Praise and Rebuke (Matthew 16:13-23)

This sermon was preached on Sunday, 6/3/2011

Jesus is continuing to prepare his apostles, including Peter, for the role they are to play in his coming kingdom, the church, which would be set up when he ascended to heaven and sent the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This means that when this incident took place they were still in that learning process. It is important to keep this in mind as we consider Peter’s objections to the words of Jesus concerning his suffering in Jerusalem. We begin our knowledge of Jesus, our discipleship, with an understanding of the cross. It was different with the disciples. They began their acquaintance with him before he suffered at Calvary; they followed a man who could perform great miracles, preach profound sermons and pray for prolonged periods. What we can study and digest in a few hours of Bible reading was several months’ teaching for these disciples.

It is likely that Jesus had taken his disciples to Caesarea Philippi in order for them to be alone with him. The location was outside the area ruled by Herod, who ruled Galilee, and was distant from the Sea of Galilee area where large crowds had gathered to hear Jesus. Probably, Jesus was not famous in this area. The Saviour also wanted to be away from the crowds in order to spend time in prayer (Luke’s account of this incident says that it followed a time of prayer by Jesus [Luke 9:18]).

This section has suffered from the focus put on it by disagreements connected to the Roman Catholic interpretation that here Jesus gave Peter an exclusive authority over the other apostles, so beginning the line of popes. It is obvious that whatever else Jesus says here he does not mention an exclusive authority for Peter or that he was the first in a succession of popes. Instead this event was another stage in the discipleship training of these men who were to be Christ’s apostles.

The identity of Jesus (16:13-14)

As we think of the question that Jesus asks, we are not to imagine that he is ignorant of the opinions of the general public. While it cannot be said for certain as to why Jesus asked this question, one probable reason was to ensure that the disciples were not being affected by the popular ideas that were being suggested as to who Jesus was. Another possible reason was that the Saviour was getting his disciples to confess their faith in him.

In the question, Jesus uses a particular name for himself when he uses the title ‘Son of man’. This title was one that Jesus used often to describe himself and it is important for us to understand what it means. In the past, it was used to argue for the reality of his humanity (it is used to describe humans in Psalm 8:4 and Isaiah 51:12 and 56:2), and while it does refer to his humanity it also includes much more.

The title ‘Son of man’ is a royal title that was used of the kings of Israel (Ps. 80:17); it was also the title that Ezekiel used of himself as a prophet; and it was used of the one who was to receive universal and eternal dominion from the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13-14. So it was a title of great dignity, pointing to those who spoke for God and to those who would reign over God’s kingdom. Ultimately it would describe the great Spokesman of God (or prophet) and the great Sovereign, Jesus Christ.

It is possible that Jesus’ use of this title was cryptic for some of his listeners, but those who read the Old Testament, particularly Daniel’s prophecy, should have been looking forward to the coming of the Son of Man. But who did the people think Jesus was?

They evidently thought Jesus was a person who had been raised from the dead because each of the suggested individuals, apart from Elijah, had died, and Elijah had gone to heaven without dying. Further they all thought Jesus was a prophet because each of the proposed names was a prophet. But that was as far as their unity went. Perhaps his preaching caused them to say he was like John the Baptist. Those who said that Jesus was Elijah probably thought he was the forerunner of the Messiah that Malachi had predicted. Still others thought he was like Jeremiah, which may suggest the people were aware of the strong element of compassion in Christ’s ministry and Jeremiah was known as the ‘weeping prophet’.

Of all the list of suggestions, none thought he was the Messiah. This may have been due to the influence of the large number of professing disciples who had stopped following him after he had refused to be a king. None of them thought that Jesus was insignificant, yet none of them realised who he actually was. Many similar opinions about Jesus are expressed today.

Jesus pressed the question more personally and Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ This answer by Peter reveals that he had grasped two details about Jesus. First, he realised that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament and, second, he realised that Jesus was a divine Person.

Peter had been convinced by the miracles and message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. It would have been possible, however, for a person to say that about Jesus and still not give a sufficient answer as to his identity. More had to be said, and Peter did express this further requirement of a true understanding of Jesus’ identity. Simon had discovered that Jesus was divine. This was a remarkable statement for a devout Jew to make because such a person believed that there was only one God. Peter was discovering the amazing divine existence of the triune God; he was advancing in understanding, in some measure, of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Furthermore, Peter describes God as living. It has been suggested that Peter used this adjective because the location in which they were was riddled with statues and idols of false gods, of gods without life. Nearby was a temple built in honour of Caesar. Through the teaching and works of Jesus, Peter has seen God in action, as it were. The Saviour showed time and again that he was the giver of life, whether physical restoration from ill health and death or spiritual renewal in which new life was given to dead souls. Peter’s faith had found plenty evidence of the life-giving ability of Jesus.

Not only was it a theologically-informed reply, it seems to have been a speedy answer. His quick answer indicates that his mind was thinking about Jesus and his emotions were enthralled by Jesus. Peter was not passing on information discovered by mere research nor was he giving an opinion thought up by himself. His understanding was a result of heavenly illumination. His words expressed wonder and gladness; awe that God was in his presence and gladness that the promised Saviour had come.

There was one reason why Peter understood who Jesus was and that reason was that the Father had revealed this to Peter. Peter by nature was spiritually blind, but he had been given divine insight into the true identity of Jesus Christ. This is what made him a blessed person, that he truly understood who Jesus was.

The obvious lesson that Peter and the others had to learn was the importance of right understanding of who Jesus is. He had to learn that he could only know who Jesus was by divine revelation, by supernatural knowledge. This lesson is still essential today. A Christian is defined by who he thinks Jesus is: divine and human.

The status of Peter (vv. 18-19)

These verses have been greatly distorted by the Roman Catholic Church by its interpretation that Jesus here gave a privileged place to Peter above all the other apostles. It is the case that Jesus speaks personally to Peter in verse 19 when he refers to the giving of the keys of the kingdom. Yet it is not necessary to assume that he is speaking to Peter exclusively at the expense of the other disciples. One obvious reason why Jesus would not have said these words to all the disciples is because Judas Iscariot was with them, and he could not have the role that Jesus described here as belonging to Peter.

What did Jesus mean by ‘this rock’ and ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’? Several suggestions have been made, but here is what I think is meant. First, Jesus meant Peter when he used these words; some suggest that Jesus meant Peter’s confession but it is difficult to see how his personal confession could be the foundation of the church. Second, Jesus informs Peter that he will play a foundational role in the church that Jesus is going to build. This imagery is found elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul says that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Third, Peter will have this foundational role because he has received divine revelation from the Father regarding Jesus. Fourth, one aspect of his foundational role would be to open the doors of the kingdom to sinners, which Peter did to Jews on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and to Gentiles through the household of Cornelius (Acts 10–11). Fifth, another aspect of his foundational role would be to have authority in the church, deciding what laws were to be implemented and what could be done away with (as the apostles did at the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15).

It is likely that Peter did not understand what this role would involve. But he must have recalled Jesus’ promise to him on the first day they met that he would become a rock (John 1:42). Jesus was informing Peter that he was on his way to becoming ready for that role. Nevertheless it is surprising that Peter does not ask for clarification because it is not possible that he grasped all that Jesus said he would become.

Jesus here also informs Peter that there is going to be a gathering of people who will belong to Jesus, that is, his church. He is going to call them to himself through the declaration of the revelation that Peter and the other apostles would be given. One by one sinners would be added to this building by Jesus. The Book of Acts, which is often called the Acts of the Apostles, is more accurately the acts of Jesus through the apostles and others.

The reference to the gate of Hades can be taken in two ways, although both interpretations indicate the security of the church. One view is that the church will attack the fortress of death (the kingdom of Satan) and its defences will not be able to withstand the onslaught. In the end, the church will defeat the kingdom of darkness. The other view is that the church is going to be the object of prolonged Satanic attack (the gates where the location in a town where its council met), but these assaults would not overpower the church. Peter is here taught another important lesson, which is that the security of the church would not depend on the importance of Peter’s role but on the activity of the Christ who will complete the building of his church and who will protect it from its enemies.

The inconsistency of Peter (vv. 21-23)

So Peter has learned two significant lessons from this incident: who Jesus is and the church of Jesus will continue despite its opponents. It seems that Jesus wanted the apostles to be certain of who he was before he would inform them about his death and resurrection. From that time on, he began to teach them about what was going to happen to him. In passing we can note that this is an important principle when explaining the faith to a person. Sometimes we describe the cross and the person listening to us does not who the Jesus is to whom we are referring.

Peter, who had been doing so well, does not appear a good scholar now. He did not like this aspect of Christ’s teaching and rebuked him for it. No doubt, his words were an expression of love, but it was an uninformed love. He had ceased to accept the teaching of Jesus and this resulted in distorted affections for Jesus. It is impossible to show suitable love for Jesus at the same time as we are ignoring his word.

Peter should have anticipated the possibility of a trial after a mountain-top experience. He failed to apply the lesson of previous situations where spiritual ecstasy was followed by a time of darkness (the storm at sea followed the feeding of the 5000). Because he failed to remember this factor, he was easily influenced by the devil. The devil here used Peter’s love for Jesus to lead him astray. This can happen to us as well. Therefore, it is essential that we continue to listen carefully and submissively to Jesus.

Jesus identifies the problem with Peter: he is thinking in a human way and not according to divine revelation; he was no longer setting his mind on the things of God, but on the things of man (v. 23). This change in his thinking was very rapid. In a short time he went from being totally right to being totally wrong. We could say that he went from 100% to 0% in his spiritual grades.

It is obvious that Jesus was not pleased with Peter now. I suspect when he tells Peter to get behind him, he may be commanding him to take the place that belongs to a disciple. If he did not desire Peter to be with him, he would have told Peter to go away from him. Instead he insisted that the place for Peter was not in front of Jesus attempting to stop him fulfilling God’s purpose. Instead he was to be a follower of Jesus no matter how unexpected his teaching seemed at the time.

Peter learned another lesson now as well. Progress in discipleship does not result in promotion out of discipleship into a place of authority over Jesus. Peter was being taught that discipleship was all-embracive as far as Christ’s teaching was concerned. There is also another lesson for us here. If we do not understand a doctrine, our response should be to keep quiet and wait for further instruction rather than to use our ignorance as a reason for objecting to it.

The glory of a school is not the quality of its pupils but the capability of its teachers. Christ’s school is glorious because of who he is, and not because of who his pupils were or are. Jesus had great plans for Peter, but he would never cease to be a disciple, a learner.