Chapter Sixteen

1–4. The request of the Pharisees and Sadducees for a sign from heaven and the Savior’s answer to them. – 5–12. The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. – 13–20. Peter’s confession. – 21–23. Christ’s discourse about His sufferings. – 24–28. Teaching about the cross.

Matthew 16:1. And the Pharisees and Sadducees came and, testing Him, asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. (See Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16). In Mark (Mark 8:11-13) the narrative is somewhat shorter than in Matthew (verses 1–4). Ancient commentators noted some incongruity and unnaturalness in the mentioned connection of Pharisees with Sadducees here. They explained this by the fact that although Pharisees and Sadducees differed from each other in dogmas, they acted in agreement against Christ. The union of Pharisees and Sadducees may indicate, and does indicate, the further and sinister development of hostility toward Christ. More and more alarming news about the movement in Galilee reaches the capital and this causes concern among both ruling religious classes and among the zealots. This is psychologically quite understandable. Among people, there is constantly observed a tendency to observe established religious forms, and they are hostile toward innovations, especially when these affect their material interests. Therefore, hostility toward teaching which completely fell outside the scope of these general positions was natural. In Mark, only the Pharisees are mentioned (Mark 8:11), but the Sadducees of Matthew could have been Herodians. About Pharisees and Sadducees it is mentioned here in Matthew five times (Matt 16:1-6). What sign did the Pharisees and Sadducees want? According to Chrysostom, these enemies of Christ asked Him to stop the sun, or make the moon immovable (tēn selēnēn chalinōsai), or bring down lightning, or make a change in the air, or do something similar. According to Theophylact, Pharisees and Sadducees asked Christ to stop the sun or moon. But Euthymius Zigabenus says that they wanted to see a miracle over the sun or moon, or over the stars. The Pharisees and Sadducees, says Theophylact, thought that signs on the earth were accomplished by diabolical power and Beelzebul. The unwise did not know that Moses in Egypt did many signs on the earth, and the fire that fell from heaven on Job’s property was from the devil. Therefore, not everything that is from heaven is from God, and not everything that happens on the earth is from demons. The thoughts are correct and characterize the Pharisees and Sadducees. This narrative seems to some commentators to be a repetition of the account Matt 12:38 and following, and identical with it. But if Matthew recounts almost the same thing a second time and under different circumstances, then can one suppose that he forgot what was said before? It was completely natural that the enemies of the Savior answered His miracles several times with a request for a sign from heaven. Since in Jewish tradition there was the opinion that demons and false gods could perform signs on the earth and only the true God gives signs from heaven, the Pharisees and Sadducees now asked this of Christ, fully assuming that He would not be able to satisfy their request. If the miracles performed by Christ on the earth were unconvincing to His enemies, then the signs from heaven would be convincing for them. Concerning the custom of the Jews to require a sign see 1 Cor 1:22.

Matthew 16:2. But He answered them and said: When evening comes, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red; Matthew 16:3. And in the morning, Today will be a storm, for the sky is red and overcast. Hypocrites! You know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. This text in this connection is found only in Matthew. (Similar expressions appear in an entirely different connection in Luke 12:54-56). Christ’s words contain an exceedingly subtle and meaningful reproach of His enemies. He makes their thought error and request evident to them. They asked for some earthly, extraordinary sign and specifically from heaven. Christ points them to things which are completely ordinary and known to them, which happen in the sky, which they know how to discuss. But being experienced in meteorological observations, why then do they not understand and become convinced of the truth of Christ’s Messianic dignity when He manifests great signs? “In the lower sphere,” says Zahn, “they are as perspicacious as prophets, in the higher—they are so blind that they do not see the signs of the already begun kairos (time) and do not count them as signs. These signs—those to which the Savior had already pointed John and the people (Matt 11:4-14).”

Matthew 16:4. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign; and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. And leaving them, He departed. (See Matt 12:39; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29). A literal repetition of Matt 12:39. In Mark (Mark 8:12) this speech is preceded by the words “and He, having sighed deeply, said,” which are not found in other evangelists. The harsh reproaching words were, therefore, spoken with an expression of deep sorrow and deep grief over the blindness and delusion of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Very well does Chrysostom express this: “Although such a question ought to have aroused anger and indignation, yet the compassionate and merciful Lord does not become angry but grieves and sorrows over them as over hopelessly sick people who, after so many proofs of His power, still were putting Him to the test. They asked not so that they might believe, but so that they might ensnare Him.” “Since they asked for a sign not in order to believe, the Savior in another place also calls them hypocrites because they said one thing but did another.” “He called them hypocrites,” Zigabenus adds to this, “not only because they said one thing but did another, but because they considered themselves wise when they were foolish.” Church writers think that the sign of Jonah was a sign from heaven because at the time of the death of Christ the sun was darkened and the whole creation changed. In the words “leaving them, He departed” one rightly finds the indication of “righteous severity” and notes that the Savior “never left the people so.”

Matthew 16:5. Now when His disciples came to the other side, they had forgotten to bring bread. Matthew 16:6. Jesus said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. (See Mark 8:15). By “leaven” one should understand in general the entire way of thinking, direction, spirit of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees and their activity. Just as evil develops, so also good develops, although in opposite directions. The moving force in this is leaven. The connection of these words of Christ with the preceding question of the Pharisees and Sadducees about a sign from heaven is not obvious. It might be that their request was only the occasion for a discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and this discourse had a general character, not really relating to what was set forth at the beginning of chapter 16. Christ by His words wanted to indicate the corrupting influence of the teaching and activity of the Pharisees and Sadducees on the people.

Matthew 16:7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying: It is because we brought no bread. (See Mark 8:16). The Savior was thinking of one thing, the disciples of another. He thought and spoke of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the disciples—of the bread which they forgot to bring. The word dialogizonto (“they reasoned”) shows that the disciples did not speak aloud about not having bread.

Matthew 16:8. But Jesus, aware of it, said: Why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread, O you of little faith? Matthew 16:9. Do you not yet remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? (See Mark 8:17-19). The expression “how many baskets you gathered” (as also the similar one in the next verse) is elliptical instead of “how much bread in how many baskets you gathered,” because the disciples, of course, were gathering not baskets and not containers but bread in them.

Matthew 16:10. Nor the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many large baskets you gathered? (See Mark 8:20). The use of different words: kophinoi (baskets) and spyrides (large baskets) exactly corresponds to the terms used in the accounts of the two miraculous feedings (Matt 14:20).

Matthew 16:11. How is it that you do not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matthew 16:12. Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In Mark (Mark 8:17-21) the narrative is much more detailed than in Matthew. But there is no text corresponding to verses 11–12 in other evangelists besides Matthew.

Matthew 16:13. When Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples: Who do people say that the Son of Man is? (See Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18). The evangelist Mark (Mark 8:22-26) inserts here the narrative of the healing of a blind man and says that this was in Bethsaida, apparently Julius, on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee, and that from there the Savior went “with His disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi” (Mark 8:27). What villages these were Mark does not indicate. The conversation with the disciples, according to Mark, took place when they were traveling with the Savior on this road. Thus we are in a position to determine with sufficient precision the place where the conversation occurred, but it is difficult to say how soon this was after his arrival on the northeast shore. Beginning the discourse on Peter’s confession, Matthew and Mark (Mark 8:27) agree with each other, and then Luke joins them (Luke 9:18), so that about the further events all three synoptics relate with small differences. Matthew tells more detail here than anyone else, and he has, from the end of verse 16 to verse 19, a narrative not found in other evangelists. Caesarea is called Philippi probably to distinguish it from Caesarea in Palestine or Strato’s Tower. The Savior asked the disciples about Himself far from the Jewish world that was hostile to Him. According to the account of Jerome, Philip, the brother of Herod (Antipas), the tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, built (construit) Caesarea in honor of Tiberius Caesar and himself, and during Jerome’s time it was called Paneah. Whether Caesarea was in the province of Phoenicia, as Jerome asserts, is difficult to say. Here the Jordan begins at the slopes of Lebanon from the confluence of two small rivers, one of which, according to Jerome’s account, was called Ior, and the other—Dan, whence came the name of the river—Jordan. The city was located at the foot of Lebanon not far from the so-called “upper” source of the Jordan, a day’s journey from Sidon. Once it was called Laish (Judg 18:7) and later—Dan, but in Roman times—Panea or Panias from Mount Pania, at the foot of which it was located (Josephus Flavius, “Jewish Antiquities,” XV, 10, 3; also Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History,” VII, 17: epi tēs Philippou Kaisareias, hēn Paneada phoinikes prosagoreousin). At present Caesarea is called Banias. The city and its surroundings were predominantly inhabited by pagans (Josephus Flavius, “Jewish Wars,” III, 9, 7). According to Mark 8:27 (tas kōmas ta merē of Matthew), Jesus Christ apparently did not enter it. Christ did not ask what the scribes and Pharisees thought of Him, although they often came to Him and spoke with Him. According to Zigabenus, He asked the disciples not as one unknowing but in a didactic manner, so that Peter would declare what was revealed to him.

Matthew 16:14. And they said: Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Matthew 16:15. He said to them: But who do you say that I am? Matthew 16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. (See (Mark 8:29)—simply: “You are the Christ”; (Luke 9:20): “for the Christ of God”). Theophylact notes that Peter did not say: “You are the Christ, Son (huios) of God,” that is, without the article ho, but with the article—the true—ho huios, that is, He Himself, the One and only, the Son not by grace but from the very substance of the Father born, for there were many christs (christoi): all the Old Testament kings and priests were anointed, but the true Christ (ho christos)—only one.” The writing of the Greek article before the word “Christ” almost amounted to making this word a proper name of Christ, as it became in the early Church. All other christs were thus only common nouns. The Savior alone was properly and truly the Christ. Such is the meaning of Peter’s confession. Christ is the Son of the Living God. God is called thus in the Sacred Scripture of the Old Testament (Num 14:21; Deut 32:40; 1 Sam 17:1; Ps 41:3; Isa 37:4, etc.) and often in the New (Matt 26:63; John 6:57; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26, etc.). According to Chrysostom, Peter was at this time, as it were, the voice of the apostles and gave his answer not only from himself but from all of them. Peter’s words were a testimony to the true humanity of Christ and His true Divinity, upon the recognition of which the whole life of the Church is built.

Matthew 16:17. Then Jesus answered and said to him: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father in heaven; “Son of Jonah”—the Hebrew Bar—Jonah, translated literally into Greek. The father of Simon Peter was called John (Greek. Tischendorf), as is clear from John 1:42. In Matthew’s Gospel he is called the son of Jonah (only here), which properly means “dove.” As a shortened form of the name John it is found nowhere else. The word “revealed” (apekalypsen) points not to revelation received by all the disciples already at their first following of Christ, but to a revelation specially given to Peter. “Flesh and blood” corresponds to the Hebrew “beshar vedam” (among the rabbis)—a descriptive expression instead of “man,” denoting his weakness, caused by the physical aspect of human organization. In the Talmud this expression often denotes human nature in contrast to the divine.

Matthew 16:18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it; “Because Peter confessed Christ as the Son of God, He says: this confession which you confessed will be the foundation of believers, so that everyone who intends to build the structure of faith will lay in the foundation this very confession” (Theophylact). In the Greek two different words are used in two instances: in the first—petros and in the second—petra. Petros, of course, is not the same as petra. Enormous disputes have arisen over this saying, especially since the Reformation. Some (Catholics) said that Christ intended to build His Church on the person of Peter, and this gave rise to the well-known teaching about the primacy over the Church of the Roman popes as successors of Peter. Others asserted that the expression “you are Peter” corresponds to Peter’s words “you are the Christ”; that the further petra, in distinction from petros, refers not to the person of Peter but to his confession, upon which Christ built His Church. The difference between the practical consequences drawn from these two interpretations is easily understood. We would depart from the truth if in such an important saying we understood only a play on words. But that Christ really promised to raise His Church not on the person of Peter is indicated precisely by the circumstance that He changed the word petros to petra. Thus the question is resolved if we focus the interpretation only on the word petra, following the literal meaning of the Gospel expression. The rock or “petra” was never understood as referring to people in the Old Testament, and this expression was appropriated to the Lord (Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:32; Ps 61:3; Isa 26:4). Only God, God in Christ or Christ in God is the eternal rock upon which the Church is to be built. In the New Testament petra is never used of ordinary people (Matt 7:24-25; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48; 1 Pet 2:4-7; Rom 9:33; 1 Cor 10:4; Rev 6:15-16), but either of ordinary stones or of Christ Himself. Thus the natural conclusion is that Christ, using the name Peter, pointed here only to Himself, and precisely in the sense in which Peter confessed Him before the disciples (hence—epi tautē tē petra). Recognition and confession of Him as the Son of the Living God, which came from Peter’s mouth, should become the foundation of the Church. The expression, apparently, has the closest analogy in John 2:19, when Christ pointed to the temple while actually speaking of Himself. The word “Church” appears in the Gospels only here and Matt 18:17, but frequently in Acts, in the apostle Paul, four times in the Sobornic Epistles, and several times in the Apocalypse, corresponding to the Hebrew “kahal.” Theophylact understands by the gates of Hades murder and adultery. But the expression “gates of Hades” (pylai hadou) is based on the figurative representation of Hades as a building with strong gates (Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:36). This is common in the classics. The form “gates” is preserved even now in the expression “Ottoman Porte,” which means “Ottoman gates.” The word “Hades” in us means the place of eternal torment. But the Hebrew “sheol” or the Greek “Hades” then had a broader meaning. They meant the kingdom of death in general and thus the domain of death or destruction. Whoever died or perished was in Hades. The Church in Christ’s expression is compared to a building; similarly the Hades is compared to it. It is clear that one building cannot wage war against another. War is waged by people who live in the building. The expression “gates of Hades,” therefore, is figurative and is used because the struggle of the forces of Hades against the Church is waged from its gates. The last word “it” in the Greek text can refer either to the rock (tē petra) or to the Church (ekklēsian), and this gave Origen the occasion to propose an explanation that both are possible. But the reference of “it” to the word “Church” is supported by the closer position of “it” to this word, and chiefly by the fact that, according to the meaning of Christ’s words, the hostile attacks of the forces of Hades are directed not at one stone in the foundation but at the whole building.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. If earlier the Church was represented under the image of a building, now the image changes: discourse about a building is replaced by discourse about the Kingdom of Heaven. The image of keys, taken, apparently, from a building, is now applied to the Kingdom of Heaven. The latter is again represented under the image of a building into which one enters through locked and unlocked doors. The expression “Kingdom of Heaven” means the same as the preceding—“Church.” Only the latter indicates more the Church in its visible side, while the Kingdom of Heaven—the invisible and eternal side of the Church. Concerning the keys of Hades mention is made in Rev 1:18; see Rev 9:1. “The writer depicts the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, that is, the power over it, the power to enter into it and to deliver or cast into it. Similarly, the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a fortress with locked gates. Whoever has the keys can enter it, admit or exclude. According to Rev 3:7 this power belongs to Christ Himself. The image has an analogy in Isa 22:22 and expresses supreme power. To have keys means to have absolute right, not disputed by anyone. It is possible that in the word “keys” was originally expressed the idea of Peter’s entry into divine truth. His thought that Jesus is the Son of the Living God was the key with which Peter could admit into Christ’s Kingdom. By bringing others to the same faith, he could also open to them the Kingdom in contrast to the scribes and Pharisees, who locked it before the eyes of those who wished to enter it (Matt 23:13).” This passage is usually understood in the sense of the right of spiritual persons to forgive people their sins or to retain them.

Matthew 16:20. Then [Jesus] commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He is the Christ Jesus. (See Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21). The evangelists Mark and Luke, passing over what is set forth in Matthew in verses 17–19 and connecting Mark 8:30 and Luke 9:21 with their preceding speech, say the same as Matthew but express themselves quite differently than he. If Matthew here only repeated the words of Mark and Luke, then the evangelist’s speech would refer to the prohibition to speak about what was said by Christ to Peter. But since Christ forbade not to speak about it but that He is the Christ, then Matthew changes the expressions “about him”—peri autou (Mark) and “this”—touto (Luke) and says precisely: “so that they should tell no one that He is the Christ” (ina mēdeni eipōsin hoti autos estin ho Christos), which is not in other synoptics, whose expressions, however, are as precise as Matthew’s. This verse forms the transition to the further teaching about what the true meaning of the dignity which the synoptics and, without doubt, other disciples assigned to Christ. That Jesus is the Christ, Messiah, Son of God—this might still be understood by both the disciples and the people. But that such designations were connected with predetermined sufferings of Christ—this was incomprehensible even to the disciples themselves. If the disciples had prematurely revealed to the people the thought of the suffering Christ, it might have hindered the fulfillment of the divine predictions about the sufferings and thus would have made the true and correct realization of the Messianic idea, as it were, incomplete. Therefore, the Savior, as is evident from the expressions of the evangelists, persistently and strictly forbids the disciples to speak about what was revealed to them not by flesh and blood but by His Father in Heaven.

Matthew 16:21. From that time Jesus began to tell His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up. (See Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Christ’s ministry to the common people in Galilee has now come to an end. The word “elders” or “presbyters” was originally applied to such old men who could be suitable representatives of the rest of the population in the council, but long before Christ’s time this name ceased to mean age and became a title of office. It meant persons who were considered suitable by their high or influential position in society to enter into the senate. The elders of the Sanhedrin were, without doubt, the chief persons in the state. They were like the sheikhs of the people. The word “sheik” means “old man”.

Matthew 16:22. And taking him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, saying: God have mercy on you, Lord! this shall not happen to you! Mark (Mark 8:32) alone adds the words “and spoke about it openly.” The words that Peter spoke, Mark does not include, and they are found only in Matthew. Peter’s objection was based on the fact that his confession was completely opposite to Christ’s present words about his sufferings.

Matthew 16:23. But he, turning around, said to Peter: Get behind me, Satan! you are a stumbling block to me! for you are not thinking about the things that are of God, but those that are of man. (See Mark 8:33). Peter’s objection witnesses to the fact that neither he nor the other disciples understood sufficiently Christ’s words about his true messianic greatness. “Peter, concluding about the matter according to human and fleshly reasoning, thought that Christ’s suffering was shameful and not characteristic of him” (St. John Chrysostom). According to Chrysostom, Christ, in answering Peter, said that to hinder him and to grieve over his suffering is not only harmful and destructive for Peter, but that he himself cannot be saved if he is not always ready to die. Some commentators thought that it was not Peter who was now being rebuked, but the evil spirit that had prompted the apostle to speak such words. The same expression is used here as the Savior used in Matt 4:10, and without doubt he expressed it concerning the same tempter. He looked for a moment through Peter and saw behind him his former enemy, who had skillfully taken advantage of the prejudices, hot-headedness, and sincerity of the simple-hearted apostle. In reality, however, this was the former temptation, which now had been made through Peter—to avoid sufferings, persecution, malicious hatred, contempt, and death, and instead to set up an earthly dominion with full power over earthly thrones.

Matthew 16:24. Then Jesus said to his disciples: If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me, (See Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). Matthew says that this speech was spoken only to the disciples; Mark—to the disciples and the people; Luke—to everyone. It is very difficult to explain where the people came from here. The language of the evangelists shows that events did not happen with the speed in which they represent them. Chrysostom explains the verse thus: “I,” says the Savior, “do not compel, do not force; but leave it to the free choice of each. Therefore I say: ‘If anyone wishes.’ I invite to a good deed, not to an evil and burdensome one, not to execution and torments, for which I would need to compel. The matter itself is such that it can attract you. By speaking in this way, Christ was drawing his followers to himself all the more.” The cross here cannot mean forced death.

Matthew 16:25. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it; (See Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). “Nefesh” (soul) in later Hebrew text means personality. Therefore Luke (Luke 9:25) replaces the expression of the first two evangelists (Matt 16:26; Mark 8:36) “his soul” with the pronoun “himself.” Similarly in the Seventy and Job 32:2; Prov 1:18; Amos 6:8. So the meaning of the Savior’s words is thus: whoever wishes to save himself will lose himself, and so on. Here is one of the paradoxes with which the New Testament in general abounds. It points to life through self-denial, extending to complete loss of this very life.

Matthew 16:26. What profit is there for a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give as a ransom for his soul? (See Mark 8:36-37; Luke 9:25). The word “ransom” (ἀντάλλαγμα) in the Seventy and in the Hebrew text is designated differently (Ruth 4:7; 1 Sam 21:2; Job 28:15; Jer 15:13; Amos 5:12; Sir 6:15). The meaning of Christ’s words is clear. The human soul has such value that the whole external world is not worth it. If a man truly, and not merely seemingly, loses his soul or himself, then such loss for him is irreparable by anything. Therefore, a man should be concerned to save his soul, and such salvation depends entirely on following Christ and imitating him.

Matthew 16:27. For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his deeds. (See Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26—with additions “whoever becomes ashamed” and so forth, which Matthew does not have). The connection between this verse and the previous one is insufficiently clear, and it needs to be sought in verse 24, relating verse 27 to it in the closest connection, and considering the intermediate verses 25 and 26 as a parenthetical explanation of verse 24. Thus the course of thought is as follows: from the Son of Man comes salvation; only he is saved who follows him, denying himself (verse 24). Such self-denial is necessary because whoever does not deny himself may lose his soul and will not be able to ransom it by anything (verses 25–26). The Son of Man will be the judge of man at his second coming, at which time it will be revealed who followed and who did not follow him, who denied himself for his sake and who did not deny himself. Then he will repay each one according to his deeds. Since the words “whoever becomes ashamed” and so forth (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26), which define and express the connection more closely and concretely, have already been cited by Matthew earlier (Matt 10:33), he does not now repeat them, but adds the expression omitted by the other evangelists: “and then he will repay each one according to his deeds.” Similar expressions are found in Job 34:11; Ps 61:13; Prov 24:12; Jer 32:19; Ezek 33:20.

Matthew 16:28. Truly I say to you: there are some among those standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (See Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). Mark and Matthew have almost identical expressions; Luke has a somewhat different one. The meaning of the sayings is clear. Not as an earthly king, but as a heavenly one, after persecution, suffering, and death, Christ will enter into his glory. Some of those who listened to him will live to see this, will be witnesses of his suffering, death, and resurrection. There is no need to relate how this prediction of Christ was fulfilled, and moreover with literal precision.