðÝôñá always signifies rock, whether it be used literally or metaphorically (as a symbol of firmness, but also of hardheartedness). I would not press this distinction, in view of the Syriac ëֵéôָà , and in opposition to such eminent commentators as Bengel and Meyer, who, like the Rom. Cath. commentators, admit no difference of the terms in this case. (Bengel: hæc duo, ðÝôñá et ðÝôñïò stant pro uno nomine, sicut unum utrinque nomen Kepha legitur in Syriaco.”) But it is certainly possible, and to my mind almost certain, that Matthew expressed by the slight change of word in Greek, what the Saviour intended in using, necessarily, the same word in Syriac, viz., that the petra on which the Church is built by Christ, the Divine architect and Lord of this spiritual temple, is not the person of Peter as such, but something more deep and comprehensive; in other words, that it is Peter and his confession of the central mystery of Christianity, or Peter as the conjessor of Christ, Peter in Christ, and Peter, moreover, as representing all the other apostles in like relation to Christ (comp. Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14). Nor should we explain Mat_16:18 independently of Mat_16:23. It is very significant that, while the believing and confessing Peter here is called rock, the disobedient and dissuading Peter immediately afterward ( Mat_16:23), with surprising severity, is called for the time being Satan, the enemy of Christ. If the papacy has any claim to the rocklike nature of Peter, it has certainly also fallen at times under the condemnation of the satanic anti-christian, and denying Peter. Let us hope that it may imitate Peter also in his sincere repentance after the denial. Bengel: Videat Petra romana, ne cadat sub censuram versus 23.—Comp. the Exeg. Notes below, and my History of the Apostolic Church, § 89, p. 351 sqq. —P. S.]
Mat_16:18.—[All the English versions before Queen Elizabeth, except that of Wiclif (which reads chirche), translate ἐêêëçóßá by the corresponding English word congregation; but the Bishops’ Bible substituted for it church, and this, by express direction of King James, was retained not only here, but in all other passages of the N. T. in the revised and authorized version of 1611. Among German translators and commentators, the Roman Catholics (van Ess, Arnoldi, Allioli) render ἐêêëçóßá by the term Kirche (church); while the Protestant translators and commentators (Luther. John Friedr. von Meyer, Stier, de Wette, Ewald, H. A. W. Meyer, and Lange) render: Gemeinde (congregation). The Greek ἐêêëçóßá , from ἐêêáëÝù , to call out, to summon, occurs 114 times in the N. T. (twice in the Gospel of Matthew, but in no other Gospel, 24 times in the Acts, 68 times in the Epistles, 20 times in Revelation), and corresponds to the Hebrew ÷ָçָì . It is not to be confounded with the more spiritual and comprehensive term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven. so often used by our Saviour. It means generally any popular convocation, congregation, assembly, and in a Christian sense the congregation of believers called out of the world and consecrated to the service of Christ. It is used in the N. T. (1) in a general sense, of the whole body of Christian believers, or the church universal, Mat_16:18; 1Co_12:28; Gal_1:13; Eph_1:22 (and in all the passages where the church is called the body