An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there will be no sign given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” He left them, and departed.
The disciples came to the other side and had forgotten to take bread. Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
They reasoned among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.”
Jesus, perceiving it, said, “Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, ‘because you have brought no bread?’ Don’t you yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up? Nor the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How is it that you don’t perceive that I didn’t speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Then they understood that he didn’t tell them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 8, 9, 11 The article showeth the notableness of the deed.
The article showeth the notableness of the deed.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv4–12 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a…
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Ver. 4. A wicked and adulterous generation] {See Trapp on "Mat 12:39"} The same wedge serves the same knot. They shall have no new answer from Christ, till they have made better use of the old. Let them return to thee, not thou to them, Jer 15:19.
Read full note →
And he left them, and departed] Because he saw his sweet words were even spilt upon them. Frustra lavantur Aethiopes et certatur cum hypocritis: none are more obstinate and obdurate.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 8 We meet with the same answer given to the…
We meet with the same answer given to the Pharisees, Mat 12:39. You pretend yourselves to be the children of Abraham, but you are bastards rather than his children; he saw my day afar off and rejoiced, you will not believe though you see me amongst you, and at your doors; he believed without any sign, you will not believe though I have showed you many signs. You shall have no such sign as you would have; the sign of the prophet Jonah is enough. But in our Lord’s former reference of them to the prophet Jonah, he instanced in one particular, viz. his being three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; here he seemeth more generally to refer to Jonah as a type of him in more respects, which indeed he was. Chemnitius reckons them up thus:
1. Jonah was thrown into the sea by the mariners, to whom he had entrusted himself: Christ was delivered to death by the Jews, to whom he was specially promised.
Read full note →
2. Jonah was willingly thrown into the sea: Christ laid down his life, and man took it not from him.
3. Jonah by being cast into the sea saved those in the ship: Christ by his death saved the children of men.
4. Jonah after he had been in the whale’s belly three days was cast up on dry land: Christ after three days rose again from the dead.
5. The Ninevites, though upon the preaching of Jonah they made a show of repentance, yet returning to their former sins were soon after destroyed; so were the Jews within forty years after Christ’s ascension.
So as Jonah was many ways an eminent sign and type of Christ. Our Lord having referred them to study this sign, would entertain no more discourse with them, but leaves, and departeth from them. Mark saith, Mar 8:13, that he entering into the ship again, departed to the other side, (the ship which brought him to Dalmanutha, or Magdala), and went into the coasts of Galilee again.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v5 Observe here, 1. How dull the disciples of Christ…
Observe here, 1. How dull the disciples of Christ were under Christ’s own teaching, how apt to put a carnal sense upon his words; they apprehended he had spoken to them of the leaven of bread, what he intended of the leaven of the Pharisee’s doctrine.
Observe, 2. The smart and sharp reproof which Christ gave his disciples, for not understanding the sense and signification of what he spake. The Lord Jesus Christ is much displeased with his own people, when he discerns blindness and ignorance in them after more than ordinary means of knowledge enjoyed by them; How is that ye do not yet understand?
Read full note →
Observe, 3. The metaphor which Christ sets forth the corrupt doctrine of the Pharisees and partly for its diffusiveness. Leaven is a piece of sour dough, that diffuses itself into the whole mass or lump of bread with which it is mixed.
From whence our Saviour intimates, that the Pharisees were a sour and proud sort of people; and their doctrine like themselves, poisonous and pernicious in their consequences; the contagion of which our Lord warns his disciples to avoid and shun.
Whence learn, That error is as damnable as vice; persons erroneous in their judgments are to be avoided, as well as those that are lewd and wicked in their conversations. He that has a due care of his soul’s salvation, must as well beware of erroneous principles as of debauched practices.
Observe, 4. Our Saviour does not command his disciples to separate from communion with the Pharisees, and oblige them not to hear their doctrine; but only to beware of the errors that they mixed with their doctrine. We may and ought to hold communion with a church, though erroneous in doctrine, if not fundamentally erroneous. Separation from a church is not justifiable upon any other ground than that which makes a separation between God and that church: which is either the apostacy of that church into gross idolatry; or in point of doctrine into damnable heresy, or imposing sinful terms of communion.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v5 We have here Christ's discourse with his disciples concerning…
We have here Christ's discourse with his disciples concerning bread, in which, as in many other discourses, he speaks to them of spiritual things under a similitude, and they misunderstand him of carnal things. The occasion of it was, their forgetting to victual their ship, and to take along with them provisions for their family on the other side of the water; usually they carried bread along with them, because they were sometimes in desert places; and when they were not, yet they would not be burthensome. But now they forgot; we will hope it was because their minds and memories were filled with better things. Note, Christ's disciples are often such as have no great forecast for the world.
I. Here is the caution Christ gave them, to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. He had now been discoursing with the Pharisees and Sadducees, and saw them to be men of such a spirit, that it was necessary to caution his disciples to have nothing to do with them. Disciples are in most danger from hypocrites; against those that are openly vicious they stand upon their guard, but against Pharisees, who are great pretenders to devotion, and Sadducees, who pretend to a free and impartial search after truth, they commonly lie unguarded: and therefore the caution is doubted, Take heed, and beware.
Read full note →
The corrupt principles and practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees are compared to leaven; they were souring, and swelling, and spreading, like leaven; they fermented wherever they came.
II. Their mistake concerning this caution, Mat 16:7. They thought Christ hereby upbraided them with their improvidence and forgetfulness, that they were so busy attending to his discourse with the Pharisees, that therefore they forgot their private concerns. Or, because having no bread of their own with them, they must be beholden to their friends for supply, he would not have them to ask it of the Pharisees and Sadducees, nor to receive of their alms, because he would not so far countenance them; or, for fear, lest, under pretence of feeding them, they should do them a mischief. Or, they took it for a caution, not to be familiar with the Pharisees and Sadducees, not to eat with them (Pro 23:6), whereas the danger was not in their bread (Christ himself did eat with them, Luk 7:36; Luk 11:37; Luk 14:1), but in their principles.
III. The reproof Christ gave them for this.
1. He reproves their distrust of his ability and readiness to supply them in this strait (Mat 16:8); "O ye of little faith, why are ye in such perplexity because ye have taken no bread, that ye can mind nothing else, that ye think your Master is as full of it as you, and apply every thing he saith to that?" He does not chide them for their little forecast, as they expected he would. Note, Parents and masters must not be angry at the forgetfulness of their children and servants, more than is necessary to make them take more heed another time; we are all apt to be forgetful of our duty. This should serve to excuse a fault, Peradventure it was an oversight. See how easily Christ forgave his disciples' carelessness, though it was in such a material point as taking bread; and do likewise. But that which he chides them for is their little faith.
(1.) He would have them to depend upon him for supply, though it were in a wilderness, and not to disquiet themselves with anxious thoughts about it. Note, Though Christ's disciples be brought into wants and straits, through their own carelessness and incogitancy, yet he encourages them to trust in him for relief. We must not therefore use this as an excuse for our want of charity to those who are really poor, that they should have minded their own affairs better, and then they would not have been in need. It may be so, but they must not therefore be left to starve when they are in need.
(2.) He is displeased at their solicitude in this matter. The weakness and shiftlessness of good people in their worldly affairs is that for which men are apt to condemn them; but it is not such an offence to Christ as their inordinate care and anxiety about those things. We must endeavour to keep the mean between the extremes of carelessness and carefulness; but of the two, the excess of thoughtfulness about the world worst becomes Christ's disciples. "O ye of little faith, why are ye disquieted for want of bread?" Note, To distrust Christ, and to disturb ourselves when we are in straits and difficulties, is an evidence of the weakness of our faith, which, if it were in exercise as it should be, would ease us of the burthen of care, by casting it on the Lord, who careth for us.
(3.) The aggravation of their distrust was the experience they had so lately had of the power and goodness of Christ in providing for them, Mat 16:9, Mat 16:10. Though they had no bread with them, they had him with them who could provide bread for them. If they had not the cistern, they had the Fountain. Do ye not yet understand, neither remember? Note, Christ's disciples are often to be blamed for the shallowness of their understandings, and the slipperiness of their memories. "Have ye forgot those repeated instances of merciful and miraculous supplies; five thousand fed with five loaves, and four thousand with seven loaves, and yet they had enough and to spare? Remember how many baskets ye took up." These baskets were intended for memorials, by which to keep the mercy in remembrance, as the pot of manna which was preserved in the ark, Exo 16:32. The fragments of those meals would be a feast now; and he that could furnish them with such an overplus then, surely could furnish them with what was necessary now. That meat for their bodies was intended to be meat or their faith (Psa 74:14), which therefore they should have lived upon, now that they had forgotten to take bread. Note, We are therefore perplexed with present cares and distrusts, because we do not duly remember our former experiences of divine power and goodness.
2. He reproves their misunderstanding of the caution he gave them (Mat 16:11); How is it that you do not understand? Note, Christ's disciples may well be ashamed of the slowness and dulness of their apprehensions in divine things; especially when they have long enjoyed the means of grace; I spake it not unto you concerning bread. He took it ill, (1.) That they should think him as thoughtful about bread as they were; whereas his meat and drink were to do his Father's will. (2.) That they should be so little acquainted with his way of preaching, as to take that literally which he spoke by way of parable; and should thus make themselves like the multitude, who, when Christ spoke to them in parables, seeing, saw not, and hearing, heard not, Mat 13:13.
IV. The rectifying of the mistake by this reproof (Mat 16:12); Then understood they what he meant. Note, Christ therefore shows us our folly and weakness, that we may stir up ourselves to take things right. He did not tell them expressly what he meant, but repeated what he had said, that they should beware of the leaven; and so obliged them, by comparing this with his other discourses, to arrive at the sense of it in their own thoughts. Thus Christ teaches by the Spirit of wisdom in the heart, opening the understanding to the Spirit of revelation in the word. And those truths are most precious, which we have thus digged for, and have found out after some mistakes. Though Christ did not tell them plainly, yet now they were aware that by the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, he meant their doctrine and way, which were corrupt and vicious, but, as they managed them, very apt to insinuate themselves into the minds of men like leaven, and to eat like a canker. They were leading men, and were had in reputation, which made the danger of infection by their errors the greater. In our age, we may reckon atheism and deism to be the leaven of the Sadducees, and popery to be the leaven of the Pharisees, against both which it concerns all Christians to stand upon their guard.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv4–12 A wicked and adulterous generation,.... He says the same…
A wicked and adulterous generation,.... He says the same things here, as he did to the Pharisees on a like occasion, in Mat 12:39.
And he left them; as persons hardened, perverse, and incurable, and as unworthy to be conversed with:
Read full note →
and departed: to the ship which brought him thither, and went in it to the other side of the sea of Galilee; see Mar 8:13.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 A wicked and adulterous generation - Ye would seek…
A wicked and adulterous generation - Ye would seek no further sign, did not your wickedness, your love of the world, which is spiritual adultery, blind your understanding.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv4–11 Verse 4. Wicked and adulterous generation] The Jewish people…
Verse 4. Wicked and adulterous generation] The Jewish people are represented in the Sacred Writings as married to the Most High; but, like a disloyal wife, forsaking their true husband, and uniting themselves to Satan and sin. Seeketh after a sign, σημειον επιζητει, seeketh sign upon sign, or, still another sign. Our blessed Lord had already wrought miracles sufficient to demonstrate both his Divine mission and his divinity; only one was farther necessary to take away the scandal of his cross and death, to fulfil the Scriptures, and to establish the Christian religion; and that was, his resurrection from the dead, which, he here states, was typified in the case of Jonah.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv4–5 Mat 16:4. A wicked and adulterous generation — As…
Mat 16:4. A wicked and adulterous generation — As if he had said, Ye would seek no further sign, did not your wickedness, and your love of the world, which is spiritual adultery, blind your understanding. There shall no sign be given, but — of the Prophet Jonas — Or the miracle of Christ’s own resurrection, a sign greater than any of those showed by the ancient prophets and messengers of God, and consequently a sign which proved Jesus to be superior unto them all. This sign our Lord had explained on a former occasion. See on Mat 12:40.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On v5 The account in these verses is also recorded in…
The account in these verses is also recorded in Mar 8:13-21.
Mat 16:5
Read full note →
And when his disciples were come to the other side - That is, to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.
Mark says that he entered into a ship again, and departed to the other side. The conversation with the Pharisees and Sadducees had been on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. See the notes at Mat 15:39. They crossed from that side again to the east.
Had forgotten to take bread - That is, had forgotten to lay in a sufficient supply. They had, it seems, not more than one loaf, Mar 8:14.
Mat 16:6-11
Take heed ... - That is, be cautious, be on your guard.
The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees - Leaven is used in making bread.
It passes secretly, silently, but certainly through the mass of dough. See the notes at Mat 13:33. “None can see its progress.” So it was with the doctrines of the Pharisees. They were insinuating, artful, plausible. They concealed the real tendency of their doctrines; they instilled them secretly into the mind, until they pervaded all the faculties like leaven.
They reasoned ... - The disciples did not understand him as referring to the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees, because the word “leaven” was not often used among the Jews to denote doctrines, no other instance of this use of the word occurring in the Scriptures. Besides, the Jews had many particular rules about the leaven (yeast) which might be used in making bread. Many held that it was not lawful to eat bread made by the Gentiles; and the disciples, perhaps, supposed that he was cautioning them not to procure a supply from the Pharisees and Sadducees.
O ye of little faith! - Jesus, in reply, said that they should not be so anxious about the supply of their temporal wants. They should not have supposed, after the miracles that he had performed in feeding so many, that he would caution them to be anxious about procuring bread for their necessities. It was improper, then, for them to reason about a thing like that, but they should have supposed that he referred to something more important. The miracles had been full proof that he could supply all their wants without such anxiety.
Mat 16:12
Then understood they ... - After this explanation they immediately saw that he referred to the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Erroneous doctrines are like leaven in the following respects:
They are at first slight and unimportant in appearance, just as leaven is small in quantity as compared with the mass that is to be leavened. They are insinuated into the soul unawares and silently, and are difficult of detection. They act gradually. They act most certainly. They will pervade all the soul, and bring all the faculties under their control.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 8 You know then how to discern the face of…
You know then how to discern the face of the sky, &c. Jesus Christ does not condemn every observation made upon the weather, from external appearances in the heavens. He only upbraids the Jews for so closely examining these signs, and neglecting at the same time to notice the many signs and predictions which so plainly manifested him to be the promised Messias. (Denis the Carthusian) --- The reasoning of Jesus Christ is this: you know how to judge of the weather from observation, and cannot you then know the certain signs so often promised, and now completed in my coming? The signs of this event were, the taking away the sceptre from the tribe of Juda. (Genesis xxxix. 10.) The completion of the 70 weeks of years of Daniel ix. 25, amounting to 490 years, which were now on the eve of being completed. The miracles of Jesus Christ, as the curing of the blind, the lame, the deaf and dumb, foretold by Isaias xxxv. 5. and lxi. 1. To which may be added the apparition of angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem, the miraculous star which appeared to the magi, the testimony of his heavenly Father, the descent of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. Besides, the testimony of the Baptist, and so many miracles of every kind wrought to establish this truth, most certainly, clearly, and infallibly demonstrate, that the long expected Messias had already come, and that this Jesus was the Messias. (Tirinus)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v5 2. The Leaven. Mat_16:5-12
2. The Leaven. Mat_16:5-12
5And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees [and S.].2 7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, 8It is because we have taken [we took, ἐλάβομεν] no bread. Which when Jesus perceived,3 he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought [ye took, ἐλάβετε]4 no bread? 9Do ye not yet understand, neither [nor] remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets 10[travelling-baskets]5 ye took up [ἐλάβομεν]? Neither [Nor] the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets [provision-baskets] ye took up? 11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread [spake not to you of loaves],6 that ye should [but] beware7 of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees 12[and S.]8? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees [and S.].7
Read full note →
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat_16:5. The circumstance that the disciples forgot to take bread with them forcibly illustrates their excitement, and the haste with which they had left the western shore. According to Mark (8:14), they had not more than one loaf in the ship with them. The event here recorded took place during the passage across the lake.
Mat_16:6. The leaven.—“Ζύμην τὴν διδαχὴν ἐκάλεσεν, ὡς ὀξώδη καὶ σαπράν. Euth. Zigab. On the analogous application of שְׂאֹר by the Rabbins (to every contagious influence of and for evil), see Buxtorf, Lexic. Talm. p. 2303; Lightfoot on the passage. Differently, 13:33.” So Meyer. According to Schneckenburger and de Wette, our Lord here referred to the hypocrisy, not to the teaching of the Pharisees, which the Lord commends, comp. Mat_13:4 But Meyer rightly insists that the expression refers not to their teaching in general (including their agreement with the law), but only to their sectarian peculiarities.9 The έντάλματα ἀνθρώπων (15:9), however, constitute only one part of the leaven. Applying to the two sects (the Sadducees as well as the Pharisees), the expression must refer to the corruptness of their teaching, arising from their secularism, which, like leaven, had infected and poisoned the whole people, and from which even the disciples were not quite free; more especially Judas, in whose heart this leaven was probably already beginning to operate. On the significance of the leaven, compare our remarks on Mat_13:33.—With the usual superficiality of rationalism, von Ammon (ii. 285) supposes that domestic requirements or business engagements may have rendered the return to the eastern shore necessary, entirely overlooking the deep import of this event. In point of fact, it was a virtual banishment. As such the disciples also felt it. But a short time before they had traversed the length and breadth of the lake under peculiarly trying circumstances. Now they returned in the opposite direction by the same track. A second time they saw Capernaum at a distance, and they felt as if their home there were already lost. The Master read these feelings, and understood their sorrow. With brave determination, but as yet only partially renouncing the world, they followed Him; but their hearts still clung to the scene of their affections and hopes. Under these circumstances, Jesus addressed to them the solemn warning, “Take heed, and beware,” etc. “When the children of Israel went out of Egypt, they were commanded to put away the leaven, and to leave it behind them (Exo_12:15-17). At the time, the expression referred to the spirit of Egypt as an infectious principle, most powerful for evil. They were not to take to Canaan any of the infectious corruptions of Egypt (comp. 1 Corinthians 5; Stier, 2:158). This journey of the Lord with his disciples resembled the passage of the children of Israel out of Egypt; like them, they now left behind the heathenism of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Saviour felt that the great Paschal feast—not symbolically, but in reality—was at hand. Withal, He was deeply affected by the thought that, unconsciously, His disciples still carried with them some of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Hence the warning (see the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 878).
And Sadducees.—Mark has instead: καὶ τῆςζύμης ̔Ηρώδον. If the Sadducees had enlisted the sympathies of Herod in demanding a sign from heaven, the situation of matters had become even more critical. But this does not necessarily follow from the text. There was a twofold kind of leaven, which might be designated as hypocritical secularism, and distinguished, as assuming in the one case the garb of exclusiveness, in the other that of liberalism. Here we have for the first time an indication of another offence than that of pharisaical exclusiveness, in the shape of the worldly policy of Herod coquetting with the Roman authorities of the land. We see, as it were, the germ of the later calumny, that Jesus claimed to be a king, and must therefore be an enemy to Cæsar.
How many baskets.—From Act_9:25, Bengel rightly infers that a σπυρὶς was larger than a κόφινος.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The false exegesis of the disciples on the words of the Saviour may be regarded as the prototype of many a later miserable performance of the same kind. At first they probably tried to understand them literally, and therefore as meaning: Beware of partaking of the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees, or have no further communion with them. But this would have implied that they would have had to make a separate provision for themselves, as the whole country was divided between the parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and hence any provision which they might have got from without would have been impure.—These thoughts were succeeded by the recollection that they had no bread, and by cares which drew down upon them the rebuke of the Lord about the littleness of their faith.
2. Do ye not yet understand? The expressions are the same as before in connection with the washing of the hands. Now that the separation had actually commenced, it was high time that they should have better understanding. The Gospel of Mark gives a fuller outline of this rebuke.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The threefold retirement of the Lord across the lake.—Resemblance between the passage of the Lord across the lake and that of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.—Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees: 1. Its designation: a twofold kind of leaven, and yet in reality only one leaven (exclusive bigotry and lax universalism,—after all only secularity under the guise of piety). 2. The warning: (a) Beware; (b) so that, while avoiding one of these errors, ye fall not into the other.—To cross with Jesus to the other side implies and requires complete renunciation of the world.—It matters little that we outwardly leave Egypt, if we carry its corruption in our hearts.—The feelings of the Master and those of His disciples on leaving the realm of the Pharisees: 1. The foresight of the Master, and the negligence of the disciples; 2. the freedom from care of the Master, and the anxieties of the disciples; 3. the calmness of the Master, and the excitement and distress of the disciples.—Connection between the memory and the heart: 1. Excitement the spring of forgetfulness; 2. calmness and peace the surest means of presence of mind.—The circumstance that the disciples had so frequently misinterpreted the meaning of the Lord, recorded for our warning.—Principal causes of false interpretations of the word of God: 1. Slavish literality; 2. personal interests; 3. fear; 4. arbitrary perversions.—How the Lord had to repeat to His disciples, and to question them on, the history of the twofold feeding of the multitude.—The anxiety of the disciples after the miraculous feeding of the multitude itself a mournful wonder.—Although the Lord ever performs new miracles, yet faith in Him still continues a miracle.—Then understood they ( Mat_16:12): when error is removed, truth finds an entrance.—The Lord emphatically reiterates: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.—The leaven of Jewish legalism and of heathen secularism in the Church of Christ.
Starke:—Quesnel: We do not lose by following Christ so closely as for a time to forget every earthly consideration, since, after all, we have the best part, Psa_73:25.—Majus: Let us not mix up different creeds.—Beware of heretics and false teachers.—Cramer: As leaven pervades the whole mass, so will a single error on any fundamental doctrine corrupt all our other views, depriving them of their spiritual value, 2Ti_2:17.—Zeisius: Hearers are apt to suppose that certain sermons are aimed against them, while this may be due to the voice of their own conscience, not to the words of the preacher.—Majus: The mistakes of disciples, and their consequences.—Canstein: How often does anxiety for daily bread take the place of anxiety for the soul!—Jesus searching the heart.—Christ bearing with the weakness of our faith, and giving more grace.—Cramer: Frequent meditation on the past gracious and wonderful provisions of our God an approved remedy for unbelief.—How frequently is it thus that they who ought to have been teachers have need to be taught again the first principles of divine truth!
Gerlach:—The words of Jesus may be misinter preted or forgotten simply from weakness of faith.—Accordingly, the Lord rebukes not so much their ignorance, as their weakness of faith and their carnality, which was the source of that ignorance.
Heubner:—Pharisaism: appearance of piety hypocritical ostentation of faith. Sadducism: appearance of a spirit of inquiry, concealment of faith from fear of men.—On Mat_16:7 : Similarly we might say, Simple-minded Christians do not understand the arts and plans by which unbelief undermines Christianity.
Mat_16:8-10 : A clear evidence this that the Apostles were neither credulous, nor on the watch for miracles.
Footnotes:
[2] Mat_16:6.—[Without the article, which is wanting in the Greek before Sadducees.—P. S.]
[3] Mat_16:8.—[Better: And when Jesus perceived it, he said, or: And Jesus knowing it said to them, γνοὺς δὲδ ̔Ι ηδοῦς εῖπεν αὐτοῖς.—P. S.]
[4] Mat_16:8.—For ἐλάβετε, B., D., Vulgata, etc., read έ̓χετε, ye have. So Lachmann. Meyer favors it. Tischendorf [and Alford] adhere to the Recepta, which accords best with the connection. [Codex Sinaiticus reads: έ̓χετε, and omits the words οὐ μνημονεύετε in the following verse.—P. S.]
[5] Mat_16:9.—[ Κοφίνους, as distinct from σπυρίδας in Mat_16:10. “The κ όφινος was proverbially the Jewish travelling-basket; comp. Juv. Sat. iii. 15: ‘Judæis, quorum cophinus fænumque supellex.’ ” Robinson, Gr. and E. Lex. of the N. T. Σπυρίς (σπεῖρα) is a round plaited basket for storing grain, bread, fish, and other provisions; comp. Mat_15:37; Mar_8:8; Mar_8:20; Act_9:25. The Vulgate translates the one cophinos, the other sportas; Ewald uses: Körbe and Handkörbe; Lange, better: Reisekörbe and Speisekörbe (travelling-baskets and provision-baskets); Wiclif: cofyns and lepus; the Rheims Vers.: baskets and moundes; Campbell likewise: baskets and mounds; but all other Engl. Vers. which I compared, use baskets in both cases.—P. S.]
[6] Mat_16:11.—Tischendorf, following Griesbach and the majority of witnesses, reads the plural ά̓ρτων. [So also Lachmann, and Alford, who regards the lect. rec. ά̓ρτου as an emendation to express the sense better. Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus. and Ephræmi Syri, the three eldest extant, unanimously sustain the plural, but Cod. Alexandrinus (as published by B. H. Cowper) reads the singular, and so the Lat. Vulgate (pane). Lange translates Brode, loaves.—P. S.]
[7] Mat_16:11.— ΙΙ ροσέχε τεδέ, according to B., C, L, al., Lachmann, Tischendorf. against προσέχειν. Hence a repeated admonition, not simply a narrative. See Meyer against Fritzsche. [Cod. Sinaiticus, and the English critical editors of the Greek Test, Tregelles and Alford, likewise read the imperative προσέχετε δὲ, but beware, instead of the infinitive προσέχειν, to beware, or that ye should beware.—P. S.]
[8] Mat_16:11-12.—[Omit of the, as in Mat_16:6; the article not being repeated in the Greek.—P. S.]
[9][The Edinb. translator, who never seems to have referred to Meyer, so often quoted in this Commentary, makes him and Lange say here the exact reverse, viz.: “Meyer insists that the expression applied not merely to their own teaching, but also to those points in which they agreed with the law itself.” In this case Christ would have warned the disciples against the law of God! But Meyer says, p. 316 (note), after opposing Schneckenburger’s and de Wette’s reference of the leaven to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees: “Aus dem Bilde des Sauerteigs erhellt von selbst, dass nicht die Lehre jener Secten überhaupt und im Ganzen (such ihre Uebereinstimmung mit dem Gesetze mit eingeschlossen) gemeint gewesen sei, sondern ihre charakteristische Secten-Lehre, ihre die Moralität verderbendem ἐνταΛματα ἀνθρώπων (15:9), daher Er such die Lenre beider zusammen als ζύμη darstellen konnte, so verchioden auch ihre beider-Mettgen Principien waren.”—P. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 4. Sign of the prophet Jonas — Our Lord…
4. Sign of the prophet Jonas — Our Lord here briefly refers them to his previous illustration of their request. Briefly, because they doubtless knew its farther exposition as previously given. Departed — Our Lord knew that their temper was now of the hostile and treacherous kind; and as he went to Tyre and Sidon to avoid their treachery in chapter 15, and thence to Decapolis to elude Herod, so now he evades these men by a rapid departure. Indeed, his movements through these two or three chapters are rapid, and distant from the seat of government, as if aware that the eye of the authorities of Herod Antipas was upon him. This debate took place at Magdala or thereabouts. Mat_15:39. It is implied by the word departed that he left that place and again crossed the lake to the east side; and his next named locality is Bethsaida Julias. Note on Mat_16:13.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7, 12 4. adulterous] See ch. Mat_12:39.
4. adulterous] See ch. Mat_12:39.
the sign of the prophet Jonas] See ch. Mat_12:39-41. The words in Mar_8:12 are “there shall no sign be given unto this generation,” i. e. no such sign as they demanded.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 (4) The sign of the prophet Jonas.—See Note on…
(4) The sign of the prophet Jonas.—See Note on Mat_12:39. As given by St. Mark, the answer was a more absolute refusal, “No sign” (i.e., none of the kind that was demanded) “shall be given to this generation.”
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 A wicked and adulterous generation... Jonas. These words our…
A wicked and adulterous generation... Jonas. These words our Lord had already uttered on a former occasion, (Mat_12:39) but he does not here explain them, as he did before (see Introduction, Under similar circumstances he repeats himself, but he wastes not time in useless discussions with perverse opponents who will not see the truth. Of his death and resurrection, whereof Jonah was a type, they knew and understood nothing. Perhaps they thought of Jonah only as a prophet against the heathen city Nineveh, and a preacher of repentance, and were disposed to resent the allusion as an affront to their vaunted righteousness. He left them. Took ship for Magedan, and crossed the lake to the northeast shore, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida Julias. He, as it were, despaired of their improvement, and left them in righteous anger at their obduracy. "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned". (Tit_3:10, Tit_3:11) Jesus never taught publicly or worked miracles again on this spot.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY Ver. 4. The cry for a sign.
Read full note →
It strikes us as somewhat remarkable that the contemporaries of our Lord should be inquiring a sign; for was not his work teeming with signs and wonders? Plainly the demand of the sceptical people, and the response with which Christ met it, give us another view of miracles and their relation to the evidences of Christianity from that commonly held by apologists.
I MEN DESIRE A CONVINCING SIGN OF THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. This desire is not in itself wrong or unreasonable. To believe without sufficient evidence is a symptom of weakness, and such a faith is only a superstition. It is not a mark of pride, but a simple consequence of loyalty to truth, that we should seek for good grounds on which to establish our convictions. If this were all that the people demanded, our Lord could not have met the cry for a sign with the auger which we see he displayed against it. But it is evident that the Jews were not satisfied with the signs Christ offered. They wanted a "sign from heaven some flaring portent that would compel conviction. Is there not a tendency in the present day to look away from the only sources of truth that are available, and to demand impossible grounds of conviction?
II THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN MAY SPRING FROM AN UNWORTHY CHARACTER. It is most unjust to accuse doubters of exceptional wickedness. Many people have no doubts simply because they dare not face truth. They would be sceptics if they were not cowards. On the other hand, it cannot be maintained that scepticism is in itself an indication of sanctity. Now, Jesus tells us that the pure in heart are they who shall see God. But all men doubters included have lost the vision of God by their sin. Thus the whole faculty of discerning the spiritual has become dim. Further, an age of self-indulgence must be an age of aggravated spiritual blindness.
III CHRIST WILL NOT SATISFY THE UNWORTHY DEMAND FOR A SIGN,
1. He cannot. With all reverence this must be affirmed. No portent can prove a spiritual truth to one who has not spiritual sight. You might as well expect the blare of a trumpet to reveal the beauty of a landscape to a blind man.
2. He would not if he could. Forced faith has no moral worth. Truth revealed to unprepared hearts is but as pearls cast before swine. Abraham refuses the prayer of Dives that Lazarus, risen from the dead, should be sent to his brothers, telling the miserable man that no good would come of such an errand.
IV CHRIST GIVES THE SIGN THAT IS REALLY NEEDED. He never disappoints the honest seeker after truth, although he does not always lead to truth by the expected path. The only truth of value is that which touches our hearts and consciences, and this is not thrust upon us by sheer authority, with threats of punishment if we will not accept it blindfold. That insolent and tyrannic ecclesiastical method is quite abhorrent to "the sweet reasonableness" of Jesus. His way is to bring a genuine proof to the awakened soul, and he compares this to the sign of Jonah. The preaching of Jonah convinced by reaching the consciences of the Ninevites. Christ"s teaching, his life above all, his death and resurrection speak to our consciences. When these are responsive, they can perceive the weight of his claims. W.F.A.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Ver. 4. The sign of Jonas.
There are many indications of the persistency with which our Lord was worried and hindered by a hostile party from among the Pharisees. They were ever trying new devices for entangling him. They hoped to nonplus him; or to get him to try something in which he would fail, or to say something which they could turn into an accusation. On this occasion the Pharisaic party united with the Galilaean Sadducees (who may be the same as the Herodians) in what seemed a clever scheme. They were to plead that such miracles as he wrought could not prove his Divine claim, because they were all susceptible of natural explanations. They were to say that, if he meant them to believe in him, he must do some really wonderful firing make thunder in a clear sky, as Samuel did, (1Sa_12:18) or bring fire from heaven, as Elijah did. (1Ki_18:38) Of course, they intended the people to hear them put this test, and they would make use of his refusal as proof of his inability. Our Lord did refuse. He understood the temper and needs of his time far better than they did; and if they wanted manifest signs from heaven, the people did not; or if they did, such signs were not really best for them. What would most help to awaken men was the mystery of his death and resurrection. That was the true sign of his spiritual being and mission. These Pharisees might take that sign. It was foreshadowed in the story of Jonah. It was all they would get. They must do the best they could with it.
I THE SIGN OF JONAS WAS INTENDED TO PUZZLE. Those who knew nothing of the spiritual nature of Christ, or of his redemption by suffering and sacrifice, could make nothing of this sign. It is a good way in which to treat malicious questioners, to answer them by giving them something to puzzle over, a "hard nut to crack." Can we imagine how these Pharisees, who were so clever at "splitting hairs" in argument, discussed this "sign of Jonas"? The people must have smiled when they saw them so answered and so discomfited.
II THE SIGN OF JONAS WAS INTENDED TO SUGGEST. For us it suggests what was then the special burden on the mind of Christ. He was anticipating the time of his suffering and death. For them the sign seemed to say, "Your prejudiced opposition to me will grow until it consummates in securing my death. You will throw me overboard, as Jonas was thrown over. But you will be baffled even then. Like Jonas, I shall rise again.
III THE SIGN OF JONAS WAS INTENDED TO TEACH. Only one point in the story is recalled by Christ. The only likeness between Jonas and Christ is that "rising again." The sign of the Divine origin, Divine mission, and Divine nature of Christ is his resurrection from the dead. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John A. Broadus 1886 · Public Domain On v5 Mat 16:5-20.
Mat 16:5-20.
Jesus Withdraws To The Neighbourhood Of Cesarea Philippi. Peter’s Great Confession
Read full note →
This is found also in Mar 8:13-30, and the latter part in Luk 9:18-21. Luke has passed over everything since the feeding of the five thousand, and here also is very brief. This is the last and most important of our Lord’s four withdrawals from Galilee during the last six months of his ministry in thai region, (compare Mat 14:13, Mat 15:21, Mat 15:29) and will continue to Mat 17:20.
I. Mat 15:5-12. Conversation On The Way
To the other side, of the lake, as in Mat 8:18-28, Mat 14:22, always meaning the eastern side Mark presently mentions (Mat 8:22) that they came to Bethsaida (viz., Julias), and afterwards went to Cesarea Philippi. So the first point reached by boat was on the northeastern side of the lake. Forgotten; rather forgot (Wyc., Rheims), is the literal translation, natural here in English and still more so in Greek. It probably means that they forgot in preparing the boat, and on reaching the other side became aware of the forgetting; or it may mean that upon landing they forgot to supply themselves for the journey. To take bread—or loaves—except a single one (Mark), which amounted to nothing. The seven great baskets of fragments from the miracle were probably given to the multitude for future use, or to the poor of Magadan. After discovering their negligence and destitution, the disciples felt an annoyance which led them to a singular blunder. Jesus meantime was thinking of the Pharisees and Sadducees, from whose obduracy and malignity he had just with drawn. (Mat 16:4) These great politico-religious parties (see on "Mat 3:7") had immense influence. The disciples had been reared to respect them, and so Jesus takes occasion to give a warning against their teachings and influence. The leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Mark has (Mar 8:15) ’the leaven of the Phar., and the leaven of Herod.’ Some have "inferred" that Herod Antipas was a Sadducee, notwithstanding in Mat 14:2 he expressed belief that John the Baptist was risen from the dead. But Mark has also omitted the Sadducees in Mar 8:11, as to asking a sign from heaven, and indeed mentions them only in Mar 12:18. This fact will account for his omitting them here. We thus understand that besides the Phar. and Sadd. Jesus spoke also of Herod, whose jealousy (Mat 14:2) had been one cause of his repeatedly withdrawing from Galilee, even as now again he is going to the dominions of the tetrarch Philip. Mark’s expression indicates the leaven of Herod as distinct from that of the Phar. Matthew by not repeating ’leaven,’ and by having only one article (see on "Mat 16:1"), suggests something common to the Phar. and Sadd., not necessarily some common tenet or specific teaching, but a common hurtful tendency. It is therefore idle to say that Jesus is here represented as confounding the rival parties. Nor is this passage in conflict with Mat 23:8, for much of what the Scribes and Phar. taught was correct, and proper to be observed. Leaven was regarded in the law as symbolically impure, (Exo 34:25 Lev 2:11) and hence the figure in 1Co 5:6 f. and here; see also Luk 12:1, where it is used in a different connection, and probably on a later occasion. The disciples were in no mood for figurative and spiritual meanings of words (compare Joh 4:10 ff.; Joh 6:26). They took it all literally, supposing that the Master had observed their lack of bread, and was cautioning them not to purchase any loaves made with the kind of leaven used by the Phar. and Sadd. This seems to the modern mind a strange and almost impossible notion; but it was just such a matter as the Rabbis made much of. The Talmud contains discussions as to whether it was right to use Gentile leaven. (Lightf.)[1] So the disciples reproach themselves. Because we have taken no bread (loaves), is an abrupt phrase natural to persons disconcerted. The word rendered in Com. Ver. (and Rev. Ver. margin) ’because’ is very often the mere ’that’ after a verb of saying, which in English is not used when the exact words are quoted. It is best so to understand here (Rev. Ver.) but the marginal rendering is quite possible, and is preferred by Meyer.
[1] Keim coolly sets aside the story, saying,"This gross and altogether inconceivable misunderstanding could not have occurred." One might have thought that such arrogant and superficial criticism could not have occurred, in the case of an able, learned, and earned man.
Mat 16:8-12. The Master rebukes them for supposing that he was concerning himself about kinds of food. A few weeks or months before, he had said, (Mat 15:1) "Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man"; how then could he be laying stress on a particular kind of leaven? And the repeated miracles of feeding vast multitudes from a very little food, and leaving a large surplus, ought certainly to have showed them that the mere lack of bread would cause him no concern. Only because they were of little faith (Mat 6:30, Mat 8:26, Mat 14:31) did they imagine such a thing. Mark gives still sharper expressions. Notice the connection here between faith and spiritual perception. (Mat 16:8 f.) With stronger faith in him they would have been lifted above temporal anxiety, and in better condition to understand his spiritual instructions. Ye have (Mat 16:8) was easily changed into ’ye took’ (rendered by Com. Ver. ’ye have brought’), to make it like Mat 16:7. Not yet, compare Mat 15:16; and Mar 6:52. Understand—(or perceive), Mat 16:9-11 (Tyn., Gen.,) as in Mat 15:17; in Mat 16:8 it represents another word, which is awkward, but in this case cannot well be helped, for the literal ’knowing’ or ’having known’ would be misunderstood. In Mat 16:11 the text in Rev. Ver., which is that of the earliest documents, seemed abrupt, and was variously changed, finally, into the form given in Com. Ver. In the true text, after rebuking them for failing to perceive, he repeats the counsel, in order that they might now look at it and understand; and so they did. Understood, (Mat 16:12) as in Mat 15:10, Mat 15:16. Doctrine—literally teaching—see on "Mat 7:28"and see on "Mat 8:19", not simply their dogmas, as ’doctrine’ would now suggest, but the whole spirit and tendency of their teaching. The Pharisees and Sadducees taught ideas concerning religious truth and duty in general, and in particular concerning the Messianic reign, which to the apostles would be misleading and corrupting. Herod represented a certain type of politico-religious opinion, accepted by the Herodians, which would also be quite misleading for proclaimers of the spiritual Messianic reign. This warning, while suggested by the recent demand of the Pharisees and Sadducees, (Mat 16:1) was a preparation for the great approaching instruction concerning Messiah’s true mission.
After crossing the lake Jesus came to Bethsaida (see on "Mat 14:13"), and there healed a blind man; a very interesting case, recorded by Mark alone. (Mar 8:22-26)
II. Mat 16:13-20. Peter’s Great Confession, And Our Lord’s Signal Response
Here Luke comes in, (Luk 9:18) though both he and Mark are brief, and fail to give the response. The narrative in Matt. and Mark goes right on, and there is no reason to question the continuity of events. Into the coasts (parts.) Wyclif here had ’partis,’ but Tyn. introduced the erroneous ’coasts,’ see on "Mat 15:21". Mark (Mar 8:27) has the more definite expression ’the villages of Cesarea Philippi’; he was tarrying in the suburban villages. Cesarea Philippi was at the northern end of Palestine, being near Dan ("from Dan to Beersheba"). It lay beside the eastern and least copious of the two chief springs of the Jordan; at the other spring, two and a half miles west was Dan; below the junction of their streams there comes in another, not mentioned by Josephus, which has flowed many miles from far up the slope of Hermon, and is really the remotest source of the river. The town was in an elevated plain, one thousand one hundred and fifty feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and near the foot of Mount Hermon, which rises seven or eight thousand feet higher still. A mile east (McGarvey), stands "a precipitous rock, at least a thousand feet above the town," crowned by a singularly strong fortress, dating from before the time of Christ, and in its present dimensions from the Saracens and the Crusaders. Stanley and others imagine that our Lord was led by this to use the phrase, "On this rock I will build my church." The plain or terrace on which the city stood is very beautiful. Porter : "It is covered with oaks and olive trees, having green glades and clumps of hawthorn and myrtle."Many travellers speak of encamping under noble shade trees just north of the town. Tristram (in Edersheim.): "Everywhere there is a wild medley of cascades, mulberry-trees, fig-trees, dashing torrents, festoons of vines, bubbling fountains, reeds, and ruins, and the mingled music of birds and waters." The fields between and around the sources of the Jordan are very fertile, producing breadstuffs and rice; and (Keim) "in summer the whole district is a sea of flowers, whence the bees gather a rich harvest." Josephus ("Ant.," 15, 10, 3) calls the fountain Panion, showing that the Greeks here worshipped Pan, whose worship was often associated with caves and grottos; and there are Greek inscriptions on the face of the cliff to the same effect. Probably the Phoenicians had here worshipped one of the forms of Baal, for Robinson argues that here was the town of "Baal-gad, in the valley of Lebanon, under Mount Hermon." (Jos 11:17.) Herod the Great built, near the fountain, a temple of white marble, in honour of Augustus. Philip, the tetrarch (see on "Mat 2:20"and see on "Mat 11:6"), enlarged the town and called it Cesarea, in honour of Tiberias. To distinguish it from the great seaport it was called Ces. Philippi, "Philip’s Cesarea." Some coins give it as Ces. Paneas, a name derived from Pan, and t-his survives m the modern Banias.[1].—Our Lord must in his youth have often gazed at Hermon from the lofty hill west of Nazareth (see on "Mat 2:23"), and so during his ministry must have looked at the snow-clad line of Lebanon from the Lake of Galilee.[2] It was doubtless a great pleasure to him and the disciples in midsummer to leave the hot shores of the lake, far below the level of the Mediterranean, and visit this cool and delightful mountainous region. There was also the advantage of being in the dominions of Philip (as in Mat 14:13, Mat 15:29), who was a comparatively just ruler, and had no such occasion for suspicious jealousy of Jesus as Herod Antipas. (Mat 14:1 ff.) They must have remained here some weeks or even months, as the series of withdrawals (Mat 14:13, Mat 15:21, Mat 15:29, Mat 16:13) occupied nearly six months. But the matters recorded in connection with this sojourn are near together in time; for Mat 16:21-28 seems to occur on the same day as Peter’s confession, and Mat 17:1-20 about a week afterwards. From Mat 16:13 it is natural to suppose that all this took place shortly after he reached that region, and the rest of the time remains a blank. The inhabitants of Cesarea Philippi and vicinity were largely heathen, and while sometimes attended by crowds, (Mar 8:34) and ready to heal, (Mat 17:14) our Lord occupied himself mainly with the private instruction of the twelve disciples as to his approaching extraordinary experiences (Mat 16:21) and the true nature of the Messianic work. His own contemplation of his approaching rejection and death was accompanied by prayer. (Luk 9:18) In order to prepare the minds of the disciples for these new views of the Messianic mission, he draws from them the confession that he is the Messiah, which Peter makes as spokesman. (Mat 16:13-15) This occurred ’on the road’, (Mar 8:27) probably from one village to another; he had withdrawn a little, and was alone with his disciples; (Luk 9:18) afterwards he would naturally return to the road, and here came in contact with a great number of other persons. (Mar 8:34) In drawing out the confession, he skillfully begins with an inquiry as to popular opinion concerning him, and then advances to ask their own opinion. The former was important as to any hope of immediate general usefulness; the latter far move important as to the whole future of the Messianic movement. Whom (who) do men say. ’Whom’ (all the early English versions) is a sort of attraction of the relative into the case that would be required by the nearest word, ’say.’ This use of the relative is also found in Shakespeare, but abandoned in modern English. That I, the Son of man, am? This should read ’the Son of man is.’ The change arose from assimilation to Mark and Luke. The phrase ’the Son of man’ (see on "Mat 8:20", and compare Joh 12:23) really implied that he was the Messiah, but did not distinctly affirm it. He had already declared that the Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath, (Mat 12:8) that he had authority on earth to forgive sins, (Mat 9:4) that he shall send forth his angels for the final harvest. (Mat 13:41) He had also (Lutteroth) often spoken of God as his Father. (Joh 3:13-18, Joh 5:25-27 Mat 7:21, Mat 10:32, Mat 11:27, Mat 15:18)
[1] In modern Arabic the sounds of b and p are both represented by b (the Arabic p having always the sound of our ph or f), and are often hard to distinguish. Thus Bashaw and Pasha are two European attempts to represent the same word, and Nabulus is the Arabic for Neapolis, English Naples
[2] One afternoon in March, 1871, we stood before our tent near Tubariyeh (Tiberias), and watched a black cloud as it came rolling up the Jordan valley and over the southern end of the lake, till it hung above us like a mighty pall. Looking northward we saw a wonderful play of jagged lightnings about the upper end of the lake, and then far in the north there gleamed out upon us the long line of Lebanon, with its snows indescribably brilliant in the evening sun. It was one of the sights of a lifetime.
Mat 16:14. Popular opinion varied. John the Baptist, see on "Mat 3:1". This would suppose John to have risen from the dead, as Herod Antipas thought. (Mat 14:2) Elias, instead of the Hebrew form Elijah, see on "Mat 1:2". The Jews very generally expected Elijah to come to life again (see on "Mat 11:14"), many supposing he would be a forerunner of Messiah. (Mal 4:5 f.)—And those who held that Jesus was Elijah, probably thought that he was a forerunner of Messiah. And others, Jeremias (Jeremiah). ’Others’ is here a different Greek word from the foregoing, and denotes (compare Gal 1:6) another class or kind of persons, i.e., persons who turned away from the popular expectation of Elijah. Jeremiah was in the time of our Lord greatly venerated among the Jews. They had a legend that he appeared in a vision to Judas Maccabeus and encouraged him (2Ma 15:7, 2Ma 15:13 ff.); also that when the temple was destroyed, Jeremiah hid the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense in a cave of Mount Pisgah, and promised that they should one day be restored (2Ma 2:4 f.); and a very late Jewish writer says, that Jeremiah would himself appear to restore these sacred objects. Some Rabbinical writers hold Jeremiah to be the prophet promised by Moses. (Deu 18:15) We now think of Isaiah as the great prophet, because he is so often quoted in the New Testament as predicting the Messiah; but the Jews in the time of Christ reckoned Elijah and Jeremiah as foremost. Or one of the prophets. There was great confusion of opinion as to the circumstances of Messiah’s approach, some thinking there would be a series of forerunners (see on "Mat 11:3"). The last class here mentioned were disposed to be non-committal as to identifying Jesus with any particular ancient prophet, but thought he must be some one of them. To many minds, now that belief in a resurrection had become vivid, the idea of some former revered prophet re-appearing was more natural and credible than that of a new prophet; yet some counted John the Baptist a prophet, (Mat 14:5, Mat 11:9) and others already thought Jesus a new and great prophet, (Luk 7:15 Joh 6:14) as many did at a later period. (Joh 7:40 Mat 21:46) But no class of the people at this time regarded him as being the Messiah. How could they, when in their view Messiah was to he a splendid conqueror and king?
Mat 16:15 f. But whom (Rev. Ver., who) say ye that I am? Observe ’ye,’ plural, and by position in the Greek exceedingly emphatic-in contrast with the discordant popular opinions. The question is addressed to all, and Peter answers as their spokesman, just as he does in many other cases. (Joh 6:67-70; Mat 15:16 f.; Mat 19:25-28; Luk 12:41; Mar 11:20-22; Mat 26:40; Act 2:37 f.; Act 5:29, etc.) Chrys.: "Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the Apostolic choir (Coryphaeus)." His impulsive nature, which sometimes brought him into trouble (Mat 14:29, Mat 26:51) helped to fit Peter for this post of spokesman, and a better qualification was his strong faith and ardent love for the Master. The fact that the others remained silent and left him to speak does not show that none of them fully shared his sentiments; compare Mat 19:28, Mat 26:40; etc. Thou art the Christ, as in Mat 26:20. The early Eng. versions, including the first and several succeeding editions of K. James, gave ’Christ’ without the article; it is not ascertained when the article was introduced into the Com. Ver. It has also the article in the parallel passage, Mar 8:29. For the meaning of the word ’Christ’ see on "Mat 1:1". We feel the forces of it better in this and many passages of the Gospels, by using the Hebrew word Messiah (see on "Mat 2:4"). ’Thou’ is expressed in the Greek, and therefore emphatic. The Son of the living God is a very solemn expression. The gods of the heathen were lifeless; Jehovah the ’God of Israel the one true God, was living. So Paul at Lystra (Act 14:15 R. V.): "that ye should turn from these vain things unto the living God."Mark (Mar 8:29) records simply ’thou art the Christ (Messiah)’; Luke (Luk 9:20) ’the Christ (Messiah) of God.’—The earliest disciples of Jesus, including Simon Peter, at once concluded that he was the Messiah. (Joh 1:41, Joh 1:49) But he proceeded to act so differently from what they had been reared to expect of Messiah, that they would naturally become greatly perplexed about his Messiahship, even as John felt in his prison (see on "Mat 11:3"). Again and again, however, some work or word would persuade them afresh. Thus in Mat 7:22 he declares, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord," etc. In Mat 11:5 f. he refers the messengers of John to his Messianic miracles and preaching to the poor. In Mat 14:33 the persons in the boat say, "of a truth thou art the Son of God." In Joh 6:69, R. V., Peter says (as spokesman): "We have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God." (This last the copyists changed into "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," by assimilation to our passage of Matthew.) Now, two or three years later than their first early persuasion, they have become established in the conviction, though so in conflict with their life-long conceptions, that their Master is the Messiah. We thus see that there is no contradiction, such as many critics have alleged, between the statements of Matt., Mark., and Luke at this point, and that of Joh 1:41. Nor do we read that he had ever distinctly told the disciples that he was the Messiah, though he had said so to the woman of Samaria. (Joh 4:26, Joh 4:29) A few months later, the noble Martha. who receives scant justice in many pulpits, made the same confession for which Peter is here so commended. (Joh 11:27) We understand the importance of this confession when we hear a Jew of the present time announce his new-found conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.—does this confession of Peter represent the Saviour as divine? Not necessarily, if it stood alone without any later revelation.(Compare on Mat 14:33) But subsequent apostolic teaching, guided by the Holy Spirit, employs kindred phrases to set forth his divinity, which may therefore be regarded as implicitly contained in the language here used.
Mat 16:17. This response, Mat 16:17-19, is given by Matt. only. Our Lord seems to speak joyfully. Here at last the disciples have reached the strong conviction, the clear faith, necessary to prepare them for comprehending and establishing his spiritual Messianic reign. Blessed, more exactly happy, see on "Mat 5:3", and compare Mat 11:6, Mat 13:16. God has greatly favoured him, in bringing him to this perception and conviction, and so he is a happy man. Why does Jesus say this to Simon Peter alone, and not to all those whose opinion he had asked, and for whom Peter had spoken? Partly, no doubt, because he wishes to refer in what follows to the meaning of the name Peter, and partly because Peter is to have a certain leadership in the founding of the kingdom, and so what is about to be said will apply especially, though by no means exclusively, to him Simon Bar-jona. The Hebrew Ben (Benjamin, Benhadad, etc.), and the Aramaic Bar, signifies ’son’; e. g., Bar Jesus, Barabbas, (Mat 27:16) Bartholomew, (Mat 10:3) Bartimeus, Barnabas, etc. Compare John-son, Robin-son, etc., and kindred terms in many languages. The word Bar-jonah (Bar-lena in Com. Ver. is the Greek form) does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; in Joh 1:42, Joh 21:15, we find (R.V.) ’Simon, son of John,’ and there is reason to suppose that Jona in Matthew is a contraction of Joana, which would be a genitive case, meaning ’of John,’[1] so that Bar Jona means not son of Jonah, but son of John. Flesh and blood, viz., humanity, on its feeble corporeal side, as distinguished from the incorporeal or spiritual side, which is relatively strong (Bleek). The phrase is found first in Ecclus. Sir 14:18; Sir 17:31; it occurs repeatedly in New Testament, (Gal 1:16 Eph 6:12 Heb 2:14, etc.) and is very common in the Talmud. The Old Testament makes a similar use of ’flesh.’ (Gen 6:3, etc.) Revealed. No one around had the fixed conviction that Jesus was the Messiah; Peter and the disciples for whom he spoke had not derived that conviction from any human teaching, nor from their own unaided reflection. My Father which is in heaven, see on "Mat 6:9". None but the Father knows the Son. (Mat 11:27) To lift them out of all the perplexed conceptions due to their education and environment, and fix them in the conviction that one without sceptre or army or even home, is the Messiah, required revelation from the Father. (compare Joh 6:44)
[1] In Luk 3:27 Joanan (Hebrew Jochanan, John) is in various documents written Jonan, and in Luk 3:30 Jonam or Jonan is in some documents Joanan. So in the Sept. Joanan frequently appears as Jonan. Therefore it is quite possible that in Matthew. Jona is only a contraction of Joana, which would be genitive of Joanna, a Doric form of Joannes or Joanes, and Doric forms of proper names are common in the New Testament; thus Bar-jona would be son of John. In Joh 1:42, Joh 21:15, the true text has Joanou, the Attic genitive, which was early changed by some copyists to Jona through assimilation to Matthew. Bishop Lightfoot (on Rev., p. 137) gives a quotation showing that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" explained Bar-Jona as a Jewish name, meaning son of John.
Mat 16:18 f. Here are four main points to be considered, (1) the rock, (2) the church, (3) the gates of Hades, (4) the keys of the kingdom, and the power to bind and loose. And I say also unto thee, as thou hast just said something to me which is so important. Weiss and others understand, "as the Father has given thee this great revelation, I also give thee a great distinction." But thus to contrast his gifts with the Father’s would be quite foreign to the tone of our Lord’s discourses; and the emphatic position of ’unto thee’ (in the Gr.) forbids such a view. That thou art Peter, ’thou’ being expressed in the Greek, and therefore emphatic. This is not for the first time giving him the name, as some destructive critics hold in order to make out a contradiction between Matthew and John, but naturally implies that he has it already. (Mat 10:2) He who long before gave the surname now (Joh 1:42) refers to it as significant. Chrys: "See throughout all, his own authority; I say unto thee, I will build the church, I will give the keys."
A. Upon this rock. As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ’upon this rock’ means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching. The other interpretations which have been proposed are, that the rock is Peter’s confession (or his faith), and that the rock is Christ.
Now apart from the Romish perversion, certain other objections are made to the natural interpretation. Some hold that such a play upon words, "thou art Rock, and on this rock, "is unworthy of our Lord. But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even morn far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ; and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession. Nor is there any real objection to supposing paronomasia. Such expressions are very common in Old Testament (e. g., Gen 17:5, Gen 32:28), and in New Testament, especially in Paul. See Winer, Sec. 68, and Bishop Lightfoot on Revision (in Schaff on Rev., p. XV. ff.).
The fact that ’rock’ elsewhere in Scripture is often applied to God and never to man (Wordsw., Alex.), may be offset by the fact that our Lord himself gave this man the name rock, (Joh 1:42) and here takes pains to call him by that name, which he does nowhere else save in Luk 22:34; and perhaps even the exception is significant, for he was then predicting the shameful fall so unworthy of one whom he had named rock. Late Jewish writings (Wun.) speak of Abraham as the rock, or of the patriarchs as the rocks, on which God laid the foundation of the world.
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros, and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or a fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed (see Lid. and Scott). It is worthy of notice, too, that Jesus himself is called lithos in 1Pe 2:5 ff. Again if petros had been used both times in the Greek, it would have meant, "thou art Peter, and on this Peter," without distinctly showing the play upon words; and it would not have been natural for Matthew to write, ’thou art petra’ (feminine), when he has been constantly writing the apostle’s name Simon (masculine). But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction. The Peshito (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou art kipho, and on this kipho." The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou art kepha, and on this kepha." (Compare Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier." Lightf. supposes (followed by Wordsw.) that "he pronounced it Cephas after the Greek manner" because he "could not have been understood if in both places he had retained the same word." How, then, has the Peshito been understood? Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and thinks that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words.
Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, "I will build,.... I am the rock on which I will build," would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying ’thou art Peter, and on this rock’ he pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive. The attempts to show that the demonstrative, ’on this rock,’ could not refer to the speaker, or could not refer to the person addressed, are alike futile.
But the great objection on the part of many to the natural interpretation is the apparent concession to Popery. Let us see how this matter stands.
The early Fathers, who are for us only very useful aids in interpretation, are for the Roman Catholic an authority, only second to that of Scripture. For him, though not for us, it is a grave difficulty that some of the most distinguished Fathers interpret the rock otherwise. Chrys. expressly says on our passage, "On this rock; that is on the faith of his confession." He often elsewhere gives the same interpretation and never any other. Once he remarks, "He did not say upon Peter, for it was not upon man, but upon his faith." Maldonatus would have trouble in applying to this expression his "reverent" interpretation that those Fathers who say the church was built on the faith and confession of Peter really meant on Peter, because of his faith and confession. Chrysostom’s explanation is also given by his contemporaries Gregory of Nyssa and Isidore of Pelusium, and the Latin Father Hilary, and by the later Greek Fathers Theodoret, Theophanes, Theophylact, John of Damascus. Probably these Fathers were all aware of a tendency to pervert the more natural interpretation which made Peter the rock (that of Origen, Cyprian, Basil, Gregory Naz., Ambrose, Jerome, Cyril Alex., etc.), into a support for the growing claims of the Roman Bishop, Augustine in his "Retractations" (I. 21) says that in an early work against the Donatists he stated that the church was founded on Peter as on a rock; but that very often since he has interpreted the language as meaning that the rock was Christ; and that Simon confessing him as all the church does was therefore called Peter. He adds that the reader may choose which of these opinions is more probable.[1] We repeat that Chrys., Augustine, and the rest, are notable authorities for the Roman Catholic, and grievously in the way of his building on the natural interpretation of the passage.
[1] Some other Fathers were uncertain, and have interpreted the passage differently in different writings; but most of the examples of this cited by Sulcer (Thesaurus Eccles.) are misunderstood by him, and some of them mistranslated. Stier states that "Lannoy, Doctor of the Sorbonne, out of seventy-seven sayings of the most famous Church Fathers and Church writers, had found only seventeen which explain Peter himself as the rock, forty-four on the contrary understand the faith, and sixteen Christ himself." But such numerical statements can be but little relied on, unless one could have the citations and know something of their sources.
But grant that the rock is Peter, and consider what the Roman Catholic will then have to show in order to establish the claims of the Papacy.
1. He must show that Peter alone was to be the founder of Christianity. Of this there is no evidence but the obviously figurative expression before us. Against it (a) we find various express declarations, especially Eph 2:20, "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," etc. (b) The history in Acts and the Epistles is also opposed to this notion; especially in Acts 15, where Peter does not at all act separately or appear to be supreme (though he is a leader), and it is really James that suggests the measure adopted by the brethren; also in Galatians 2, where Peter is one of the three pillars, James being named first, and where Peter is publicly rebuked by Paul for acting contrary to his own convictions. Think of a Romish bishop rebuking the Pope to his face "before all." (c) The promise as to binding and loosing here made to Peter, is made in Mat 18:18 as to the action of all the apostles or any church. A partly similar promise is made in Joh 20:22 f. to the ten apostles and others (as shown by the comparison of Luke). (d) This saying is omitted by Mark and Luke, though they give what precedes and what follows it. Now according to the Romanist view they have omitted the very heart of the passage, and well-nigh the most important thing Jesus ever said. Thus H. J. Coleridge: "This confession of St. Peter, and the magnificent blessing which it drew from our Lord, may be said to be the very central point of our Lord’s ministry. All before it leads up to it, and all that follows it in some sense takes its colour from it." And yet Mark and Luke have both come right up to this transcendently important saying, and then passed it by, giving the words which in Matthew immediately follow. The argument from silence must always be carefully used, but this is certainly a very strong case. 2. He must show that Peter not only the sole founder of Christianity, but that he was vicegerent of God and the sovereign of all Christians. No Scripture testifies this at all, unless the present passage does; and the whole tone Of the New Testament is against it. Nor do the Fathers who understand the rock to be Peter indicate the notion of his having any such position or power as the modern Pope.
3. He must show that this supposed authority of Peter’s was transmissible, of which there is no particle of evidence in the New Testament; and it is strangely inconsistent with the very image of a corner-stone, or foundation rock, to suppose it frequently removed and a new one substituted.
4. He must show that Peter lived and died at Rome, which is probably true but not certain; and that he was, rather than Paul, the head of the church at Rome, of which there is no evidence at all, and Irenaeus and Eusebius agree in making Linus first bishop of that church.
5. He must show that Peter’s supposed transmissible authority was actually transmitted to the leading official of the church at Rome. Of this there is no evidence but comparatively late tradition. And against it is the general history of the earliest churches, in which the church at Rome (e. g., in Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians) does indeed appear as influential(a natural thing from its being in the imperial city), but there is not the slightest indication that it was supreme, or had any sovereignty, recognized or claimed. And why should a special office or authority be transmitted to a church official at Rome rather than at Antioch or Jerusalem? Notice too (Gloag,"Exege. Studies"), that on the Papal theory the great apostle John was, after the death of Peter, completely subject to the bishop of Rome.
The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favours the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims, when, as we have seen, the hopeless burden of his argument comes afterwards. Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle in Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.
To understand that Peter is here the rock it not forbidden by the fact that other images are drawn from the same source. In 1Co 3:10 ff., Paul speaks of himself as master builder (architect), and other teachers also as builders, Christ being the only foundation. In Eph 2:19 ff. he makes the apostles and prophets the foundation, with Christ as cornerstone. So in Rev 21:14 the names of the twelve apostles are engraved on the twelve foundations of the city walls, which makes the apostles in one sense the entire foundation. In 1Pe 2:4 ff. all Christians are living stones built up into a spiritual house, with Christ as the chief corner stone. In the present passage Christ is the builder, and the apostles are the foundation, as represented by Peter, who spoke for the rest, and had a recognized leadership among them. There are many other cases of an image variously applied. In 1Pe 2:19, Peter is promised the keys, while in Rev 1:18, Rev 3:7, Jesus has the keys. So in Mat 5:14, Christians are the light of the world, while in Joh 9:5 Christ is the light of the world.—That Peter was a leader among the apostles, is seen already from his standing at the head in each of the four lists. (See on "Mat 10:2".) He appears as markedly prominent in Act 1:15 ff.; Act 2:14 ff.; Act 2:37 f.; Act 3:1 ff. (with John); Act 3:11 f.; Act 4:8 ff.; Act 4:4-19 (with John); Act 5:8, Act 5:15, Act 5:29, Act 8:14 (with John). Observe especially the designation of Peter to receive a special revelation and take special action concerning the Gentiles, Act 10:9 ff.; Act 11:17, Act 15:7; also the prominence of Peter and James in the decision of the conference at Jerusalem, (Act 16:7 ff.) where Paul says that James, Cephas, and John were reputed to be pillars, (Gal 2:9) an architectural image somewhat akin to that which here makes the apostles the foundation. Notice in particular that Peter was leader in converting many Jews on the great Day of Pentecost, and was also the first instrument in the conversion of Gentiles who had not become Jews. In all this there is nothing at all to show that his leadership amounted to supremacy, but in fact, much to the contrary. He appears everywhere as primus inter pares, the first among equals. The disciples after this time dispute who shall be greatest. (Mat 18:1 Luk 22:24) In so doing they certainly did not understand that Peter was greatest, nor did Jesus intimate that in replying. We find also (Gloag) that Peter, instead of sending the other apostles is sent by them, (Act 8:14) and is called to account by the apostles and brethren. (Act 11:1-18) If then it be supposed that our Lord’s language applies to Peter in some peculiar sense not true of the other apostles, still it cannot possibly mean that he is thereby made sovereign over the rest. Jesus here means that the apostles are the foundation on which he will build his church, and Peter is mentioned in particular because of his significant name, appropriate character, spokesmanship on this occasion, and recognized leadership in general. That the rock here means Peter is held among Protestant expositors by Bengel, Doddridge, Macknight, Fritzsche, Bleek, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Stier, Keim, Grimm, Weiss, Geikie, Farrar, Mansel, Gloag.
B. I will build. The image is that of a house, as seen also in ’gates’ and ’keys.’ To build an assembly was a combination of images easy to the Jewish mind, because the congregation of Israel was often also called the house of Israel. The word church is used also in Mat 18:17, but nowhere else in the Gospels, and the discussions connected with it belong chiefly to the Acts and Epistles. The Greek word signified primarily the assembly of citizens in a self-governed State, being derived from, to call out; i.e., out from their homes or places of business, to summon, as we speak of calling out the militia. The popular notion that it meant to call out in the sense of separation from others, is a mistake. In a secondary sense denoted any popular assembly (Act 19:39) This Greek term seems to have been applied directly to an actual congregation or assembly of Christians, what we now call a local church, as in Mat 18:17, and usually in the Acts and Epistles, sometimes to an (apparently) informal, unorganized meeting. (Rom 16:5 Col 4:15 Phm 1:2) But in the Septuagint it is often used to translate the Hebrew qahal (for example, Deu 18:6, Deu 23:1 ff.; Jdg 21:8 Psa 22:22, etc.), which is also derived from a root meaning to call, to convoke, and so signifies a convocation, a congregation, assembly. This and another Hebrew word of equivalent meaning are used in all parts of the Old Testament to denote the congregation of Israel. (compare Act 7:38 Heb 2:12) In the New Testament the spiritual Israel, never actually assembled, is sometimes conceived of as an ideal congregation or assembly, and this is denoted by the word. So in Eph 1:22, and often throughout that Epistle, in Col 1:18, Col 1:24 Heb 12:23, etc. This seems to be the meaning here. All real Christians are conceived of as an ideal congregation or assembly, and this is here described as a house er temple, built upon Peter (and the other apostles), as in Eph 2:19-22, it is a temple "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." There is a third use of the term, widely diffused throughout Christendom, in which it is made to denote the aggregate of all formally professing Christians, or all outward organizations of Christians, or else some one outward organization which is alone recognized by the persons using the term as being really "the church." This aggregate of professed Christians is in modern parlance called "the visible church," as distinguished from "the invisible church," which denotes as above, the ideal assembly of real Christians. But the word is not used in the New Testament to denote a congregation, actual or imaginary, of all professed Christians, unless it be in Act 9:31 (correct text), and in 1Ti 3:15. In the former the word probably denotes the original church at Jerusalem, whose members were by the persecution widely scattered throughout Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and held meetings wherever they were, but still belonged to the One original organization. When Paul wrote to the Galatians, nearly twenty years later, these separate meetings had been organized into distinct churches; and so he speaks, (Gal 1:22) in reference to that same period, of "the churches of Judea which were in Christ." In 1Ti 3:15, "the church" is naturally the particular local church with which one is connected. If these two passages be not relied on for the purpose, there is no New Testament authority for the sense of "the visible church," and therefore the word ought not to be so understood here. As to the English word ’church,’ see on "Mat 18:17".
C. The gates of hell, or Hades. The word Hades (see on "Mat 11:23"), denotes the invisible world, the abode of the departed. The Hebrew word Sheol has substantially the same meaning. Such was also the original sense of the English word hell, the hidden or unseen place (Anglo Saxon helah, ’to hide,’ Skeat), which was therefore in early English a correct translation of Hades and Sheol. But it has gradually come to denote exclusively the place of torment, as so many other words have become restricted to the bad sense, and is now only a translation of Gehenna (see on "Mat 6:22"), while Hades has to be borrowed in Rev. Ver. of New Testament In Com. Ver. of Old Testament, Sheol was translated either ’hell,’ ’the grave,’ or ’the pit.’ In Rev. Ver. the Hebrew Sheol has been often borrowed, and this ought assuredly to have been done in all cases, as urged by the American Revisers. Neither Hades nor Sheol ever denotes distinctively the place of torment. Farrar claims for this sense Luk 16:23, 2Pe 2:4; Mat 11:23. But in Luk 16:23 the place of torment is in Hades, and so is Abraham’sabode—separated by an impassable gulf, but within sight and hearing. So the rich man in torment was in Hades, but the gates of Hades (whether meaning entrance or power) cannot be distinctively the gates of the place of torment, the abode of Satan. In 2Pe 2:4 the term Hades is not used, but a verb derived from the Greek word Tartarus, which was in Greek usage exclusively a place of torment; and this word occurs nowhere else in the Greek Bible. In Mat 11:23 (see note) the arrogantly aspiring city, which dreams of reaching heaven, is to be brought down to Sheol or Hades, conceived of as far underground, i.e., to utter destruction; and the idea of future torment does not even enter into the connection. There is nowhere any warrant for understanding Hades as denoting distinctively the place of torment, the abode of Satan; it is the abode of the departed, and through its gates pass all who die. To argue that Abraham and Lazarus must have been in heaven, and therefore wholly separated from Hades, is beside the mark; for the conception of heaven as the abode of the blessed is entirely distinct from that of Hades, and the two cannot be combined into one local image.
The ’gates of Sheol’ (Hades) are spoken of in Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3Ma 5:51; Son 8:6; Gospel of Nicodemus 21; and in this passage; the ’bars of Sheol’ in Job 17:16; the ’gates of Death’ in Job 38:17 Psa 9:14 (13); Psa 107:18, and the ’keys of death and of Hades’ in Rev 1:18. So in "Iliad" IX., 312, Achilles says, "For hateful to me, like the gates of Hades, is the man who hides one thing in his breast and says another." In "Iliad" VI., 546, Tlepolemos: "But subdued by me you will traverse the gates of Hades." In "Odyssey" XI., 277, "But she went to the abode of the strong gate-keeper, Hades" (the deity presiding over that region). In Æschylus,"Agam." 1291, Clytemnestra addresses the gates of Hades, and prays that she may have a speedy and easy death. In Euripides, "Hecuba", Hecuba says, "I come, leaving the hiding place of the dead and the gates of darkness, where Hades dwells apart from the gods." It will be seen that in all the passages from Hebrew writings, and most of those from Greek writings, the gates of Hades arc passed through by the dying. In the passage from Euripides a person is conceived as coming back through the gates of Hades, and there are some other passages of Greek authors to the same effect. It would be possible, though not most natural, so to understand Rev 1:18.
Prevail against, or ’overcome,’ literally, be strong against, ’be too strong for,’ The Greek word is found also in Luk 23:23, and is an intensive compound of-that used in Act 19:16. It might in the Greek grammatically refer to the rock or to the church; the connection shows plainly that the latter is meant, but there is no substantial difference. Some able commentators understand "shall not surpass it in strength," without the notion of conflict; but this is contrary to the etymology and use of the verb, and seems strained. Because ’gates’ has in Greek no article, Weiss takes it to mean ’Hades-gates,’ i.e., gates of that class or kind shall not surpass it in strength. But the indefinite word gates is made definite by appending Hades, this being a definite and single locality—a use of the appended genitive that is quite common in the New Testament (Winer, 125 155, Buttmann, 88,118).[1]
[1] This matter of the appended genitive, upon which Winer and Butt. make many distinctions, may be reduced to a single statement. Where the noun appended in the genitive is in its nature so related to the other noun that the complex idea becomes definite, then the speaker or writer may, if he chooses, omit the article with the first noon, and yet expect the phrase to be understood as definite.
’The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it’ may now be seen to have three possible senses. (a) It most naturally means, according to the Hebrew uses, that the gates of Hades shall not swallow up the church. All earthly things go down through those dread gates, but Christ’s church, for which he gave himself, will never cease to exist; there will always be Christians in the world. This was a bold prediction for a homeless teacher, with handful of followers (compare Mat 28:18-20). (b) Or, taking the occasional Greek, but not Hebrew use, together with the possible meaning of Rev 1:18, we shall have the sense, the gates of Hades shall not prevent my people from rising again (Meyer.) (e) ’Gates’ maybe taken, though it is an unusual sense, as a symbol of power, because strong gates completed the fortifications of a city, (Gen 22:17 Psa 127:5) or because judges often sat, kings administered justice, and garrisons gathered, in the gates. Compare "the Sublime Porte," and the European use of "Court," as connected with the court-yard of a palace. Then the expression would mean, the power of Hades shall not be too strong for my church, a sense loosely equivalent to (a.) Yet this is harsh; for while ’gates’ might well represent defensive power, it is hardly congruous to take them as representing aggressive power. As to the widespread notion that it means the power of Satan, there is no authority whatever for so understanding ’the gates of Hades.’ Satan rules over one part of Hades; but how can he control, or be represented by, the gates of Hades, through which the blessed pass in dying, as well as the wicked? This notion has been diffused through Christendom from two causes. The conception of heaven as the abode of the blest rapidly supplanted the idea of the blest as dwelling in Hades, and Hades came to be thought of only in the bad sense. Accordingly the Latin term infernus (inferni, inferna, inferi), which originally meant substantially the same as Hades, gradually became restricted in Christian usage to the place of torment (Italian inferno, French, enfer, English adjective, infernal), just as has happened with the English word hell. Thus in the Vulgate portae inferorum (inferi), like ’gates of hell’ in modern English, readily came to suggest the power of Satan. The other cause is that this notion suited the conception of Christ’s ’church’ as a visible organization, which the power of Satan vainly strives to overthrow. (d) Ewald thinks of the gates of Hades as opening to let monsters issue from them, (Rev 9:1 ff.) and these monsters shall not overcome the church; but this is far-fetched and highly unnatural.
The passage then seems to mean either, my church shall not be swallowed up in the gates of Hades (or possibly shall not be overcome by its power), shall not cease to exist—there shall always be Christians in the world; or, my people shall rise again. The former is much the more probable meaning, because it follows the general Hebrew usage. Then the question will turn simply on the word church (see above), whether it means an outward organization of professed Christians (or the aggregate of many such organizations), or means an ideal assembly of all true Christians.
D. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. That copyists should prefix and was very natural At first sight it seems to be required, though upon closer examination the statement is seen to be more expressive without it, as a parallel to ’I will build.’ The image here changes, in part. There is still a house, but he who was before the foundation of the house now receives the keys. Alexander: "The abrupt transition may be urged as an objection to the supposition that the rock of Rev 1:18 is Peter. It is certainly no natural association of ideas that the keys of the building should be given to the rock on which it rests. Yet it is quite as incongruous for the rock to give the keys as to receive them." He who had the keys of a city or palace determined whether any given person should enter or be shut out. (Rev 9:1 f.; Rev 20:1-3) This would suggest a general authority and control, varying in extent according to the nature of the case. There seems to he allusion here to the high steward of the palace of David, Isa 22:15, Isa 22:22; and in Rev 1:18, Rev 3:7, a similar but spiritual function is ascribed to Jesus himself. The Talmud makes like use of the phrase. Compare also in Luk 11:52,"Ye took away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." In our passage, however the rock may be understood, all must agree that our Lord gives the keys to Peter, i.e., the power of admitting (e. g., Act 11:17), or denying admission (e. g., Act 4:21), into the Messianic kingdom. Yet it is not given to him in any exclusive sense, for the closely connected power of binding and loosing was not long after given to any church (Mat 18:18), and the included power of forgiving sins was given to the ten apostles and others. (Joh 20:23) As to the ’kingdom of heaven,’ see on "Mat 3:2". There seems to be no reference here or anywhere in the use of this term to an outward organization of Messiah’s subjects. His reign is a spiritual reign, and admission into his kingdom is a spiritual admission. Peter and the other apostles would admit or deny admission, as they would forgive sins or retain them, by teaching the spiritual conditions of admission or forgiveness, and by their inspired power of discerning and declaring a man’s spiritual condition (e. g., Act 5:3, Act 8:21, Act 13:10).—The legend of Peter sitting at the gate with the keys assumes that the kingdom of heaven here denotes heaven as the abode of the blest. It corresponds to, and perhaps grew out of, a Talmudic legend that Abraham sits at the door of Gehenna, and will let no circumcised person go down.
Bind and loose, in the Talmud and other Rabbinical writings (Lightf., Wet., Wun., Edersh.), signify to interpret and apply the law and traditions on any subject with strictness or with laxity, and hence in general to forbid or allow. The strict school of Shammai is represented as binding many things which the school of Hillelloosed. Compare on Mat 19:3. In Rabbinical phrase it would be said that in Act 15:10 Peter advocated loosing what the Judaizers wished to bind. Died. Sic. tells (I. 27) of an image of Isis with the inscription, "I, Isis, am the queen of all the land, and whatever I shall bind no one can loose." These uses seem to leave no doubt as to the meaning of the terms here. Our Lord declares that whatever Peter should forbid or allow, should declare to be wrong or right, would be sanctioned by divine authority, approved in heaven. As Peter was the spokesman of all the apostles, we should naturally understand that the same would be true of all the inspired teachings (compare Joh 16:13) They would have Heaven’s approval. And this included foyer retaining sins, (Joh 20:23) which was promised to the apostles and others present. (Comp: Luke.) Similar in that case is the expression ’loosed us from our sins,’ Rev 1:5 (correct text), and the same phrase in Isa 40:2 (Septuagint); Ecelus. Isa 28:2. In Mat 18:18 exactly the same promise as to binding and loosing is made to all the persons addressed (’ye’), meaning either the apostles in general, or more probably the action of any church. From the abuse of Mat 16:19, Mat 18:18; and Joh 20:23, arose the Romish doctrine of priestly absolution, which some Protestant persuasions retain in a modified form. Ministers may teach the conditions of forgiveness, but they have no inspired power of discerning a person’s spiritual condition, and their declarations of absolution are of no value beyond stating the conditions.
Mat 16:20. Then charged he his (the) disciples. ’His’ was added by copyists, as in Mat 16:5. The plural shows that they shared the conviction which Peter as their spokesman had expressed. That he was Jesus the Christ. ’Jesus’ was inserted by copyists. Until their own views of his Messianic work were greatly corrected, as the Master at once began to do, (Mat 16:21) any statement by them that he was Messiah would have done harm rather than good. It would have brought him prematurely into open antagonism to the Jewish rulers, and might have awakened the fanaticism of the masses, who would take it for granted that the Messiah must collect an army for conquering, and this would have excited the jealousy of the tetrarchs and the Roman government. (Compare on Mat 14:22 and Mat 8:4) After he had suffered and died, (Luk 9:21 f.) they could tell everybody that he was the Messiah, and could then give correct ideas of the Messianic work.
Homiletical And Practical
Mat 16:6. False ideas in religion. (1) False ideas are often advocated by worthy and even distinguished people. (2) False ideas are apt to diffuse themselves through the whole mass of one’s religious thinking. (3) False ideas will inevitably affect religious character and life. (4) Therefore we must beware of adopting the religious errors of eminent and admirable persons.—The leaven of error in high places of position and culture. (1) The leaven of the Pharisees represents for us ritualism, formalism, hypocrisy. (2) The leaven of the Sadduces represents skepticism,"rationalism," "liberalism." (3) The leaven of the Herodians, secularism and the subordination of religion to politics.
Mat 16:9. Henry: "We are therefore perplexed with present cares and distrusts, because we do not duly remember our former experiences of divine power and goodness."
Mat 16:13-17. Opinions about Jesus. (1) What men think of Jesus is a matter of great importance for their own good, and therefore of great concern to him, Mat 16:13. (2) Men are often very ingenious in devising other theories in order to avoid a view of Jesus which offends their prejudices, Mat 16:14. (3) Those who wish to know the truth about Jesus must be ready to break, if necessary, with popular opinion, Mat 16:15. (4) The only true view of Jesus regards him as the Divine Redeemer, Mat 16:16. (5) Thoroughly correct views of Jesus are drawn only from revelation, Mat 16:17. Henry: "It is possible for men to have good thoughts of Christ and yet not right ones, a high opinion of him and yet not high enough."
Mat 16:17. Origen: "If we say as Peter did," Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, "not flesh and blood having revealed it to us, but light having shone in our heart from the Father in heaven, then we also become such as Peter was, happy like him and for the same reason."
Mat 16:18. Christ building his church. (1) The spiritual church of Christ includes all real Christians. (2) Christ himself builds his church, using his apostles as foundation, and all who believe on him through their word (Joh 17:20) as materials. (3) Christ guarantees that his spiritual church shall never cease to exist—there will always be true Christians on earth.
John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv6, 12 Mat_16:6; Mat_16:12
Mat_16:6; Mat_16:12
Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Read full note →
The leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees
I. The leaven of the Pharisees. The most numerous and popular sect among the Jews. Their corruptions may, for the sake of distinction, be summed up under three heads.
1. They were rigid predestinarians, or believers in what modern language calls philosophical necessity. Take heed.
2. They rejected the written Word of God as the only and sufficient standard of religious truth, and the guide of religious practice; and they observed the tradition of the elders, which often made this written law of node effect. Take heed, and beware of the very same leaven.
3. Their righteousness, though strict in its kind, was merely external; consisting chiefly in a multitude of ceremonious practices. How many are there like them? Beware!
II. The leaven of the Sadducees. Their heresy likewise may be described under three heads.-
1. They denied the fallen and depraved state of mankind; disputed the doctrine of hereditary corruption; and maintained that the will of man is, by nature, and without any special grace of God, as free to good as to evil
2. They not only rejected the traditions of the elders, but explained away much of the Old Testament, and thus rendered its teaching of none effect.
3. They denied the existence of angels and spirits, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state of rewards and punishments. Take heed, and beware! (J. Bunting, D. D.)
Erroneous doctrines are like leaven
in the following respects:-
1. They are, at first, slight and unimportant in appearance.
2. They are insinuated into the soul unawares and silently, and are difficult of detection.
3. They act gradually.
4. They act most certainly.
5. They will pervade all the soul, and bring all the faculties under their control. (A. Barnes.)
The influence of evil doctrine unperceived, yet injurious to our future welfare
Archbishop Whately has made reference to the remarkable fact that the caterpillars of moths and butterflies are often attacked by ichneumon flies, which pierce their skins and deposit their eggs in the caterpillars body. No immediate result follows, and no injury seems to have been done until the period when the caterpillar becomes a chrysalis. Instead of a beautiful moth or butterfly emerging from the latter, only the parasitic insects appear. The hidden butterfly has been silently destroyed. The Archbishops suggestive comment is-May not a man have a kind of secret enemy within-destroying his soul without interfering with his well-being during the present stage of his existence, and whose presence may never be detected till the time arrives when the last great change should take place.
The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees
I. In this warning, it will be observed, Pharisaic and Sadducaic tendencies are identified. Jesus speaks not of the leavens, but of one common to both sects, as if they were two species of one genus, two branches from one stem. Superficially, the two parties were diverse-the one strict, the other easy, in morals. But here extremes meet. They were all hostile to the Divine kingdom. Thus to be a Christian it is not enough to differ superficially from either Pharisees or Sadducees, but to differ radically from both. A weighty truth not yet understood. To avoid Pharisaic strictness and superstition men run into Sadducaic scepticism, both equally far horn the truth. The spirit of unbelief which ruled in Jewish society Jesus described as leaven, with special reference to its diffusiveness.
II. Jesus next found new matter for annoyance in the stupidity of friends. The disciples misunderstood the warning word. It is because we have no bread. Had they possessed more faith and spirituality they would not have put the earthly meaning into the words. How vain it is to discourse concerning Divine things to men whose minds are preoccupied with earthly cares Leaven makes them think of loaves. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv4–7 4. No sign shall be given unto it but…
4. No sign shall be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. See note on Matt. 12:40.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v5 Mat_16:9-10. Baskets.—See notes on Mat_14:20, Mat_15:37.
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat_16:9-10. Baskets.—See notes on Mat_14:20, Mat_15:37.
Read full note →
Mat_16:12. Doctrine.—Teaching (R.V.). Not so much the formulated dogmas of the sect as its general drift and tendency (Plumptre).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_16:5-12
Unlearned learners.—When the Saviour has left His enemies, as He appears to have done somewhat abruptly and with a good deal of decision (Mat_16:4), He is in the company of His friends (Mat_16:5). His thoughts were with them as well; and He has that, in consequence, which He feels it important to say to them when they arrive at “the other side.” What this was, in the first place; how it was misconceived, in the second; and how that misconception was put right, in the third place—are the points we have to consider.
I. What the Saviour said.—It is the language, on the one hand, of agitation and distress. Evidently His mind is still full of His late encounter with His enemies. Evidently He is much impressed with the secret “hypocrisy” of their conduct (cf. Mat_16:6 with Luk_12:1). The description given of Him in Mar_8:12 applies to Him still. The sight of such wickedness—the sight of such folly—has left a deep mark on His soul. It is the language, also, of apprehension and fear. This leaven-like insincerity of theirs was a thing much to be dreaded. Corrupt in itself it tended inevitably to produce corruption in turn. It tended to do this, also, in a peculiarly dangerous and insidious way, after the manner of “leaven.” He Himself, it is true, had only just now withstood and exposed it. Would the same be true of those disciples whom He had chosen to speak in His name? It was the language, therefore, in the third place, of earnest entreaty and warning. “Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Mat_16:11). St. Mark has it (Mar_8:15) a little differently in appearance. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod.” The difference is not a discrepancy but rather a proof of agreement. For Herod himself is believed to have been a Sadducee, and may very well, therefore, have had something to do with the movements of the Sadducees at this time and in that part of Palestine which was subject to him (see above Mat_14:1; Mat_14:13; Luk_13:31-32). Anyway, there was that about the men referred to which made them a danger indeed. Take heed and beware—take note of and avoid—that which I mean by their leaven.
II. How the disciples misunderstood Him.—Looked at from their point of view this was an exceedingly natural thing. Partly, it may be, in consequence of the abruptness (end of Mat_16:4) with which they seem to have left the other side of the lake, the disciples had “forgotten” to “take bread.” It was found, indeed, when they came to inquire—or else came out in some other way—that they had only with them “one” little “loaf” (Mar_8:14)—“little,” i.e. compared with such as we are accustomed to see. This being so, it was not unnatural, when they hear mention of leaven, that they should bethink them of loaves. When their Master had spoken of sowing seed He had meant preaching the word
(13). When He had spoken of a dead child as only sleeping, He meant that she could be recovered from death (Mat_9:24). May there not, then, be something similar in this mention of leaven? Something other and further meant than that which is said? To us, in these days, it may be, with all that we have further learned of this Teacher of teachers, such a way of reasoning may appear almost like that of a child. But it is highly probable, had we been in the place of those disciples, that we should have done the same thing. We should have thought that the Master must be referring to that which was at that time in our thoughts (cf. Mat_9:4; Mat_12:25; Joh_2:25, etc.).
III. How this misconception was put right.—This does not, at first sight, seem quite easy to follow. There seems, indeed, at first sight, something like inconsistency in the Master’s language. At one time He seems to reprove His disciples on the score of their unbelief. “O ye of little faith.” At another time He seems to point rather to the obtuseness of their understandings. “How is it ye do not perceive?” Perhaps the explanation lies in supposing one deficiency to lie at the root of the other. Perhaps they did not understand for the simple reason that they did not believe as they ought. And how this might come about in their case is not difficult to imagine. Evidently the thought which was pressing on them was that of deficiency of supply. What was that one loaf among more than a dozen? Full of this thought they had no room for the thought of what the Saviour had done already in two cases of far greater necessity and far less comparative supply; still less for that far remoter meaning which the Saviour then had in His mind. A view this which appears to be strongly confirmed by two other considerations. One is that the Saviour, in correcting their thoughts, sets Himself to do so not only by reminding them of the two occasions in question, but of certain also of their most striking and characteristic distinctions; such as the relative numbers and needs, and the precise kind of basket employed in each particular case (Mat_16:9-10). The other is that, having done this, He does nothing beside. “How is it,” He asks, “that ye do not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread?” What He was speaking of He leaves them to find out for themselves. In other words, having driven out the wrong thought in this manner He makes room for the right. Having shown that One who had supplied those far greater deficiencies could hardly have been referring to this very much smaller one now in the way of complaint, there is at once an opening, as it were, for what He was thinking of to come in (see Mat_16:12).
Here are lessons of much importance:—
1. With regard to ourselves.—What need we have to pray that we may come with unbiassed minds to the study of Scripture! How little can be learned from the words of Jesus Himself unless this is the case. Be the “wells of salvation” as deep as they may, we shall taste none of their waters if the vessels we bring to them are already otherwise filled.
2. With regard to others.—Some candid minds are greatly disturbed sometimes by the way in which they find other minds misusing the Scriptures of truth, and by noting how they seem to overlook that in them which is as plain to them as the day. We seem to be taught here that this is not to be wondered at even amongst true disciples of Christ. “The eye sees what it brings the power of seeing,” says Thomas Carlyle. “It is no argument against the writings of Paul,” says a still higher authority, “that they are ‘wrested’ by some” (2Pe_3:15-16). There are those whom the sunshine itself only lights to their death. Let us not, on that account, refuse to enjoy it ourselves.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat_16:5-12. The Master and His disciples.—
I. The foresight of the Master and the negligence of the disciples.
II. The freedom from care of the Master and the anxieties of the disciples.
III. The calmness of the Master and the excitement and distress of the disciples.—J. P. Lange, D.D.
Mat_16:6. The soul’s hunger for truth.—Let us look at some thoughts arising out of this passage.
I. That the profoundest energies and most urgent appetites of life are those of the moral and spiritual nature.—“They had forgotten to take bread.” How was this? A more urgent hunger was at their heart; a profounder appetite was craving for satisfaction. The expulsive power of this more potent principle had banished hunger from their thoughts. Has not the history of the growth and expansion of spiritual truth in the world—religious progress—illustrated this principle ten thousand times? The Divine Master’s ministry began with its assertion. Fasting forty days—ignoring bodily wants, forgetting physical appetites. The Master had bread to eat that the tempter knew not of. “Man shall not live,” etc. So the Great Teacher’s searching words aroused the dormant inner life of His disciples, and leaving fishing nets, etc., all the sources of bodily revenue, they cling to this poor Nazarene. There are epochs in life in which the higher nature of the man transcends the earthly appetites; he breathes a Diviner air, “hungers and thirsts after righteousness.”
II. That those truths, therefore, which deal with the spiritual nature of man take the deepest hold upon his life.—All doctrines that touch the moral and spiritual in man are leaven like:—
1. In the subtlety of their operation.—“Not with observation.”
2. In their progressive effect.—“A little leaven leaveneth,” etc.
3. In their assimilative power.—The leaven makes the mass like itself.
III. That hence it is imperative to guard against the inroads of erroneous doctrine.—“Beware,” etc. Life can not be right if those beliefs that are the basis of its moral character be wrong. What was the Pharisee’s life? What the Sadducee’s? Why? Their lives were the direct result of their doctrine.—Nevison Loraine.
Caution against false doctrines.—
I. Of Sadducees.—Materialism, no soul, no hereafter.
II. Of Pharisees.—Human righteousness a sufficient ground of hope.
III. With each false doctrine was held some truth.—Hence the danger.
IV. Respectability of sects and moral uprightness of some individuals holding false doctrine, increase the danger.—J. C. Gray.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v4 Mat 16:4-12; Mar 8:13-21. “Leaving them, embarking again in…
PHARISAIC LEAVEN
Mat 16:4-12; Mar 8:13-21. “Leaving them, embarking again in a ship, He departed to the other side.” This voyage was from Magdala, on the northwest coast, over to the region of Bethsaida Julias, on the northeast coast. “And they forgot to take bread, and had but one loaf with them in the ship. And He admonished them, saying, See, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” Mat 16:6. “And Jesus said to them, See and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And they were reasoning among themselves, saying, It is because, we did not take bread. Jesus, knowing, said to them, Why are ye reasoning among yourselves? O ye of little faith, because you did not take bread? Do you not yet understand? Do you not remember the five loaves and the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up? Nor the seven loaves and the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How do you not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread, To beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Leaven here and elsewhere, so frequently mentioned in the Bible, Old and New, is always true to its lexical meaning, zurne, “fermentation, corruption,” . . . making everything sour, having wonderful power of interpenetration, so that it literally permeates every atom of the mass into which it is introduced; in that respect pertinently illustrating the kingdom of heaven, as our Savior gives us a parable, setting forth the secret and incessant work of the Holy Ghost in the heart and the spread of the gospel throughout the whole world, using the simile of “leaven,” as He represents the omnipotence and independency of God by the “unjust judge, who neither feared God nor regarded man.” The leaven here, as you see, means the false, corrupt, dead religion of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the debauched politics of the Herodians, in harmony with its lexical meaning and constant Scriptural use, as Paul calls Christ the “Unleaven Bread of sincerity and truth” (1Co 5:7), exhorting us to become like Him, by getting rid of all leaven — i.e., all corruption, and everything that would make our religion sour; as we are warned by Wesley against sour godliness, which is Satan’s counterfeit sanctification. In this discourse, which our Savior preached to His disciples in the ship, we see that He warns them against the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. O how pertinent this admonitory exhortation comes this day to all Christendom! Now what is the leaven of the Pharisees? You are well apprised that they, as Paul tells us, were the “straightest sect” i.e., the orthodox denomination of the Jewish Church — so rigidly contending for every tenet of the Mosaic and prophetic doctrines, and so very punctilious in their pursuit of every ramification of not only Biblical, but even traditionary, teaching; conspicuously punctilious in keeping all of the commandments. Now this was not the leaven; for leaven means corruption, and this was right. Well what was their leaven? Our Savior defines it didache, from didasko, “to teach;” hence it means teaching. Well, what was their teaching? Why, they taught the people that salvation was obtained by keeping the commandments and conforming to the law.
Read full note →
Hence, you see, Jesus warns us against the dead orthodoxy of the Pharisees. You may be straight as a crowbar, and still as dead and cold as a crowbar. You may be as orthodox as Wesley, Knox, and Bunyan, and still dead as a hammer and cold as an iceberg, only waiting to warm in hell. What was the leaven of the Sadducees? They did not believe all the Scriptures, and were not orthodox like the Pharisees, yet, you see, Jesus puts them in the same black catalogue, having the same trouble; i.e., they were spiritually dead, and neither of them had salvation. Now, what is the leaven of the Herodians? The Herodian family had long been the rulers of that country, through Roman patronage, the old king, who was on the throne of Judea when Jesus was born, having reigned thirty-eight years, and died while the infant Christ was in Egypt, being the last king of the Jews, according to prophecy; was an especial favorite of Caesar’s, who honored him with the title of king. Subsequently to his death, his sons had been kings and proconsuls of Judea, Galilee, Perea, Iturea, and Trachonitis, all being invested with their offices by the Roman emperor. Hence, the Herodians were a political party, in favor of Roman rule in that country. Though the Pharisees and Sadducees were in open hostility to all the sympathizers with Roman rule, and longing to regain their independence, yet in their malignant opposition to Jesus, they actually unite with the Herodians. Now how does this warning to beware of the Herodian leaven apply to us? The Roman Government was an awful military despotism, full of political intrigue and corruption. O how pertinent for the people of God at the present day to beware of the corrupt politics which inundate the country with intrigue, peculation, perjury, and an overflowing sea of vice and fraud, actually threatening the very stability of the Republic!
Now I think we understand our Savior’s salutary admonition to His disciples, aboard the ship crossing the sea of Galilee. Shall not all of us, who are sailing over time’s stormy sea on the good old Ship of Zion, heed this warning of our Prophet? Now what is it? Hear, and govern yourselves accordingly. Beware of dead orthodoxy, whether in Methodism, Baptistism, Presbyterianism, or Quakerism. Orthodoxy can never keep you out of hell. You must, with all your orthodoxy, have matter of fact, experimental, personal regeneration and sanctification; i.e., spiritual life and holiness. Beware of dead heterodoxy, like the Sadducees; and beware of politics — do not talk them, but talk about Jesus. Do not read political papers, but read your Bible and holiness literature. Go quietly to the polls, and vote on the Lord’s side of every question, knowing no politics, but “seeing Jesus only.”
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv9–10 A different Greek word from that translated "baskets" in…
baskets
A different Greek word from that translated "baskets" in Mat 16:10.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 8 The refusal:
The refusal:
v. 4. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the Prophet Jonas. And He left them and departed.
Read full note →
As in the previous case, Mat 12:38-39, Christ does not mince matters. He calls them an evil and adulterous brood, one whose hearts have turned from justice, righteousness, and goodness, and from the worship of the true God to vain imaginations, meaningless traditions, a proud self-righteousness. They are eager in their demand for a sign, but when the greatest sign of all, the resurrection of Christ after the type of the Prophet Jonas, will be set before them, they will harden their hearts. Even so the present generation in the world is wise in the matters of this world, but the signs of the times it cannot discern. That the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Savior is the only agency that will set their hearts and minds aright is hidden from their eyes. The Lord realized the hopelessness of further argument in the case of these deceitful enemies. He pronounced judgment upon them by turning His back to them and abruptly departing, a very effective and, often, the only advisable way to deal with enemies of this type.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv5, 9, 11 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
Here the scene shifts to a later time. Jesus uses an opportunity to warn his disciples about the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Read full note →
the other side
You can make clear the understood information. AT: "the other side of the lake" or "the other side of the Sea of Galilee" (See: Ellipsis)
the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Here "yeast" is a metaphor that refers to evil ideas and wrong teaching. Translate as "yeast" here and do not explain its meaning in your translation. This meaning will be made clear in Mat 16:12. (See: Metaphor)
reasoned among themselves
"discussed this with each other" or "thought about this"
You of little faith
"You who have such little faith." Jesus addresses his disciples this way because their concern about not bringing bread shows they have little faith in Jesus to provide for them. See how you translated this in Matthew 6:30.
why do you reason ... taken no bread?
Jesus uses a question to rebuke his disciples for not understanding what he just said. AT: "I am disappointed that you think it was because you forgot to bring bread that I talked about the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (See: Rhetorical Question)
translationWords
disciple
bread
Jesus
yeast
Pharisee
Sadducee
faith
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv9, 11 16:9-10 Jesus had demonstrated to his disciples that he…
16:9-10 Jesus had demonstrated to his disciples that he is the true bread of life (15:32-39; John 6:35, 48), whereas the Jewish leaders, particularly in their teachings, were like yeast in permeating everything they touched with their sinfulness (see study note on Matt 16:11-12).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.