Matthew 16 - James Nisbet's Church Pulpit Commentary

THE SON OF MAN THE SON OF GOD

‘When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?… And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’

Matthew 16:13-16

The title ‘Son of man’ was perhaps a Messianic title. The other title, the ‘Son of God,’ was undoubtedly Messianic. Are there not signs that, for our Lord Himself and His apostles, it meant what the Church means by it to-day?

I. ‘The Son of man.’—There are three cases of the emphatic use of the title ‘Son of man,’ which postulate, if their full value is to be given them, a recognition in Jesus of something far transcending the ordinary human consciousness. They imply the consciousness (1) of power to forgive sins (St. Matthew 9:6); (2) of authority to revise a Divinely given law (St. Matthew 12:8); (3) of possessing the very spirit of God (St. Matthew 12:32). And the more than human implications of the title become more emphatic as the Gospel story proceeds. The King that was to come was to be as Daniel foretold, a Son of man (Daniel 7:1-14); one who would seek and save the lost (St. Mark 10:45); one who would serve rather than be served (St. Luke 19:10). Yet the claim was to nothing less than Divine kingship. Henceforth ye shall see the ‘Son of man’ sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (St. Matthew 26:64).

II. ‘The Son of God.’—Consider that other title, ‘Son of God,’ which, at this critical moment of His ministry, our Lord accepted from St. Peter. To speak of the Divine King as the Divine ‘Son’ was to follow the language of the Old Testament, especially of the Second Psalm. But our Lord’s previous objection to this title, His adoption of the title ‘Son of man’ instead of it, and His acceptance of it at last from St. Peter, must have had some meaning. If Jesus were ‘Son of God’ in such a sense that ‘in Him was all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Colossians 2:9); if He were Son in such a sense that ‘He who had seen the Son had seen the Father also’ (St. John 14:9)—then, to come to Jesus was to come to God. And this was the belief that grew up slowly in the hearts of the disciples as they listened to His teaching, and this was the meaning of the confession that found utterance through St. Peter’s lips. We get light on the implications of this Confession from the reply it at once drew from our Lord: ‘On this rock’ (of your confessed faith in me) ‘I will build My church.’

III. Man’s sonship through Him.—The Gospels make it plain that our Lord’s teaching was that all men might come to God through Him. If we ourselves would claim an equal sonship, we must put in evidence words of authority and works of power like to His. ‘To as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the Sons of God, even to those who believe on His name.’ ‘Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?’ Shall we still be debating whether He was but a son of God like ourselves, or, as St. Peter confessed, ‘ the Son of the living God’?

—Canon Beeching.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

A THREEFOLD REVELATION

The Apostle gives us a threefold revelation of the Son of man.

I. The Christ of prophecy.—In that single sentence, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ St. Peter declared his belief in our Lord as the Messiah of prophecy. Christ (Anointed) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title of our Lord—the Anointed One—the Messiah.

II. The Christ of history.—The second article of this creed of the Apostle far transcends the first in its flight of faith. It uplifts us to the very throne of the Eternal Godhead—‘Thou art the Son of the Living God.’ We are now face to face with the Christ of history—God manifest in the flesh.

III. The Christ of experience.—Above all, Christ in the heart is the complete creed of the Apostle. All Scripture was written ‘that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His Name.’

Archdeacon Madden.

‘UPON THIS ROCK’

‘And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’

Matthew 16:18

This verse has played, and still plays, no inconsiderable part in the controversy between our own Church and that which depends upon the See of Rome. But we think rather now of St. Peter’s Confession of Faith. The story of St. Peter’s confession is a story of the utmost significance in the Life of our Lord. This is the root faith of Christendom according to its Founder—the faith that He is Divine.

I. The value of a creed.—With us, as with St. Peter, this faith must express itself in a confession. People nowadays are a little shy of creeds. They have got a habit of calling their creeds ‘dogmas’ and ‘formularies,’ which they consider bad names. But this very modern and common dislike of formularies and dogmas ought not to be pressed so far as to exclude an answer to our Lord’s own question, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ It is on this rock of confessed faith that the Church is built.

II. The nature of religious faith.—But I am concerned rather with the nature of religious faith than with a creed. I trust that we all have a strong, passionate conviction for its own part assured upon testimony which for itself is sufficient and unanswerable, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It is faith of that sort that saves a man from failure in life, in whatever degree he attains to; and for this reason—because faith of that sort strengthens and fortifies his character. We are all what we are, and we all achieve in life what we achieve, by virtue of the religious faith that is personally ours. It does matter what we believe, and it also matters how we believe—whether we believe with our heart and mind and soul and strength; because right belief is not, in itself, faith. And this is, perhaps, what people sometimes have in mind when they protest against dogmas or call themselves Christians without dogma, as though dogmas were antagonistic to faith. They cannot be antagonistic to faith, because the faith of a rational being must be capable of expression in rational speech, and that is dogma. But it is true that assent to a dogma about Christ is not necessarily unclouded faith in Him. Right opinions are most valuable, but we may hold right opinions without the personal relation of love and trust between the soul and God, which is faith and the essence of religion.

III. The faith which saves.—‘Lord, to Whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life,’ and we believe that ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To be able to say that to Christ is to have faith in Him; and that is the faith that saves the soul.

—Canon Beeching.

THE CHURCH

‘I will build My Church.’

Matthew 16:18

There is one part of our Lord’s work which to many is a dead letter. It is the provision He made for the continuance of His work among men. He did not aim at immediate results. Though the end of His labours must be the Cross, He would leave behind Him an organisation which should carry out His work.

I. The Church.—Not a book, not a system of philosophy, but a society, a body, a brotherhood—a body which had no documents, no endowments, but only the memories and precepts of a mysterious Person, Who was full of grace and truth. He left no documents. He employed persons to do His work. As the Father had sent Him, even so did He send them (His disciples). This not unusual, but in accordance with Divine plan. Given a cause, a society follows as a matter of course.

II. Its membership was by baptism, and to-day in the mission-field baptism is well understood to be the dividing line.

III. Its ministry.—He appointed Apostles, to whom He ‘gave authority.’

IV. Its precepts.—Officers and members (disciples and Apostles) were trained by Him.

V. Its prayer.—He gave them the Lord’s Prayer, and all must pray it.

VI. Its Eucharist.—As He had adopted baptism as the sacrament of admission, so He gave them the Eucharist as a sign and seal of union.

After His Resurrection eveything else disappears—the society with its ministry, its message, its sacraments, and its prayers alone remain. And this Society exists still, and to do the same work.

Canon Hammond.

PRESUMPTION REBUKED

‘From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples … those that be of men.’

Matthew 16:21-23

Christ now commenced to unveil the future more distinctly. (1) Because their faith had been fortified. (2) To guard against the growth of carnal views of His kingdom. (3) To secure voluntary and spiritually-minded disciples. God always gives faith before severe discipline, and seldom imparts faith without testing it. Notice here:

I. Peter’s conduct.—It was characterised by—

(a) Arrogant presumption. Had just been commended and rewarded by Christ. Exaltation proved too strong for his incipient faith. This always more dangerous than adversity. He interrupted the Saviour’s discourse, and assumed the position of censor; took Him aside and presumed to counsel his Divine Master. All need to pray, ‘Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins.’

(b) Ignorance of the end of Christ’s sufferings. He would dissuade the Saviour from the very work which he had come to accomplish.

(c) Mistimed sympathy. His heart right, his judgment at fault. This sympathy was of the nature of temptation, suggesting personal ease before painful duty, therefore rejected by Christ.

II. Christ’s rebuke.—‘Get thee behind Me, Satan.’

(a) It was prompt. Without a moment’s delay He arrests Peter’s remonstrance. This one secret of success in dealing with temptation.

(b) It was severe. Not too severe. He recognises the work of Satan behind the word of Peter, and addresses the fiend through his instrument.

(c) It was instructive, first to His disciples, never to interpose a stumbling-stone in the way of His mediatorial purpose; and then to us, teaching that every stumbling-block is a ‘Satan’ (an adversary) to be cast behind us, and that those whose love is human merely and not spiritual are dangerous friends.

Prebendary Gordon Calthrop.

Illustration

‘ An offence unto Me.’ The word signifies a snare or stumbling-block in the path. The use of this expressive term in many places is very interesting (see St. Matthew 5:29; Matthew 11:6; Matthew 13:21; Matthew 13:41; Matthew 18:6-7; Matthew 26:31; Matthew 26:33; St. John 6:61; Romans 9:32-33; Romans 11:9; Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 8:13; Galatians 5:11; and the passages parallel to these). Our Lord’s application of the word to St. Peter shows that his fitness to be a “foundation-stone” was not natural, but of grace; left to himself, he would become a stumbling-stone. It is remarkable that St. Peter in his 1st Epistle (Matthew 2:6-8) applies both these terms to Christ Himself. He is the chosen foundation-stone (Isaiah 28:16), made the “head of the corner,” although “rejected” by the “builders”; and yet He is a “stumbling-stone” (Isaiah 8:14) to those who believe not.’

ON CROSS-BEARING

‘If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.’

Matthew 16:24

Christ turns to the disciples generally. Do they stumble at the cross of their Lord? Let them know that none may follow Him without bearing their own. Here, then, is our present subject: self-denial required of every Christian.

I. The general principle.—The general principle is not to be sought first in religious life. For on it is based the whole structure of earthly being. The Cross of Christ, so far from violently colliding with the natural order of things, presents only a grander exemplification of the law which works through all nature. But the Cross of Christ has exalted self-denial into the region of Christian ethics.

II. The Christian practice.—In considering how he shall reduce this great principle to practice, the Christian’s foremost feeling may include some despondency. His mind may advert to some notable examples—a Howard, an Elizabeth Fry, a Florence Nightingale, a Brainerd, a Williams, a Patteson, a Livingstone, a Gordon, a Damien; and in thinking of such, and comparing his feebler efforts with theirs, he may be tempted to settle into a forlorn acquiescence in his own inabilities. But notice—

(a) The word ‘deny’ is used in the New Testament only in three connections—of our denying ourselves; of our denying Christ; of Christ denying us. With ourselves for its subject, the verb in Bible grammar admits only of two objectives: ourselves and our Lord. The inference is unavoidable. If we do not deny ourselves, we deny Christ: if we are not denying Him, we are denying ourselves.

(b) Personal surrender to God is His first plain requirement. We are beginning at the wrong end, if we first consider what more we can yield Him, before we have settled the question with our own souls, Have I given myself to Him? Connect, then, the thought of cross-bearing rather with the whole Christian life than with any particular acts. Principles, if they are worth anything, should permeate the life. Self is to be surrendered, not in periodical gushings of spasmodic benevolence, but in a lifelong consecration to the service of our Lord. Nothing short of this will do.

III. The Christian witness.—But the Christian is obliged to take the world as he finds it. Be it so. Then the grander duty is to endeavour to bear witness, while passing through it, to the Christian walk. You follow a Leader who bears His Cross. He calls on you to bear yours.

—Bishop Alfred Pearson.

Illustration

‘There could be no mistake as to what it implied in its literal meaning. Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment, but since the Romans had been in possession of Palestine the people had become familiarised with it, and must have seen many a condemned criminal bearing the instrument of his death to the place of execution. In His prevision of the early years of Christianity, our Lord knew that such a death awaited some of those to whom He was speaking. But the broad principle involved in His declaration is that sacrifice is inseparable from the Christian calling. There is we know a wonderful spell in the cry, “Come after Me,” “Follow Me.” All history, profane as well as sacred, has shown this. The great Roman general realised its force when he called to his soldiers, who shrank from the hardships of the Libyan desert, and promised to go before them and to command them nothing which he would not first do himself. Even so, Christ designed to help His followers by the assurance that He should first suffer that which they would be called to bear.’

(SECOND OUTLINE)

THE CROSSES OF LIFE

Everything depends on how we meet our trials, how we bear them, how we seek to rise above them.

I. Crosses of life.—What are these crosses of life? Their name is legion. There is bodily weakness and pain; a heavy enough cross. Then there is mental distress and worry, arising from various causes, some of which, from their very nature, cannot be confided to another. The Christian will find that, in addition to trials such as these, there are others which beset his course, and which constitute his own peculiar cross. He will still find himself the object of the world’s suspicion, hatred, and reproach (St. Luke 6:22; St. John 15:18-19). He must be prepared to face special temptations, to endure peculiar affronts and humiliations; to have his words discredited, his motives called in question, his actions disparaged (Acts 9:16; Acts 14:22; Galatians 6:12; Hebrews 10:33). Many falter, and, as some of old, ‘walk no more with Him.’ But for those who desire ‘to finish their course with joy,’ the Divine Master’s charge tells us plainly—

II. How best to bear our cross.—There must be a complete yielding up of our will to His; full self-surrender and self-denial. And then we must be—

(a) Crucifiers. Our cross must first be the instrument of death to all our vices (Galatians 5:24; Romans 6:5-6). There must be self-emptying and self-consecration before He will accept our allegiance, and send us His sustaining grace (2 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Peter 5:5).

(b) Cross-bearers. We are to ‘take up’ our cross ‘and follow’; the words breathe activity and movement. It is thus at such a start that we learn—in the highest sense of the words—‘how sublime a thing it is to suffer and be strong.’

(c) Christian exemplars. It is the special mark of those who are bearing their cross and following Christ that they are walking with patience and perseverance, and even gladness, after the example of Him ‘Who, for the joy set before Him, endured the Cross.’ But patience and endurance are His gifts, and for them the valiant cross-bearer must never cease to pray (Hebrews 11:25-26; and Revelation 2:10; Revelation 7:13 to end).

—The Rev. E. F. Cavalier.

(THIRD OUTLINE)

BEARING THE CROSS

Of all the conditions which our Lord has named, none has more emphasis laid upon it than this.

I. The meaning of the phrase.—As to the exact sense attached to the phrase, ‘bearing the cross,’ we need to transport ourselves in thought to the time at which it was used by our Lord (see Acts 9:29; Acts 14:19; Acts 16:22-23; Acts 21:31; Acts 22:22; Acts 23:14-15; Acts 26:21 for the manner in which St. Paul was treated by even the religious world of his day; whilst extracts from his own letters fill in with abundance of detail the way in which he shared the ‘bearing of the cross.’

II. The cross is the reproach of Christ.—In another passage (Hebrews 13:12-13) the phrase is slightly varied, but the parallel is noteworthy, when it is told of Him, that ‘He went forth, bearing His cross’; and we are bidden to ‘go forth, bearing His reproach.’ It is an explanation of what ‘bearing the cross’ means in practical experience, that it is equivalent to ‘bearing the reproach’ of Christ.

III. A voluntary act.—The very terms of discipleship: ‘Let him take up his cross,’ serve to show that whatever the cross, it is something that can either be taken or left, chosen or declined.

IV. A subject for choice and conduct.—This cross-bearing is a matter for choice and decision, for definite and initial action, for continuous and permanent conduct, in the true disciple of Christ.

The Rev. Hubert Brooke.

Illustration

‘Some people have said that, in our Lord’s time, “bearing the cross” was a proverb in common use among the Jews. It is true that a heathen, Plutarch, had written before, that a passionate man carries about his own cross with him. But this simply means that a violent temper is its own punishment. It has none of the infinitely deep meaning of our Lord’s saying. Nor is it likely that the Jews would have any proverb about the cross. The cross was a Roman not a Jewish punishment. But probable that it was not known to the Jews till they became subject to the Romans, about 65 b.c. To us Christians the cross is the symbol of salvation, self-devotion, holiness, obedience to our Father, loyalty to our Saviour. It is an ornament in the crown of the Sovereign. Many of our noblest churches are built in the very shape of it. But to those who heard Jesus it was a symbol of terrible pain, of shame unspeakable, of the burden of guilt.’

(FOURTH OUTLINE)

THE SYMBOLISM OF THE CROSS

I. The cross a symbol of pain.—The cross means pain if it means anything. Every day may be said to bring its little crosses with it; and to take these as they come, not in sullenness or impatience, but with a submissive spirit, is no doubt to bear the cross after Jesus Christ. Yet those who confine themselves to bearing their own cross are the most harassed by it, while it is those who take up the cross, instead of bearing it only when laid upon them, who suffer for others in the very spirit of Jesus Christ, who are best able to bear the burden.

II. A symbol of shame.—It is a test of our discipleship, of our religious earnestness, whether we are ready to suffer shame for Christ’s sake. In spite of the honour given to the pattern of the cross, there is just as much contempt as ever poured upon those who strive to be like Him Who hung upon it. We cannot be real Christians unless we are willing to be mocked at and despised.

III. A symbol of self-denial.—It is self that makes us shrink from the cross. It is the denial of self, the putting away of our own wills, that makes it easy for us to take and bear it. The word self-denial slips easily from our lips, and seldom reaches deep into the motives of our lives. Yet, as prayer is the test of our faith towards God, so self-denial is the test of our love to man, and without these two, faith and love, there can be no religion.

IV. In all follow Jesus.—While we deny ourselves, we must follow Jesus. There is a self-denial which is not a following of Jesus.

(a) Men often deny themselves in one respect in order to indulge themselves in another.

(b) Self-denial for its own sake, is not a following of Jesus. Let love, the very spirit of the cross, be the guide of our self-denial, and we shall not go wrong.

—Canon Liddon.

Illustration

‘Self-denial at stated periods is in itself an act of obedience to the constituted authority of the Church. The principle of fasting and abstinence, forms of self-denial, meets with abundant recognition in the Prayer Book; though too often it escapes our notice that the Calendar at the commencement of our Prayer Books is not merely a list of Psalms and Lessons, but contains a certain scheme of discipline which is binding on all Churchmen, lay as well as clerical. The duty of fasting in some degree is incumbent upon us out of obedience to the Church, and this submission of the will involves the very essence of self-denial. “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22).’

THE DENIAL OF SELF

‘Let him deny himself.’

Matthew 16:24

I. Denial has the threefold sense of the refusal to acknowledge acquaintance or relationship, the rejection of the claim of authority, the repudiation of obedience to commands.

II. Self-denial therefore means the rejection of interference, authority, or rule by man’s self, and the substitution of Christ in the life.

III. It is a misuse of the phrase, to confound the denying of something to oneself with the denying of self.

IV. Many deny things to themselves, who never deny self.

V. Only there does self-denial exist, where Christ takes the place of self for all life’s decisions.

VI. The example of Christ is a perfect illustration of this true self-denial.

VII. It implies a definite act and decision, as introductory to a life of consecration and discipleship.

—The Rev. Hubert Brooke.

LIFE SAVED AND LOST

‘Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it.’

Matthew 16:25

In the parallel passage of St. Mark 8:35, there is a slight addition: ‘for My sake and the Gospel’s’; and both there and in St. Luke 9:24, for ‘find it,’ the closing words are ‘save it.’ The same statement occurs in Matthew 10:39, and is abbreviated in St. Luke 14:26 into the short phrase: ‘hate … yea, and his own life also.’

I. Service not salvation.—The topic before us is not the saving or losing of the soul, but the life reckoned as gained or lost, according as it is yielded up to the Master’s service, or withheld from Him and kept for selfish ends. A life ‘lost,’ as the world names it, is really saved, gained and kept; whilst the life spent for worldly advantages, earthly profit, and selfish ends counts but as pure loss, and is worth nothing in His sight.

II. Christ as example.—Our Lord’s use of the idea of losing and keeping the life, in St. John 7:24-25, applies it to Himself and His own conduct, and once more makes Him the example for disciples to follow.

III. The yielded life.—The condition for consecration and discipleship, which calls for a practical surrender of the whole life, and a willingness to let it be lost to all personal ends for Christ’s sake, forms in fact the summary and climax of everything. The whole being is put under contribution and nothing is left unclaimed by Christ.

—The Rev. Hubert Brooke.