Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part VIII

Verse 24: Then Jesus said to His followers, “If any of you want to be my follower, you must stop thinking about yourself and what you want. You must be willing to carry the execution stake that is given to you for following me.”

The earliest Hebrew version of Matthew renders this verse this way: “Whoever wishes to come after [follow] me let him despise himself, take the cross, that is, offer himself unto death, and come after [follow] me.”¹ Another Jewish translation has: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him say ‘No’ to himself, take up his execution-stake, and keep following me.”² In these two renderings it appears that giving one’s life for a cause was known as the ultimate sacrifice in loyalty and bravery for the cause. Such deaths were common in that era, and being executed on a stake was also well documented.

So when we look back at verse 21, we should take this reference as being to His cross in particular, and His willingness to die for what He came to do. So these disciples were put on notice that by committing themselves to follow Him, it might someday cost them their lives. So Jesus wanted them to know that now was the time to either indicate that they were sold out to Him, or go back to fishing if they were not sure. He will make this even clearer in the next verse.

When it comes to the cross, Jewish scholars tell us that the cross was so familiar to the Jews in New Testament times that they spoke frequently of “men carrying their cross before them while going to be executed.”³ For instance, we read such a reference when the writer talks about, “Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering⁴ — like one who carries his stake on his shoulder”.⁵ A stake was the instrument of torture and hanging, like the cross. We also read a story about such crucifixions of Jews that goes as follows: “I read that Jose ben Joezer was martyred during the Greek persecutions. His sister’s son, Joachim of Zeroroth, told him how Jose bore his own cross to be crucified.”⁶

Since Jesus knew He was on His way to being executed, He informed His disciples that they too must be willing to die for the cause, just as He was. Such a commitment entailed putting everything else one might desire to do in life aside if it interfered with carrying out the mission given to them by Christ. In this context, the cross is seen as a symbol of commitment. We read in the Old Testament how Esther was given a similar sense of responsibility by her uncle Mordecai, “If you keep quiet now, help and freedom for the Jews will have to come from another place. But you and your father’s family will all die. And who knows, maybe you have been chosen to be the queen for such a time as this.”⁷

In his sermon on this text, Chrysostom has this to say: “When did Jesus teach this? When Peter said, ‘God forbid, Lord! This will never happen to You.’ And when Peter was told, ‘Get behind me, Satan,’ Jesus did not merely rebuke Peter. He was willing to teach him more fully of the benefit of His Passion and about the exceeding confusion in what Peter had said. So He responds in effect: ‘Your word to me is that this will never happen to me, but My word to you is “Not only is this hurtful to you, and destructive, to hinder me and be displeased at my Passion.” But more so it will be impossible for you even to be saved unless you yourself are continually prepared for death.’ So, lest anyone should imagine that His suffering was unworthy of Him, He teaches them what great gain will come from it. This applies not only to His former afflictions but also to those yet to come. Later He will teach in John’s Gospel that ‘unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.’⁸ So He now begins discussing more fully the out-workings of the future, not only with respect to His own suffering and death but with theirs as well. Unwillingness to die is grievous, but to be ready for death is good and of great profit. Jesus makes this clear by what follows, but for the present He works it out on one side only. Note that He does not say, ‘You must suffer whether you will it or not.’ Rather, He says, ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’ This is as if to say: ‘I force no one, I compel no one, but each one I make the master of his own choice. So I say, “if anyone will.”’”⁹

Verse 25: Any of you who try to preserve the way you live your life now will end up wasting it. But you who give up the way you live and live for me will find real living.

In light of what Jesus has already said, this verse has two meanings. One: that they must be willing to forget about ever going back to fishing and whatever else they were doing and pledge themselves to be His apostles for the rest of their lives or they will never know the joy and fulfillment they will experience by being His ambassadors to the world. Or two: they must be willing to count what they have attained in this world as nothing to hold on to and give it up for the cause, then they will be given so much more of a better life serving Him.

No wonder our Lord’s talk about saving one’s life by losing it for His sake has often been debated. According to Rabbi Nathan, he felt that the Jewish Fathers have clearly defined that as foregoing the pleasures of this life in order to give time to study the Torah and grow in the Word. He quotes Rabbi Judah the Prince as saying; “He who accepts the pleasures of this world shall be denied the pleasures of the world to come; but he who does not accept the pleasures of this world will be granted the pleasures of the world to come.”¹⁰ While Jesus many not have been paraphrasing this in His own statement, it is clear that the Jews accepted the same consequence for their faith in God.

Chrysostom gives his understanding of what Jesus says here: “Because Jesus had said, ‘Whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it,’ Jesus makes a strict distinction between salvation and destruction. This was to prevent anyone from imagining the one destruction and the other salvation to be all the same thing in the last instance. The distance is infinite between destruction and salvation. Then He makes this inference once for all to establish these points: ‘For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?’ Do you see how the wrongful preservation of life amounts to destruction and is worse than all destruction, as being even past remedy from the want of anything more to redeem it?”¹¹

So we can see that there is a fine line between managing one’s life and martyring one’s life. It would not have helped had all of Jesus’s disciples gone into battle and offered themselves up for execution as soon as He ascended into heaven. A worldwide community of believers would have never been realized. But at the same time, since they were chosen to be His followers and had committed themselves to Him for the rest of their lives, then they must now pledge to be willing to suffer whatever consequences may come their way for being one of His disciples. In so doing they simply left it up to God as to when the end would come for their mission.

Verse 26: It is worth nothing if you own the whole world but end up losing the life you could have had. You could never pay enough to buy back your wasted life.

Most scholars believe that Jesus is speaking here of redemption, which was the purchasing of a prisoner or slave from bondage. In fact, the Ethiopic Version renders this: “What can man give for the redemption of his soul.” The Aramaic Version reads: “What will a man give in exchange for his soul.” One of the oldest Hebrew versions of Matthew reads: “What good exchange does the man make if for present things that are spoiled he should give his soul to the judgment of Gehenna?”¹²

These all seem to echo the words of Solomon who said: “What does a person gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?”¹³ Jewish commentators say: “What Solomon meant to convey by these words is that whatever a man may possess on earth–under the sun–he must inevitably part with, but it is different if he provides for himself above the sun, that is. in heaven.”¹⁴ Not only that, but we are all one-of-a-kind, and there are no duplicates, so if we are not all we can be while we are here, who can take our place.

We read this story in Jewish literature: “When Rabbi Simon bar Zebid died, Rabbi Ilya came up and eulogized him by expounding as follows: ‘Four things are essential for the existence of the world. But if they are lost, they can be replaced as we see from the following verse, ‘Surely there is a mine for silver and a place for gold which they refine. Iron is taken out of the earth, and copper is smelted from the ore’.¹⁵ If these are lost they can be replaced. But if a disciple of the sages dies, who shall bring us his replacement? Who shall bring us his substitute?’”¹⁶

We find that Satan was so convinced that Job would rather protect himself and his property, that should God allow some misfortune to befall him he would not stand for it. Said the devil, “Skin for skin! A man will give everything he has to protect himself. I swear, if You attack his flesh and bones, he will curse You to Your face!”¹⁷ Of course, we know that Satan was proven wrong. As Job says later: “What hope do people without God have when it is time to die when God takes their life away?”¹⁸ And so our Lord wanted Peter, as well as all His followers, to prove Satan wrong once again. In a song by the Korah family we find this expression, “No one has enough to buy back a life, and you cannot bribe God. You will never get enough money to pay for your own life”.¹⁹

One Jewish writer felt that maybe there may have been a misunderstanding. God did not expect them to pay for their own redemption, but in the end, they all would pay with their lives, upon which they had made no deposit, therefore there would be no return.²⁰ What Jesus was trying to point out was that He was on His way to sacrifice Himself in order to pay for their lives. Therefore, once the purchase is made, their lives would then belong to God for Him to use in any way He desired that would bring Him glory and honor. But acknowledging that purchase and surrendering that life would be up to them. It would be their choice to make. But what was just as important was the fact that Jesus as the Son of man, would return one day for all those who had surrendered and lived their lives for God’s glory.

Church father Origen has this commentary: “We could interpret the saying, however, in another way. If anyone knows what salvation is and wants to save his own life, after bidding farewell to his life, denying himself and taking up his cross and following me, he will, in terms of the world, have lost his life. But, having lost his life for me and my teaching, he will gain in the end this kind of loss, salvation.”²¹

Origen then goes on to say: “But what shall a person give in exchange for his life, would seem, if spoken in answer to a query, to indicate a person who trades his life; a person who, after sin, has given up his substance in order that his property might feed the poor. He would in that way receive salvation. Yet, in a positive light, I think this indicates that there is nothing in a person that he can give in trade for his life that will buy off death. God, however, has ransomed us all with the priceless blood of Jesus so that ‘we are bought with a price,’²² ‘having been purchased not with perishable things like silver and gold but with the priceless blood of the spotless, flawless Lamb,’²³”²⁴

When put together, Jesus was telling His followers that they would be foolish to spend what they are promised in the future to purchase those things they want to enjoy today. In today’s context, we could illustrate it this way: Why take all you have out of your IRA that continues to appreciate in value until the day you need it, in order to buy things for today that only depreciate in value and ends up leaving you nothing at the end to save you from despair.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part VII

In this verse, the KJV has the words, “loose” and “bind.” British theologian, Dr. John Lightfoot, has given us an excellent list of how the words “loose” and “bind” are used in Jewish literature. It will help us understand how our Lord used this common phrase among the Rabbis of His day to instruct His followers on their responsibilities in the future.

Bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons; which is also observed in the articles what and whatsoever. One might produce thousands of examples out of their writings: we will only offer a set of ten; the first, where the frequent use of this word may appear; the second, what the sense may be:

1. Rabbi Jochanan said to those of Tiberias, “Why have you brought this elder to me? Whatever I loosen, he binds; whatever I bind, he loosens.” [In other words, if the Rabbi says it’s alright to do, the Elder will say it is wrong to do; if the Rabbi says he will permit it, the Elder will say he will not permit it; if the Rabbi says I’ll allow it, the Elder will say I won’t allow if.]

2. You shall neither bind nor loosen.

3. Nachum, the brother of Rabbi Illa, asked Rabbi Jochanan concerning a certain matter. To whom he answered, “You will neither bind nor loosen.” [Another way of saying: “You should not say “yes” or “no.”]

4. This man binds, but the other loosens.[This was done to enforce or relieve someone of their obligations or responsibilities under the law.]

5. Rabbi Chaija said, “Whatsoever I have bound to you elsewhere, I will loose to you here.”

6. He asked one wise man, and he bound: Do not ask another wise man, lest perhaps he loosens.

7. The same mouth that binds is the mouth that loosens.

8. Although the disciples of Shammai bound, those of Hillel loosened.

9. A wise man that judges judgment defines what defiles and what cleanses; he loosens and binds.
10. The question whether it is lawful to go into the outhouse to urinate wearing phylacteries? Rabbena loosens, and Rabh Ada binds. The mystical doctor, neither binds nor loosens.¹

It becomes clear that when something was deemed as “loosened,” it was freed from any condemnation or wrong doing and made to stand as proper conduct. By the same token, when something was considered “bound,” it signified that such a thing would invite condemnation and be guilty of wrong doing and made to stand as being improper. I invite you to take a look at Dr. Lightfoot’s second and third sets of ten that give additional explanations that can be very helpful.²

This was a common practice in Israel because such binding and loosing were necessary for common folk to be in harmony with each other in the community of believers.³ Therefore, we take away from this a more enlightened understanding of what our Lord said and how it applied to His followers. Another way to put this binding and loosening of things on earth and in heaven is to ask this: Would you feel free and say or do in heaven those things you approve to be done and said here on earth? And, do you believe that those things you disavow here on earth would also be disapproved of in heaven?

In other words, Jesus knew He would be leaving before too much longer. So He was more or less telling His followers: I’m leaving you in charge. You’re going to have the responsibility to make sure what I have established here on earth keeps going until I come back. He knew it would be an awesome task for them. So they needed to be reminded that whatever decisions they made about the church would not only reflect on them, but on the One in heaven who gave them this authority. Therefore, the community of believers was to live in harmony, and such harmony would only be accomplished by adhering to God’s Word and by obeying the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, there is no indication that Jesus was talking about the forgiveness of sin in order to become a child of God. He, and only He, had the authority to do so.⁴

Verse 20: Then Jesus warned His followers not to tell anyone He was the Messiah.

Most scholars accept the premise that Jesus did not want to come out into the open as the Anointed One at that time because it might not only draw large crowds of adoring followers for whom He would then become responsible for maintaining their well-being, but also to avoid getting the Jerusalem crowd up in arms and thereby run afoul of the Roman leadership before it was time.

One polemic Jewish writer had a very sarcastic way of putting his opposition to Jesus by paraphrasing verse 20 this way: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Tell no man that I am God for from the time that I have abandoned the Torah of my birthplace, I have rebelled against my Creator and against His Torah.’”⁵ That would be like criticizing the Wright brothers for abandoning their bicycle shop to build an airplane because they believed flying was possible. The Torah had become such an object of veneration and worship to the point that this writer could not recognize the Living Word when he saw Him.

Chrysostom felt that he saw an underlying reason why Jesus requested that His being the Messiah be kept in secrecy. He writes: “And why did He charge them? That when the things which offend are taken out of the way, the cross is accomplished and the rest of His sufferings fulfilled, and when there is nothing anymore to interrupt and disturb the faith of the people in Him, the right opinion concerning Him may be engraved pure and immovable in the mind of the hearers. For in truth His power had not yet clearly shone forth. Accordingly it was His will then to be preached by them when both the plain truth of the facts and the power of His deeds were pleading in support of the assertions of the apostles. For it was by no means the same thing to see Him in Palestine, now working miracles and now insulted and persecuted, especially when the very cross was presently to follow the miracles that were happening, and then to behold Him everywhere in the world, adored and believed, and no more suffering anything such as he had suffered.”⁶

Then Theodore of Mopsuestia adds his view: “After the disciples received the Spirit, then the teaching concerning the divinity of the Son was shown to them perfectly and the Spirit Himself bore witness through the miracles that were done in His name. Yet it was still necessary that this is hidden from the rulers, the secular powers of this world, so that Christ, by suffering and rising again, might transform in Himself human life and recreate it, changing it back to the state it was in at the beginning of its corruption. This perhaps is the reason why of necessity this instruction had not yet been given them.”⁷

Verse 21: From that time Jesus began telling His followers that He must go to Jerusalem. He explained that the older Jewish leaders, the leading priests, and the teachers of the law would make Him suffer many things. And He told His followers that He must be killed. Then, on the third day, He would be raised from death.

Here we see a shift in our Lord’s focus on the purpose for which His heavenly Father sent Him to earth. I’m sure the disciples noticed the sudden change, especially His insistence on going to Jerusalem where nothing but trouble awaited Him. Matthew points out that it was the Jewish elders and chief priest, along with the priestly teachers of the law that would promote the suffering He must endure. We do not know how the others felt about it, but Peter would not let it go by without some action. Apparently he enjoyed such a close relationship with Jesus by this time, that our Lord willingly – although knowingly – allowed this fisherman to have a private conversation with Him.

Jerome sees the possibility that our Lord’s restriction in letting people know who He really was, may have been due to His being both God and man. He writes: “For the purpose of proclaiming, He had sent His disciples before Him and ordered them to announce His arrival. But He advised them lest they say publicly that He was Jesus the Christ. It seems to me to be one thing to proclaim Him to be the Christ, another thing to proclaim Him to be Jesus the Christ. Christ is a common term for the messianic dignity [the Anointed One] while Jesus is the proper name for the Savior. It is possible that for this reason He had been unwilling to be proclaimed Jesus the Christ prior to His suffering and resurrection in order that He might afterward when the obligation of blood had been fulfilled, at an opportune time say to His apostles, “Go and teach all nations”⁸ and the rest. And lest anyone think that this is merely our opinion and not the perceptions of the Evangelist, then what follows explains further the reasons for the prohibited proclamation.”⁹

Verse 22: Then Peter took Jesus aside and begin scolding Him. “Things like this should never happen to someone like You!”

We can’t really blame Peter, he was expressing the tradition Jewish idea of the Messiah as we see in their wisdom literature: “See, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, at the time which you chose, O God, to rule over Israel your servant. And gird him with strength to shatter in pieces unrighteous rulers, to purify Jerusalem for nations that trample her down in destruction, in wisdom of righteousness, to drive out sinners from the inheritance, to smash the arrogance of the sinner like a potter’s vessel, to shatter all their substance with an iron rod, to destroy the lawless nations by the word of his mouth, that, by his threat, nations flee from his presence.”¹⁰

Unfortunately, it also shows a certain amount of arrogance on Peter’s part. Earlier Jesus hailed him as a chip off the large Rock upon which the church would be built. Now here he is being rebuked as a cohort of Satan. This is why it is so necessary not to build a following on man because man can fail; but build it on the solid Rock Jesus Christ; for He is the true Rock of Ages. But this was not the first time Satan had tried this tactic. Jesus’ royal ancestor got himself into a terrible situation because he listened to a suggestion from the devil.¹¹ Also, Joshua the high priest underwent a similar trial, “The angel showed me Joshua the high priest, standing in front of the angel of the LORD and Satan was standing by Joshua’s right side. Satan was there to accuse Joshua of doing wrong. Then the angel of the LORD said, ‘The LORD says that you are wrong, and He will continue to correct you!’”¹²

In his sermon on this text, Chrysostom says: “Peter was examining the issue by human and earthly reasoning. He thought it disgraceful to Jesus as something unworthy of Him. Jesus responded sharply, in effect saying, ‘My suffering is not an unseemly matter. You are making this judgment with a carnal mind. If you had listened to My teachings in a godly way, tearing yourself away from carnal understanding, you would know that this of all things most becomes Me. You seem to suppose that to suffer is unworthy of Me. But I say to you that for Me not to suffer is of the devil’s mind.’ So He repressed Peter’s alarm by contrary arguments. Remember that John the Baptizer, accounting it unworthy of Christ to be baptized by him, was persuaded by Christ to baptize Him, saying, ‘Let it be so now.’ So we find Peter as well, forbidding Christ to wash his feet. He is met by the words, ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.’ Here too Jesus restrained him by the mention of the opposite, and by the severity of the reproof He repressed his fear of suffering.”¹³

Verse 23: Then Jesus looked at Peter and said, “Get out of My way, Satan! You are not helping me one bit! You are not interested in the things God is interested in. You only care about things that people think are important.”

And so it was that the Son of God corrected the devil again for suggesting to Peter that He should not carry out His mission. What a quaint combination we see here. First, Jesus told Peter that the Spirit of God had helped him see that He was the Son of the Living God, the Messiah. Now Jesus must scold Peter because he allowed the spirit of Satan to influence him to speak against what Jesus the Son of God, the Messiah had planned. That war within Peter is still being fought in the hearts and minds of many believers to this day.

Blaming Satan for causing such irrational thinking and discord was well rehearsed among the Jews, especially after what happened to the patriarch Job.¹⁴ As one Jewish commentator says: “The serpent represents all the negative spiritual forces in the universe, and brings God’s wrath upon His world as it seduces God’s creatures to rebel against Him.”¹⁵ Therefore, Jesus rebukes Satan, not Peter, for trying to do the same thing here and turning His own disciples against Him. One commentator made this suggestion on what Jesus meant when He told Satan to get behind Him by saying: “Yeshua is actually inviting Satan to become His follower (with the universalistic doctrinal implication that eventually even Satan will be “saved).”¹⁶ However, we know that Satan’s fate is already sealed.¹⁷

Early church father Theodore of Heraclea had this to say about Jesus’ rebuke of Peter: “When contrary to what he had hoped, Peter heard this, he was troubled. For the revelation had exhibited Christ as Son of God and the living God, on the one hand. Yet, on the other hand, he was found to be preparing for the dreadful events of the Passion. In rebuking Peter, Christ brings to light His own righteous judgment. When Peter confessed Christ, Christ praised him. But when he was irrationally terrified, Christ rebuked him, acting without respect of persons.”¹⁸

Then the respected theologian Origen gave this view: “Responding to Peter’s ignorance as one opposing God, Jesus said, ‘Satan,’ which is Hebrew for opponent. If Peter had not spoken to Him out of ignorance nor of the living God when he said, ‘Never, Lord! This must never happen to You!’ then He would not have said to him “Get behind Me,” as if speaking to someone who had given up being behind Him and following Him. Neither would He have called him ‘Satan.’ Satan had overpowered the one following Jesus in order to turn him aside from following the Son of God from behind, to make him, because of ignorant words, worthy of being called ‘Satan’ and a scandal to the Son of God, ‘not thinking in the ways of God but of humans.’”¹⁹

So it is clear that Jesus was not calling Peter, Satan, but rebuking the spirit of Satan that had inspired Peter to caution Jesus against going through with His suffering and death. So we can see, Satan did not rejoice when Jesus was nailed to the cross, for His death meant total defeat for Satan, and His resurrection would mean Satan’s eternal damnation in the fiery pit.

Eighteenth-century illustrator William Blake wrote a volume of prose in which he listed a number of proverbs. One of them read this way: “No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”¹ It was not Mr. Blake’s effort to use figures of speech in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction to one another, but rather to show that limits are easily recognizable, but only when trying to exceed them. We see this in another of his proverbs, “You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.”²

We have all seen what happens when someone is elevated to a position higher than their ability to keep them there. Their fall is embarrassing both to them and the ones who promoted them. Solomon had a similar word of wisdom when he wrote: “Train a child in the way he [should] go; and, even when old, he will not swerve from it.”³ This is another way of saying: See what talent and abilities your child has, then motivate them in pursuing their skills and gifts. They will spend their lifetime following that lead instead of trying to excel in some other endeavor.

But too often, parents choose the career path they want their children to follow and are upset when the child does not succeed. So let the bird fly on its own. Let them find out how high they can soar. Then rejoice with them when they reach their limit instead of criticizing them when they can’t seem to climb higher. We can find the same truth in a person’s spiritual growth. But unfortunately, many believers do not know how high they can fly because they’ve never tried to get off the ground. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

BEING IN GOD’S WILL CAN BE A THRILL

Years ago I traveled to one of the more remote areas of what was once called Yugoslavia, now Serbia, to preach for the pastor of a congregation in a small farming village. As I turned off the paved highway onto a dirt country road to reach the village, I saw, that because of recent rains, the road was a mix of deep crisscrossing ruts made by wagon wheels. I knew my little Volkswagen would not be able to make it if my wheels fell into these ruts. So I stopped, and while looking at the scrambled tracks in front of me, offered a prayer for the Lord to guide me.

As I then started up the road, the Holy Spirit guided my eyes to a particular set of ruts and I felt Him urge me to straddle one of them, and I did so without hesitation. I gripped the steering wheel as we drove, knowing that if the track I was straddling intersected, we’d either have to back up all the way and start over, or walk to the village from there. It seemed like forever, but we finally arrived in the village safe and sound. It was a miracle, that was the only rut that was not crisscrossed by other ruts the whole two kilometers. I thanked the Lord for His guidance and sensed that something good was about to happen.

At that time in Yugoslavia, church services were conducted as follows: Opening prayer, welcoming visitors, one song, then the sermon, followed by an hour of praise and worship. As I meditated on the text I had chosen for my sermon, I prayed that the Holy Spirit would use it to speak to these precious people. However, as I sat on a small platform, in a barn converted for worship services, listening to the opening song, I suddenly felt a strong urge to change and speak on the Trinity. Since I didn’t have time to prepare an outline, I knew I would have to do it as the Spirit led me. So when I got up to preach, I told the congregation about this leading by the Holy Spirit. Much to my surprise, they all began to weep and cry. I couldn’t understand why it would strike them that way. I finished over an hour later—because of the need for translation, of course – they sang and worshiped and prayed with such great fervor it made me weep.

Following the service as we were eating a meal in the pastor’s home, he came to me with tears in his eyes. He told me that a few weeks ago another visiting minister had preached against the Trinity, declaring that God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were really just one person and His name was Jesus. It brought instant division in the church. So he told them all to pray for God to send another preacher. They agreed whatever that preacher said about the Trinity, whether he was for or against it, they would accept it to be the truth. So when I stood up and shared about the leading of the Holy Spirit to preach on the Trinity, the whole church accepted it as God’s message to them.

I learned that night when God uses His gifts of the Spirit He does so under circumstances that should convince anyone that they are doing the right thing by following His urging. It’s not easy, we are so set in our ways that sometimes the Spirit has to really jolt us into changing. This is not only true of altering a sermon theme, but also of modifying our decisions and actions. I drove away from that little village full of more faith and courage, I rejoiced in the knowledge that we all can be part of God’s will if we are only willing to listen and obey. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part V 

Verse 18: So I tell you, you are a small stone. But upon this rock, I will build My house of prayer, and the power of death will not be able to keep it from happening.”

There has been a lot of discussion over the centuries as to what rock Jesus is talking about. When we put it into context, with what Peter just said, then we might conclude that the rock is the revelation Peter received from God that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, the one true Savior of mankind. It is upon that confession, that serves as a foundation, Christ intended to build to the glory of His Father.

That immediately brings up the next question. What was He going to build on that foundation, and why is it called His “church?” The word for “build” in the Greek means: “to establish.” When something is established, it infers that it never existed before in this form. Let’s remember when Jesus overthrew the money changer’s tables in the Temple He declared that it was to be called a “House of Prayer,” but they had turned it into a den of thieves. Jesus then said that this Temple would be torn down, but in three days He would rebuild it.¹ John said this meant His body.²

So then, was not His body to become the new Temple in which the Father was worshiped? Listen to what the apostle Paul said: “A husband is the head of his wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the Savior of the church, which is His body.”³ Then, “I gladly accept my part of those sufferings in my body for the good of His body, the church.”⁴ Therefore, since His body is the new Temple, should it not also be called a house of prayer?

Here in this verse, the oldest Hebrew version of Matthew’s gospel renders the word “church” as “house of prayer.” In the Complete Jewish Bible, it is translated as “community.” As such, instead of the word “church” being used here in the English text, based on what Jesus said it would be permissible to substitute “temple,” and mean the same thing. The first mention in the English text of the gathering of believers as “church” is found in Acts 5:11. This is a translation of the Greek word “ekklēsia” which means “assembly or gathering.” This Greek word is rendered in English as “church” 115 times and as “assembly” 3 times in the King James Version. So when Jesus used “ekklēsia”He was not referring to a material building, but a living entity made up of believers.

As I said before, the term “rock,” and how it has been interpreted to identify the foundation for Christ’s “community of believers,” has been in debate for centuries. The English translation is inexpressive at two crucial points. Only a clear paraphrase can suffice in this case. Remember, Peter had just given the answer that the Father had revealed to him, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. We notice that Jesus referred to His disciple as Simeon son of Jonah. Jesus now says, “I am going to tell you something,” pointing at Simeon, “your Greek name is Petros, (a masculine proper noun meaning a small bolder), “and on this Petra (a feminine noun, referring to a rock like Gibraltar) “I am going to build my community and not even the power of the grave can keep it from happening.”

So we can see, the huge Rock upon which this community of believers was to be built was much larger than this small boulder whom God used to reveal that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. Peter, like the rest of us, was one small stone and part of that massive Rock, His body. This is in harmony with what we read: Therefore here is what Adonai Elohim says: “Look, I am laying in Zion a tested stone, a costly cornerstone, a firm foundation-stone; he who trusts [in Him] will not rush here and there.”⁵ No one can gather from these verses that Jesus was talking about the Roman Catholic Church, which would not be founded for another 300 years. Christ is the Rock upon which the new Temple would be built, not man. So no matter what the people said about Him, Jesus wanted His disciples to know what God said about Him.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, a great theologian and church bishop in the 4^th century had this to say: “This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that Peter’s confession is a rock, He stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means He will build His church upon this same confession and faith. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that He bestowed upon him this name, the rock. By this He shows, in consequence, that this is the common good of the church since also the common element of the confession was to come through Peter.”⁶

After Peter rightly identifies Him as the Son of the Living God, Jesus continues: “And the authority at death’s gates will not keep it from happening.” The city gates, in those days, is where courts convened, debates held, and people were confronted with charges and asked to repent, or were given accolades and everyone rejoiced.⁷ Isaiah comments on this practice, “Then He will give wisdom to the judges who rule His people. He will give strength to the people who are in conflict at the city gates.”⁸ The Psalmist tells how fortunate the man is who has a healthy, well-behaved family, “He will never be defeated when he opposes his opponent at the city gates.”⁹ But our Lord knew, He had battles at several gates which He would one day proclaim victory over.¹⁰ And one of those was when He would enter through the gate of death, which, for all people, was then locked behind them so they could not return unless someone with greater power was able to reopen those gates.

Then our Lord echoes what the prophet Isaiah said about Him, “I will put the key to David’s house around His neck. If He opens a door, no one will be able to close it. If He closes a door, no one will be able to open it.”¹¹ But the question now arises as to what Jesus meant when He said: “gates of Hades.” The Aramaic Version reads: “gates of Sheol” as does the Complete Jewish Bible. One of the earliest Hebrew versions of Matthew renders it: “gates of Gehenna.” British theologian J. B. Phillips renders it: “powers of death,” and Young’s Literal Translation reads “gates of Hades.” So what is the difference between Hades (or Gehenna) and Hell? There are some simple explanations: Hades is a non-permanent place where all disembodied souls go to await the resurrection; Hell is a permanent place where condemned souls will go for eternal punishment.

The apostle Peter, who heard our Lord say this to him, later on in a sermon gave his understanding by saying: “My brothers, I can tell you for sure about David, our great ancestor. He died, was buried, and his tomb is still here with us today. He was a prophet and knew something that God had said. God had promised David that someone from his own family would sit on David’s throne as king. David knew this before it happened. That is why he said this about that future king: ‘He was not left in the place of death. His body did not rot in the grave.’ David was talking about the Messiah rising from death.”¹²

Therefore, when Jesus said that the gates of Hades would not keep His church from being victorious, He was talking about His victory over death and being brought back to life by His heavenly Father, and this same promise of the ultimate resurrection would be made to all who followed and believed in Him. What a difference it makes when we preach on this text and use Hades (the grave) instead of Hell.

Verse 19: “I will give you the keys to God’s kingdom. When you speak judgment here on earth, that judgment will be God’s judgment. When you promise forgiveness here on earth, that forgiveness will be God’s forgiveness.”

Now the Master then tells His disciples that the day would come when He would share that authority with them. But we must see the figurative meaning in what our Lord is saying. Such as we find in apocalyptic writings: “Moreover, you priests, take the keys of the sanctuary, and throw them into the high heavens,”¹³ as well as: “We cannot enter until Michael comes, who holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; but wait and you will see the glory of God.”¹⁴ An oft-quoted Rabbi once said: “Every man who possesses learning without the fear of Heaven is like a treasurer who is entrusted with the keys to the vault but not with the keys to the front door: how is he supposed to get in?”¹⁵

Therefore, nothing any minister or organization does here on earth, no matter how holy it may seem to be, will ever change or alter what already exists in heaven. Therefore, the true meaning here is this: “Whatever is bound or loosed on earth by Christ’s disciples will be the same as that already forbidden or permitted in His heavenly kingdom by Christ Himself.” Furthermore, “keys” here do not mean keys to a literal gate or door, Christ is the only door and gate to the kingdom. Rather, keys is used here metaphorically in the sense of being enlightenment. In other words, Christ was saying that those whom He calls will be given the enlightenment to understanding the Kingdom of Heaven so you can to explain to those in darkness what it is all about.

As such, this authority given to the church will be exercised within the church. Declaring something right or wrong was restricted to the body of Christ, it was not political power over the world. In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church attempted to see it that way with the pope being the successor to St. Peter. But there is nothing anywhere in the Scriptures to support that point of view.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, who we quoted in the last verse, goes on to say: “This then is what Jesus says, that in the church would be the key to the kingdom of heaven. If anyone holds the key to this, to the church, in the same way, he will also hold it for all heavenly things. He who is counted as belonging to the church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. He who is a stranger to it, whatever his status may be, will have no communion in heavenly things. To this very day, the priests of the church have expelled those who are unworthy by this saying and admitted those who have become worthy by repentance.”¹⁶

And Epiphanius, a scholar, and bishop in the 5^th century had this to contribute: “For Christ is a rock which is never moved or worn away. Therefore, Peter gladly received his name from Christ to signify the established and unshaken faith of the church…The devil is the gateway of death who always hurries to stir up against the church calamities and temptations and persecutions. But the faith of the apostle, which was founded upon the rock of Christ, abides always unconquered and unshaken. And the very keys of the kingdom of the heavens have been handed down so that one whom he has bound on earth has been bound in heaven and one whom he has set free on earth he has also set free in heaven.”¹⁷

So as we can see, from the earliest days of the church that it was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Son of the Living God, who came to earth to be our Lord and Savior, was the foundation upon which the community of believers would be built. Therefore, since Jesus is the subject of this confession, then He is the Rock in that confession. And just like death could not keep Him from being resurrected, so the grave will not be able to hold back all those who make this confession and believe in Him from being resurrected to meet their Master and Redeemer in the sky.

y 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part IV

Verse 14: They answered, “Some people say you are John the Baptizer. Others say you are Elijah. And some say you are Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

I don’t think Jesus was in any way insulted that some people were comparing Him to John the Baptizer who announced His coming, or the Elijah-like prophet promised in the Scriptures,¹ or to the prophet Jeremiah who suffered greatly because of his preaching against the sins of Israel and the coming destruction. To be thought of as a prophet among the children of Israel put Him in the same category as Isaiah and Ezekiel.

However, while there is nothing specific in the Old Testament about Jeremiah playing any role in the coming of the Messiah, there is a unique connection made between Jeremiah and promised prophet.² In fact, Rabbi Judah, the son of Rabbi Simon was teaching about the prophet that Moses said would be like him. When he turned to the Scriptures that read: “like unto you”³ and “like unto Moses.”⁴ Rabbi Judah said: “This is Jeremiah, he was the one. In the evidence you will find all that is written of the one, is written of the other; one prophesied forty years, and the other prophesied forty years; the one prophesied concerning Judah and Israel, and the other prophesied concerning Judah and Israel; against the one those of his own tribe stood up, and against the other those of his own tribe stood up; the one was cast into a river, and the other into a dungeon; the one was delivered by means of a handmaid, and the other by the means of a servant; the one came with words of criticism, and the other came with words of criticism.”⁵

Therefore a tradition began spreading that Jeremiah was in fact the prophet spoken of by Moses. Rabbi Abraham Saba agrees with this compelling comparison between the ministry of Moses and Jeremiah that would lead anyone to consider Jeremiah as being the prophet talked about.⁶ So it is not odd that some of the local people imagined Jesus being Jeremiah incarnate. And even though John the Baptizer had not been dead that long, some were saying that Jesus was John the Baptizer reincarnate. However, since they both lived at the same time, it is obvious that they were talking about the spirit of John the Baptizer now motivating Jesus in His ministry.

Chrysostom covers this questioning in one of his sermons: “Note that Jesus is not asking them their own opinion. Rather, He asks the opinion of the people. Why? In order to contrast the opinion of the people with the disciples answer to the question. In this way, by the manner of His inquiry, they might be drawn gradually to a more sublime notion and not fall into the same common view as that of the multitude. Note that Jesus does not raise this question at the beginning of His preaching but only after He had done many miracles, had talked over with them many lofty teachings, and had given them many clear proofs of His divinity and of His union with the Father. Only then does He put this question to them.”⁷

As we can see from Chrysostom’s thinking and the manner in which Jesus asks this question, that He was putting His disciples on the spot as to what conclusion they had come to. It is significant that our Lord asked first what were the people saying, what rumors had the disciples heard going around with regard to His ministry in light of what they knew about Him and what Scripture had to say about the Messiah. So, once He got their input on what the crowds were saying it gave the disciples the opportunity to explain why their view was different.

Chrysostom continues his sermon: “Jesus did not ask ‘Who do the scribes and Pharisees say that I am?’ even though they had often come to Him and conversed with Him. Rather, He begins His questioning by asking ‘Who do the people say the Son of man is?’ as if to inquire about common opinion. Even if common opinion was far less true than it might have been, it was at least relatively more free from malice than the opinions of the religious leaders, which was teeming with bad motives. He signifies how earnestly He desires this divine economy to be confessed when He says, ‘Who do people say the Son of man is?’ for He thereby denotes His part in the godhead, which He does also in many other places.”⁸

Verse 15: Then Jesus said to His followers, “And who do you say I am?”

What some people said was typical of under-informed individuals and those with mystic tendencies in their thinking, but Jesus was more curious as to what His own disciples thought of Him. They were the ones into whose hands He would place the torch of the gospel. Would He be able to trust them after He was gone? Were they willing to face all the abuse, ridicule, persecution, and martyrdom that would come to them for being ambassadors of the Kingdom of God? He needed to know now, not while He was in the Garden of Gethsemane just before His arrest, nor while standing trial before Pilate in the Roman tribunal, but now, so He could help them gain trust in Him.

Several Early Church fathers give their opinion. First, early church bishop Hilary: “After the disciples had presented diverse human origins concerning Him, He asked what they themselves thought about Him. Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ But Peter had pondered the nature of the question. For the Lord had said, ‘Whom do men say that the Son of man is?’ Certainly his human body indicated He was a Son of man. But by adding ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Jesus indicated that they should consider something besides what He seemed in Himself, for He was a Son of man. Therefore what judgment concerning Himself did He desire? It was a secret He was asking about, into which the faith of those who believe ought to extend itself.”⁹ In other words, were the disciples going to be persuaded by what the people said or by what they knew from experience. This is the same thing every believer will be tested on when someone suggests to them that Jesus is not really who He said He was.

Then, in one of his sermons on this subject, Chrysostom gives this exhortation: “Since they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, some Jeremiah, or one of the prophets,’ and set forth their mistaken opinion, He next added, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ He was calling on them by His second inquiry to entertain some higher mental picture, indicating that their former opinion fell exceedingly short of His dignity. Thus Jesus probes for another opinion from them. He poses this second question that they might not fall in with the multitude who, because they saw His miracles as greater than human, accounted Him a man indeed but one that, as Herod had thought, may have appeared after a resurrection. To lead them away from such notions, He says, ‘But who do you say that I am?’—that is, you who are always with Me, and see Me working miracles and have yourselves done many mighty works by Me.”¹⁰

Their answer was not only important to Jesus, but it was important to them, and would be important to all who became part of His community of faith. If there ever was a time for any of these disciples to reconsider their acceptance of His invitation to follow Him, it was now. Not when they saw Him being led away to be condemned; not while they watched Him being beaten within an inch of His life; and not when He cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” He wanted tested, convinced, sold out disciples following Him by then.

I wonder if anyone reading Matthew for the first time would be so convinced by the Peter’s answer that they too could be counted on in the time of trouble. If so, can you imagine their disappointment when later on they get to that portion in Matthew’s account where it looks like all is lost? But even more, let each one of us ask ourselves, who do we really believe Jesus is? Can we convince ourselves that we will stay committed to that answer no matter what we may have to go through before our journey here on earth is finished.

Verse 16: Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Son of the living God, who has come into this world.”¹¹

The impulsive disciple, Peter, echoes the words of the Psalmist who spoke of the Messiah, “Today I have become your father, and you are my son.”¹² And Peter also invokes one of the many special names ascribed to God in Hebrew, that is translated into Greek as “Living God.”¹³ In Near East literature we find that the word “El” appears in the Assyrian language as “ilu”, in the Phoenician language, as well as in Hebrew as a universal name for God. It is also found in the South-Arabian dialects, and in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, as in Hebrew, to be an added element in proper names. It is used both in the singular and plural, both for other gods and for the God of Israel.

As a name of God it is used chiefly in poetry and prophetic discourse, rarely in prose, and then usually with some epithet attached, as El Qanna (God jealous).¹⁴ Other examples of its use with some attribute or epithet are: El ‘Elyon (“God most high”),¹⁵ El Shaddai (“God Almighty”),¹⁶ El ‘Olam (“God everlasting”),¹⁷ El Hai (“living God”),¹⁸ El Ro’i (“God of sight”),¹⁹ El Elohe Israel (“God of Israel”),²⁰ El Gibbor (“God of Might”).²¹ But to the children of Israel, these were applied only of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Cyril of Alexandria pens this thought after reading this text: “Peter did not say ‘you are a Christ’ or ‘a son of God’ but ‘the Christ, the Son of God.’ For there are many christened by grace, who have attained the rank of adoption [as sons], but [there is] only one who is by nature the Son of God. Thus, using the definite article, he said, the Christ, the Son of God. And in calling Him Son of the living God, Peter indicates that Christ Himself is life and that death has no authority over Him. And even if the flesh, for a short while, was weak and died, nevertheless it rose again, since the Word, who indwelled it, could not be held under the bonds of death.”²²

We weren’t there to see if Jesus smiled after Peter made this declaration, or if the other disciples shook their heads in agreement. But from what our Lord says next, it is quite certain that Peter had given the correct answer. Not only was it true, He was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, but more than that, Peter’s confirmation and even Jesus’ own agreement were still not enough to convince some, so that’s why our Lord informs Peter and everyone in the group as to where that answer came from, and why it can be trusted as authentic. Therefore, being aware of Peter and his mental abilities, Jesus was uninhibited in telling this future apostle that this revelation had not come through his own thinking as a logical conclusion, but it was granted him by a source to whom both of them were accountable, the Father in heaven.

Verse 17: Jesus answered, “What a blessing, Simon son of Jonah. No one taught you that. It was my Father in heaven who showed you who I am.”

In some Jewish writings we find the name “Simon” is also written as “Simeon.”²³ So, up to this point, Peter may have been called by his Hebrew name. Also, as Jesus points out, what Peter just expressed, could not have come simply by way of his own intuition, reasoning, or logic. As one venerable Rabbi said that in order to understand the divine: “A human being of flesh and blood, who cannot exactly know his times and his moments, must move from the natural to the supernatural in their thinking.”²⁴ In others words, man uses his own intelligence and vocabulary to explain divine wisdom. Therefore, any ensuing explanation is vulnerable to misinterpretation. But, when he receives a divine revelation from God there is no room for error, because God is truth.

So what Peter said about Jesus was not from man’s point of view, but from God in heaven. This should have been no surprise to the disciples, after all, did not the Scriptures say: “I, the LORD, will teach your children.”²⁵ This was a treasured promise held tightly by the Jews. Little did they know that the Messiah would come as a prophet from Nazareth to be their teacher. But one Jewish scholar seems to have seen a glimmer of light when examining this verse. He says: “In keeping with the abundance of precious stones and pearls of purest ray,²⁶ the time of the Messiah is four times referred to in Scripture as a time of abundant peace.²⁷”²⁸ In other words, the Messiah would not come to make war and liberate them from foreign rule, as many Jews expected, but to bring peace. Not peace in the political or civil sense, but peace of mind that God has come as promised to bring salvation to all who believe. As the angel choir sang upon His birth, “Peace on earth to men of good will.”

t

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part III

Verse 12: Then the disciples understood what Jesus meant. He was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread. He was telling them to guard against the interpretation of the Law by the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Finally, they got it! Jesus spent a great deal of time explaining to them the purpose of yeast and how it affects the dough,¹ but they failed to make the spiritual connection with the “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” which was their interpretation of how to live according to the Law. In many instances, they made up laws themselves that had nothing to do with what God gave to Moses.

Although this may not have had any influence on their thinking, the Jews did differentiate between yeast used by non-Jews and yeast used by Pharisees and Teachers of the Law.² Our Lord’s disciples no doubt knew about the Jewish restrictions on using yeast bread made by non-Jews for their own use and consumption.³ However, now they saw clearly that what Jesus is really talking about was the theology and philosophy used by the Pharisees in their interpretation of God’s Word. This is what Jesus’ labels as yeast.

The Jews also used yeast as a metaphor, as we see in this prayer: “O Sovereign of the Universe, You know full well that our will is to perform Your will, and what prevents us from doing so? The yeast in the dough and the subjection to the foreign Powers. May it be Your will to deliver us from their rule so that we may return to perform the statutes of Your will with a perfect heart!”⁴ In their comment on this prayer, Jewish scholars say that this yeast refers to: “evil impulses, which causes a ferment in the heart.”⁵

So by our Lord using yeast in this fashion, it was not new to the mind of His Jewish followers. One of their own Rabbis once said: “How poor must be the yeast when the one who kneaded it in the dough himself says it is bad!”⁶ In other words, Jesus was not surprised at the corrupt interpretation of Scripture by the scribes and Pharisees. One well-known Jewish Rabbi states: “God acknowledges that man fights a losing battle with his evil urge from the day he has been born.⁷ God admits that the prevailing circumstances favor the evil urge, Satan.”⁸

But the next question is this: What were the Pharisees and Sadducees teaching that Jesus was trying to warn His disciples against. The Pharisees represented the educated elite in Judah who prided themselves on how they controlled and dominated the religious affairs of the Jewish people. They were self-appointed experts on the Scriptures. And anyone who disagreed with them was in danger of being censored, ostracized, imprisoned or even put to death. When Jesus failed to fold under their pressure, they committed themselves to getting rid of Him, even by killing Him if necessary. The one major conflict between them and Jesus involved their belief that the verbal traditions of ancient rabbis were necessary for understanding the purpose and meaning of the Law while Jesus said that the Law, as given by God, was clear enough and did not need their interpretation.

On the other hand, the Sadducees agreed with Jesus against the Pharisees as far as seeing the Torah, or written law, as the sole source of divine authority. However, as priests, they felt they were the ones to properly interpret what the law said to everyday living and faith. They taught that man has free will and can choose between good and evil. But they harshly disagreed with Jesus by denying that the soul was immortal by claiming there was no such thing as an afterlife. Therefore, there would be no resurrection or rewards for the faithful, and punishment for the wicked.

Church scholar Jerome concludes that our Lord’s warning about adding the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the Word would result in false teaching. He writes: “Remember the yeast about which even the apostle speaks when he writes, ‘A little yeast spoils the whole dough.’⁹ The sort of yeast of which he speaks is something like the kind that Marcion and Valentinus¹⁰ and all heretics exhibited. It is to be avoided by all means. Yeast has this power, that, if mixed with flour, that which seemed small would grow into something larger and draw to its own essence the whole loaf. So too with heretical doctrine, if it tosses even a tiny spark into your heart, in a short time a huge combustion grows beneath and draws to itself a person’s entire substance. It was then that they finally understood that he had not meant them to beware simply of the yeast in the bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”¹¹

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was a Pharisee, describes the Sadducees errors.

The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explanation of their laws and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, – but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of harmony, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the philosophic sects among the Jews.¹²

What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances handed down from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to treat those observances as being obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. And because of these things many great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace fawning over them, the Pharisees have the multitudes on their side.”¹³

One thing that Jesus emphasized is that every word is important to understanding the whole message in its context. Let me illustrate the importance of examining every word. While teaching at the European Bible Seminary in Switzerland, one day I gave my class a quick quiz. One question read: “Which wife did Joseph marry first, Leah or Rachael?” They all got it wrong and couldn’t understand why until I pointed out that it wasn’t Joseph, but his father Jacob who married Leah first. I did this to show them how careful they needed to be when receiving instruction. Sometimes I feel agitated when I hear preachers say, “Jesus doesn’t care who you are, or what you are, or what you’ve done, He loves you anyway.” I want to jump up and say: “Of course He cares! Otherwise, God would not have sent His Son to die on the cross, if He didn’t care.”¹⁴

Verse 13: Jesus then went north to the area of Caesarea Philippi where He asked His followers, “Who do people here say I am?”

One Early Church scholar was quizzical about this venture of Jesus to the area of Caesarea Philippi. He writes: “Caesarea Philippi is outside Judea in the region of the Gentiles. Why therefore did our Lord not examine His own disciples within the borders of Judea? Why did He go far north into the territory of the Gentiles? But as our insignificance [as Gentiles] works against us, He questioned the disciples in Gentile territory. The result was that by the true and everlasting conviction of the blessed apostle Peter—what flesh and blood had not unveiled, the Father revealed from the heavens. Through faith, the Gentiles rather than the Jews would come to acknowledge the Son of God. This indeed occurred in the city of Caesarea—Cornelius who was first among the Gentiles to believe with all his own household, through the holy apostle Peter. The Lord was not inclined to question His own disciples in Judea when the Jews did not believe that he was the Son of God but regarded him merely as the son of Joseph.”¹⁵

Epiphanius certainly has an interesting point. Since, by this time, many people in Galilee had accepted Him as the Messiah, but the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees were still skeptical and most of them denounced Him as not being the Anointed One from God. Jesus had also had several contacts with non-Jews living in this area, and they too seemed quite open to accepting Him as a Prophet sent by God to bring the Jews back to living according to God’s Word. So what better way of getting a more authentic test of what people thought of Him was to go outside the area where these religious leaders had strong influence and control.

Early Bible scholars tell us that Cæsarea Philippi was called Paneas in ancient times, named after the mountain of Panium, or Mount Hermon, at the foot of which it was situated, near the springs of Jordan; but Philip the tetrarch, the son of Herod the Great, having rebuilt it, gave it the name of Cæsarea in honor of Tiberius, the reigning emperor, and he added his own name to it, to distinguish it from another Cæsarea on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The Jews referred to these two Caesareas as: “East Kesrin and West Kesrin.”¹⁶ It was afterwards named Neronias by young Herod Agrippa, in honor of Nero; and in the time of William of Tyre, it was called Belinas. It was, according to Josephus, a day’s journey from Sidon, and 14 miles from the lake of Phiala; and, according to Abul Feda,¹⁷ a journey of a day and a half from Damascus.¹⁸

Many have confused it with Dan, (or Leshem); but Eusebius and Jerome expressly affirm that Dan was four miles from Paneas, on the road to Tyre. One European visitor in the 1700’s said that it was called Banias, a hamlet of about twenty miserable huts, inhabited by Muslims.¹⁹ But Swiss traveler and geographer Johann Ludwig Burckhardt said it contained about 150 houses, inhabited by Turks, Greeks, etc.

But more important than the location, is the question Jesus asks His disciples. He knew what the priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees were saying about Him, but what about the general public. Historian Pliny tells us: “The river Jordanes rises from the spring of Panias, which has given its surname to Cæsarea.”²⁰ At the time of Pliny’s writing, he tells us that the Arabs called the Jordan River, “Bahr-el-Arden.” He also says: “Cæsarea Philippi also bore the name of Panias. It was situated at the south of Mount Hermon, on the Jordan, just below its source. It was built by Philip the Tetrarch, 3 B.C. King Agrippa called it Neronias; but it soon lost that name.”²¹

Jesus did not explain to His followers why He chose this site to ask this question. After all, this would be a 32 mile round trip from Bethsaida where He had been ministering. But we do know that in the open-air Pan Shrine, next to the cave mouth, there was a large niche, in which a statue of Pan (a half-goat, half-human creature) stood, with a large erect phallus, worshipped for its fertility properties. Surrounding him in the wall were many smaller niches, in which were statues of his attending nymphs. On the shrine in front of these niches, worshippers of Pan would congregate and partake in bizarre sexual rites, including copulation with goats – worshipped for their relationship to Pan.

Now, we don’t know for sure where they were standing in the Caesarea Philippi region, but Jesus’ next statement gives us an idea that they may have been standing within sight of the Rock of the Gods. This has led one unnamed Christian writer to suggest: “Might it be possible that He took His disciples to the most degenerate place possible to tell them: “THIS is where I want you to build my church. I want you to go out into the repugnant, degenerate places, where God is not even known. I want you to go out to places that make Caesarea Philippi look tame, and THAT is where I want you to build my church.” Because that is exactly what they did. They went to places in Asia Minor and the ends of the earth, where “gods” were worshipped in unspeakably awful manners and where Christians would be persecuted in a horrific manner, and they gave their lives doing EXACTLY what they were told to do by their Rabbi.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part II

Verses 5-6: Jesus and His followers then sailed across the lake. But His followers forgot to bring along any bread. So Jesus said to the followers, “Be careful! Guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

It is very generous for Matthew to say that the disciples “forgot” to bring any bread along. By all accounts, we could say they were irresponsible and careless for not remembering to bring bread with them. But again, without a doubt, Jesus knew of their failure to think ahead, so instead of chastising them before the boat left shore, He chose this occasion to guide them into deeper spiritual insights.

After the disciples realized that provisions for this trip were not taken care of, there is a good possibility that they began to point fingers at one another as to who forgot what. As the boat sailed along, you can imagine their animated bickering as their Master looked on, perhaps shaking His head. So, while in the process of figuring out what to do, suddenly Jesus interrupted their conversation with these words about the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I’m sure they looked at one another in surprise because now they had to figure out what He meant.

The main point the disciples missed concerning the connection between Jesus’ warning about the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees had nothing to do with the bread, it had to do with what had just happened before they set sail. They so quickly forgot that Jesus had just been confronted by these religious leaders and demanded a sign from heaven that He was the Messiah. Instead, Jesus gave them the sign of Jonah’s three days in the belly of the monster fish. Their demand for Him to prove Himself as the One sent from God was the yeast Jesus was talking about. Any small amount of the doubt, distrust, or disbelief of the Pharisees and Sadducees getting into the minds of the disciples could put the purpose for His whole ministry into danger.

Origen in his remarks on this faux pas by the disciples offers this comment: “The bread that they had before they crossed the lake was no longer of any use to them when they reached the other side. They needed one kind of bread before they crossed and a different kind afterward. They forgot to take any loaves with them because they were careless about carrying bread. The disciples of Jesus had also crossed to another side. They had passed from the material to the spiritual, from the sensory to the intellectual. This is why Jesus said to them after the crossing, be careful and be on your guard.”¹ In other words, they had not yet made the connection between the bread from the earth and the bread from heaven.

Origen continues: “The Pharisees and Sadducees offered a different dough of teaching, a truly ancient yeast-restricted to the bare letter of the law and therefore not free from evil. Jesus does not want His disciples to eat of it any longer. Instead, He mixed a new spiritual dough when He Himself offered to any who would abandon the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees and come to Him, the living bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world.² Anyone intending no longer to use the yeast and dough of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ teaching must first ‘be careful.’ He must ‘be on guard’ that he will not use the old yeast either accidentally or due to shortages. So Jesus tells His disciples first, ‘be careful,’ and second, ‘be on your guard.’”³ How true today when we use men’s thinking to understand the things of God instead of using God’s thinking to understand the things of men.

But preacher Chrysostom has a different perspective on what’s involved here. He writes: “Why did Jesus not say plainly, ‘Beware of their teaching?’ His purpose is rather to remind them of what had just been done—the feeding of the multitude—for He knew they had already forgotten its significance. But Christ did not immediately admonish them. Rather, He took their own thoughtlessness as the occasion for reproof. Remember that He had not reproved them when they had earlier said, ‘Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?’ It seemed better now to say to them what He says here. He did not want to rush hastily on to another miracle. He did not admonish them before the multitude, nor did He seek to elevate Himself in their eyes. He might have been much harsher with them after their forgetfulness following the miracle of the loaves. All of these considerations gave His reproof a greater meaning.”⁴

On this subject, early church Bishop Hilary had this to say: “The apostles are ordered to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They are warned not to be involved in the disputes of the Jews. The works of the law are now to be viewed in the light of faith. They are forewarned that they, into whose time and age the Truth had appeared incarnate, should judge nothing except those things that lie in the hope of the truth that is revealed. They are warned against allowing the doctrine of the Pharisees, who are unaware of Christ, to corrupt the effectiveness of the truth of the Gospel.”⁵

It amazes me how many “Christless” sermons are preached from pulpits and through Christian media today. It’s as though the speakers expect the listeners to already have a working knowledge of the “Jesus Element” in their lecture. When this happens, the message becomes mere words of men speaking for God, not the voice of God speaking through men. The yeast factor then becomes what man makes out of the Gospel, not what the Gospel makes out of the man. And just like yeast, it doesn’t take much to influence the whole message and turn what is the profoundness of God into the philosophy of men.

Verses 7-8: His followers discussed what He meant by this. They wondered, “Did Jesus say this because we forgot to bring bread?” Jesus was aware that they were discussing this. So He asked them, “Why are you talking about not having bread? Your faith is so small.”

Here it is quite obvious that the disciples were not listening to Jesus on a spiritual plateau but on an earthly level. Believe it or not, today’s believers often view Scripture the same way. When it talks about riches, they think of earthly wealth, not spiritual resources. When the Bible speaks of blessings, they more often than not think of man’s flattery rather than God’s favor. And when the Word of God talks about winning the victory, they rejoice in their accomplishment for God rather than God’s triumph for them.

Church theologian Origen made this note on what occurred here. He writes: “After Jesus said this, the disciples thought to themselves, ‘If we had bread, then we wouldn’t need the yeast from the Pharisees and Sadducees, but since we don’t have bread, we are at risk of taking their yeast. The Savior does not want us to return to their instruction, so He told us ‘be careful and be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’”² I would be more inclined to think, that rather than the disciples having the foresight to see Jesus’ reference to yeast here as having anything to do with the philosophical influence that the Pharisees or Sadducees may have on their bread, they more likely were thinking they should not borrow bread from anyone who was a Pharisee. That’s why Jesus does not reiterate their failure to bring bread, but about their faith in Him to provide.

Origen then goes on to say: “But Jesus, seeing into their hearts and hearing their inner arguments, reproves them as the Shepherd of the heart because they did not understand nor remember the bread which they had received from Him. Because of what they had received, even when they appeared to lack bread, they did not need the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”³ Again this venerable teacher is giving the disciples more credit for perceiving our Lord’s intentions than what they deserve. This reasoning is clear by what the Master then has to say in the next verse. The bread represents that which feed humans in order for them to live while yeast is the ingredient in bread that causes it to take shape and determines its texture. He was giving them the bread they needed, but He wanted to make sure that when it came time for them to make bread, which is the Good News, that they not allow it to be influenced by the thinking of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Again, let’s remind ourselves of what “yeast” the Pharisees and Sadducees had that could affect their message to the lost sheep of Israel and the Gentiles. Basically, the Pharisees believed that in addition to the written Torah, accepted as having been dictated by God to Moses, there exists a verbal Torah, consisting of the collection of spoken laws, interpretations, and traditions transmitted verbally by God to Moses and then kept alive through memorization. Furthermore, that these verbal teachings had precedence over the written law. As for the Sadducees, they accepted the written Torah but did not believe in resurrection, spirits, or angels. But our Lord made it clear that the written Word was from God as well as the spoken Word which He was bringing to them. However, the written Word applied to the Old Agreement, while His spoken Word was the basis for the New Agreement.

Then Chrysostom concentrates on the disciples having such little faith. He writes: “Note how intense is Jesus’ displeasure. Nowhere else does He appear to have rebuked them so harshly. How does He do this? He is challenging their prejudices about food laws. Already He had said, ‘Are you still without understanding?’⁴ Now in this place, with a strong rebuke He says, ‘O men of little faith.’”⁵ In my years of ministry I’ve met fellow ministers who confessed that many times they would reach Friday or even Saturday without any idea or inspiration for their sermons on Sunday. So they habitually reached for something they preached over and over. I tried to share with them that if they really believe that their calling is from God, then they need to trust Him to guide them to find the bread needed. But they would have to keep asking, seeking, and knocking in order to find where it was stored.

To facilitate this, I shared with them that since the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, God only sent one upgrade and that was through His Son.⁶ After that, God had no intention to send any further updates or upgrades every few months or years, so we must accept that what is already in God’s Word will be all He intends to say on that subject until the end. As such, then we should look at what nutrition our flock needs in order for them to be sustained and grow in the spirit and the knowledge of Christ. This we can easily ascertain by looking at our calendar to see if any special days or holidays are coming up; to look at our creed of faith to see what doctrines they need to be reminded of and have explained more fully. Also, what characteristics and works of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit need to be given new light for the trinity to be appreciated more by the believer. By selecting any one of these, we are exercising faith that as we read and study, the Spirit of God will guide us to the truths He wants us to expound on.

Verses 9-10: Don’t you understand what I’m saying? Remember the five flatbreads that fed the 5,000 people and the many baskets you filled with the bread that was left over? And remember the seven flatbreads that fed the 4,000 people and the many baskets you filled that time?”

This is where we can clearly see that the disciples of Jesus were still so trapped in their material and physical world that they could not see a spiritual truth when revealed to them. Jesus now seems upset with them because they failed to recognize that if He could feed 5,000 with five loaves and 4,000 with seven loaves why would He fret over how much bread was available. This definitely confirms beyond doubt the existence of two miracles in which Christ fed multitudes with a minimum amount of food. Some speculate that these stories are two versions of the same incident, but here Christ clearly debunks such conjecture.

As Chrysostom points out: “Leniency is not always a good thing. Christ sometimes allows the disciples freedom for their opinions. At other times He reproves them. By this variable nurturing He provides for their salvation. Note how at the same time His reproof is strong and yet mild. For all but excusing Himself to them for His severe reproofs to them, He says, ‘Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?’ He specifies the numbers and the fragments, so as to bring them to a clear recollection of what had just happened and making them more attentive to the future.”⁷

But we must also add, there was more to this than just the summation of these two events. To Jews, even to this day, numbers have special meanings. One Roman Catholic scholar has suggested that at the first feeding, the 12 baskets of leftovers represents the 12 tribes of Israel and therefore the bread of the first covenant. But there were also 12 disciples and as such it could have also represented the bread for the last covenant. Then we have the 7 baskets that were collected on the third day, which is taken as the bread that would be dispensed after our Lord’s resurrection and the number 7 represents fullness, perfection or completion.⁸ Yet, others see a different application. The twelve baskets were representative of that 12,000 who were actually fed the first time when you add women and children, and the seven baskets represent the 7,000 fed the second time when you make the same calculation.

Jesus’ disciples were uneducated fishermen, so it is quite unlikely that Jesus would try and embarrass them by speaking in academic terms. In simple language, we can see where fishermen might be able to reason that no matter how small or large the net, on any given day you may catch more fish than on other days. It all depends on the conditions when the net is thrown overboard. But all of this becomes less important when the keyword in Jesus’ admonishment is “remember,” and that’s what fueled the important phrase, “don’t you understand.” The number one thought here then is that there will always be sufficient spiritual bread to feed those hungry for God’s message. So the concern is not the bread, but what goes into the bread.

Verse 11: So how could you think that I am concerned about bread? I am telling you to be careful and guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

How clear and well expressed is our Savior’s concern that the bread He wanted fed to those hungry for salvation not be influenced by the doctrines and philosophy of the Pharisees and Sadducees. That would certainly affect how He would be presented as the Living Word and the Risen Savior. It would no longer be “what did men say,” but “what did the Word say.” And there would be no doubt about His being bodily raised from death by the One who sent Him, instead of teaching that it was their hope that He was still alive in their memories instead of in their hearts that would keep them going.

The venerable early church scholar Origen had this to say about how believers should understand this teaching of Jesus on bread as representing His message. He writes: “Some were distracted by the use of bread and yeast. In order to clarify and enlighten them in a still symbolic way that He was not speaking about literal bread but about yeast as representing teaching, Jesus adds, ‘How is it that you do not understand that I was not talking to you about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Even though He still had not exposed the literal meaning of His words but continued as before, the disciples would have understood the Savior as referring to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees as leaven.”⁹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Part I

Verse 1: The Pharisees and Sadducees approached Jesus. They wanted to test Him. So they asked Him to show them a miracle as a sign from God.

Here we have the Pharisees trying once again to do what they failed to accomplish before,¹ and that was trick Jesus into performing a miracle at their command to prove He was the Messiah sent from God. This was not unusual since Jews were known to argue even among themselves over matters of divine authority and lawful activities. We find an interesting example of this in a story about how they accused a Galilean heretic, whom some Jewish scholars identify as a Sadducee, of the way he filled out a Bill of Divorce.² To say that they were picky, is being mild.

Their questioning of Jesus may have been motivated by the fact that since God gave Noah the rainbow as a sign to back up His assurances, it was not uncommon to ask for a similar sign of anyone claiming to have divine authority. We see in Jewish literature that such a sign would accompany the Messiah. It reads: “’Listen,’ said the merchant, ‘to the words of my father, addressed to me just before his death,’ “Never expect to behold the banner of Messiah until the bow appears in the heavens, flashing forth rays and colors of light so supernaturally glorious and splendid, that the sheen of it will light up the whole world. When this happens then look for the Messiah.” We learn this from the mysterious meaning of the saying, ‘I will look upon the bow and remember the everlasting covenant.’”³

Early church preacher Chrysostom gives us his thoughts on what happened here: “Their inquiry was rightly deserving of anger and great displeasure. Yet the goodhearted and foresighted One is not angry. He pities them even as they tempt Him. He is sad for their being so incurably infected after watching Him demonstrate His awesome power. They did not seek Him out in order to believe but to lay hold of Him. Had they come with any readiness to believe, He would have given such a sign. For He who said to the woman, ‘It is not fair,’⁴ and afterward gave, much more would He have shown His bounty to these officials. But since they did not seek to believe, He, therefore, calls them hypocrites, because in another place they said one thing and meant another. If they had believed, they would not even have asked. It is evident that they did not believe, since when reproved and exposed, they did not remain with Him, nor did they admit ‘We are ignorant and seek to learn.’ But for what sign from heaven were, they asking? Either that He should stop the sun, or curb the moon, or bring down thunderbolts, or work a change in the air, or some other such thing.”⁵

This is another way of saying, if they didn’t believe on Jesus after He performed so many miracles, even one more would not have brought them faith in Him as the Messiah. Jesus already rebuked their surreptitious effort by referring to the prophet Jonah. So now He will point to their weather predictions based on the redness of the sun in the evening and in the morning.⁶

Verses 2-3: Jesus answered, “When you people see the sunset, you know what the weather will be. If the sky is red, you say we will have good weather. And in the morning, if the sky is dark and red, you say that it will be a rainy day. These are signs of the weather. You see these signs in the sky and know what they mean. In the same way, you see the things that are happening now. These are also signs, but you don’t know their meaning.”

Church theologian Jerome tells us: “The meaning is clear from the order and harmony of the elements. Both fair and rainy days can be forecast. But the scribes and Pharisees, who were viewed as doctors of the law, could not discern the coming of the Savior from what the prophets had predicted.”⁷ In other words, although they were seen as religious scholars, and while they were knowledgeable of the physical world, they were blind to the spiritual world.

I remember as a child while living in my hometown which was a fishing port on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay, hearing the ship captains say, “A red sky at night is a sailor’s delight. A red sky in the morning is a sailor’s warning.” Jesus knew full well that for the Jews the day of the coming of the Messiah was the biggest kept secret. This is captured in their discussion of the verse in Scripture that says: “That which exists is far away and deep, so deep, that it can’t be discovered.”⁸ In their commentary on Ecclesiastes, we read where it says: “The secret of the day of death, and the secret of the day when the king Messiah comes, who by his wisdom can find out?”⁹ So, on the surface, what the Pharisees were asking for here was only to prove for themselves that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, the Messiah they had been waiting for. But Jesus sees past this feigned intellectual approach. He knew it was a trick being played on Him so they would have a good reason to have Him arrested and put out of business for pretending to be the Anointed One.

The early church Bishop of Mopsuestia gives us his impression of what occurred here: “Jesus exposes the rashness of their question, saying, ‘You regard the air as moving according to a certain order, so that by means of signs you are able to predict when the weather will be fair and when stormy. But in the case of miracles you recognize no order at all. You do not recognize any occasions on which doing or not doing wonders is appropriate. You assume that such a thing happens completely without order and without any reason.’”¹⁰ Here we see that early on in the church, scholars believed that nothing Jesus did was on the spur of the moment, it was all planned from the beginning.

When Chrysostom preached on this text, he had the following to say: “What then does Jesus say to all this? ‘You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.’ Observe Christ’s meekness and moderation. Even earlier He did not just refuse and say ‘no sign will be given.’ And so now He goes further and states the reason why He gives them no sign, even though they were not asking for information. What then was the cause? It is much like the sky, He says, where one thing is a sign of a storm and another of fair weather. No one when seeing the sign of foul weather would expect a calm, nor in calm and fair weather would one expect a storm. So you would do well to think the same with regard to Me. My coming in this present time is different from the way in which I will come in the future. Now there is need of these signs here on the earth. But those in heaven are stored up in preparation for that time. Now as a physician I have come to heal. Then I will come as a judge. Now I am seeking those who have gone astray. Then I will demand an account. Now I have come in a hidden manner. Then I will come much more publicly, folding up the heaven, hiding the sun, not permitting the moon to give its light. Then ‘the very powers of the heavens will be shaken,’¹¹ and the manifestation of My coming will imitate lightning that appears suddenly.”¹²

Chrysostom leaves no doubt that since these doubters were asking for a sign that Jesus was truly the awaited Messiah, that our Lord anticipated the sign they would need at a future date that would prove Him to be the Anointed One. As Jesus continues His discourse, we can see what point in time He was talking about.

Verse 4: “It is the distrusting and immoral people who want to see a miracle as a sign from God. But no miracle will be done to prove anything to them. The only sign will be the miracle that happened to Jonah.” Then Jesus turned and walked away.

Jesus used the Pharisee’s general knowledge of this fact to point out how uninformed there were about even more important signs that were occurring in the spiritual sky of their day. Then Jesus repeats His suggestion that they look for something that will remind them of what happened to the prophet Jonah. We know that when He first mentioned this, it involved Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the big fish God created for that purpose.¹³ Although Matthew does not point this out, the language he uses to describe what Jesus did next suggests that our Lord turned and walked away in disgust because the light-headed, hard-hearted religious experts were unwilling to accept the truth right before their eyes.

Early Church fathers had various opinions on what our Lord was communicating here. For instance, Origen says: “Now Jesus called them evil because their wicked deeds had made them evil people (evil because of deliberate wickedness) and adulterous because when the Pharisees and Sadducees left their figurative spouse, the True Word, they committed adultery, with falsehood and the law of sin. Assume there are two laws: the law of our bodies, which is in conflict with the law of our mind. We might say then that the law of the mind (that is, the law of the Spirit) is the husband to whom the soul was betrothed by God as wife according to the Scripture; a wife is married to a man by God.¹⁴ But the other law is a seducer of the soul and as such is called ‘adulterous.’”¹⁵ This is another way of saying that when we look for evidence in spiritual things the same way we look for evidence in material or physical things, we betray our trust in God by allowing our carnal nature dominate our spiritual nature in the decisions we make and the actions we take.

Then Bible scholar Chromatius adds: “Just as that whale was not able to digest Jonah nor was able to keep him alive inside himself for long, so too voracious Death assuredly swallowed the Lord. But since he was not able to keep Him alive and in custody inside himself, Death regurgitated Him on the third day, just as the whale regurgitated Jonah. For Death, though accustomed always to eat and digest the dead, was nauseated and vomited out the Lord alive. Truly he was not able to digest Him, for He was a rock—as the apostle says: ‘Moreover, Christ was a rock.’¹⁶ And indeed, the whale gulped and expelled only Jonah. But Death in ingesting the Lord cast out not Him alone but many with Him. For we read that many corpses of the holy had risen up with the Lord.’¹⁷”¹⁸

Also, Bishop Hilary offers this commentary: “The Lord compares Himself by means of like appearance with one whom He had dispatched to Nineveh to accomplish the coming suffering for the proclamation of repentance. Indeed, Jonah was thrown from the ship by furiously raging winds and was devoured by the whale. After the space of three days, he was cast out alive, not retained by the monster. He was not digested as food, but contrary to the nature of the human body, he escaped whole and unharmed into the open air. He prefigured the Lord. Therefore, Jesus demonstrated that this sign of His own power had been divinely constituted, thus proclaiming in Himself the forgiveness of sins through repentance. For He was soon to be cast out of Jerusalem and the synagogue by the blast of unclean spirits and by the power of Pontius Pilate.”¹⁹

Verse 5: Jesus and His followers then sailed across the lake. But His followers forgot to bring along any bread.

It is very generous for Matthew to say that the disciples “forgot” to bring any bread along. By all accounts, we could say they were irresponsible and careless for not remembering to bring bread with them. But again, without a doubt, Jesus knew of their failure to think ahead, so instead of chastising them before the boat left shore, He chose this occasion to offer them deeper spiritual insight.

Origen in his remarks on this faux pas by the disciples offers this comment: “The bread that they had before they crossed the lake was no longer of any use to them when they reached the other side. They needed one kind of bread before they crossed and a different kind afterward. They forgot to take any loaves with them because they were careless about carrying bread. The disciples of Jesus had also crossed to another side. They had passed from the material to the spiritual, from the sensory to the intellectual. This is why Jesus said to them after the crossing, be careful and be on your guard.”²⁰ In other words, they had not yet made the connection between the bread from the earth and the bread from heaven.

Origen continues: “The Pharisees and Sadducees offered a different dough of teaching, a truly ancient yeast-restricted to the bare letter of the law and therefore not free from evil. Jesus does not want His disciples to eat of it any longer. Instead, He mixed a new spiritual dough when He Himself offered to any who would abandon the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees and come to Him, the living bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world.²¹ Anyone intending no longer to use the yeast and dough of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ teaching must first ‘be careful.’ He must ‘be on guard’ that he will not use the old yeast either accidentally or due to shortages. So Jesus tells His disciples first, ‘be careful,’ and second, ‘be on your guard.’”²² How true today when we use men’s thinking to understand the things of God instead of using God’s thinking to understand the things of men.

But preacher Chrysostom has a different perspective on what’s involved here. He writes: “Why did Jesus not say plainly, ‘Beware of their teaching?’ His purpose is rather to remind them of what had just been done—the feeding of the multitude—for He knew they had already forgotten its significance. But Christ did not immediately admonish them. Rather, He took their own thoughtlessness as the occasion for reproof. Remember that He had not reproved them when they had earlier said, ‘Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?’ It seemed better now to say to them what He says here. He did not want to rush hastily on to another miracle. He did not admonish them before the multitude, nor did He seek to elevate Himself in their eyes. He might have been much harsher with them after their forgetfulness following the miracle of the loaves. All of these considerations gave His reproof a greater meaning.”²³

Two centuries ago, an English poet, painter, and etching illustrator named William Blake, largely unknown during his lifetime, wrote a work that was done in what he called: “visual artistry.” In one volume of poetry, where he portrayed the characters in Geoffrey Chaucer’s, “The Canterbury Tales,” we find these words: “It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.”¹ Mister Blake does not go on to explain, but a closer examination reveals the secret of this saying.

You see, enemies are those who tell lies in an effort to tear you down while friends are those who tell the truth in order to build you up. So, one may ask, what if a friend tells you a lie? It’s simple, then they are not really your friend, they are your enemy. By the same token, if an enemy tells you the truth, they thereby have become your friend.

Too often, our friends are described as those who like the same music we like, go to the same places we go, play the same games we play, read the same books we read, and enjoy doing the same things we do. But that does not necessarily make them our friends. Rather, they are best described as companions, good company, associates, and people we feel comfortable being with. But many times, it is exactly those people in our life who we find out have not been telling us the truth, and that’s hard to take. That’s why it is so hard to forgive them.

Lies can often be exposed and thereby make the teller out to be a liar. Lies can wound, and, if left untreated, can become infected and cause unnecessary pain and agony. However, the truth goes much deeper. At first, it can cause severe pain and grief, but when seen for what it is, truth can be a calming lotion that helps gets rid of the irritant causing real problems in our experience with situations.

Lies, for the most part, may put a dent in your character and reputation, but when reveal as untruth you still are a sound and resilient, individual. Thus, you are not required to make any significant changes in your personality. But truth is not meant to bounce off and make no lasting impression. Just like a high-pressure hose or a sand blaster, truth can remove stains, scum and scales that have grown on our personality over time. The purpose of truth is to make us look cleaner and brighter for others to admire. So it does require change. Sometimes minor changes, and at other times significant changes, but all for the better.

So the next time a friend tells you the truth, don’t treat them like an enemy. Don’t push them away and avoid any contact with them. If they weren’t a real friend they would have let you remain as you are. They are only trying to help, not hurt. When you realize that “forgiveness,” means the willingness to stop demanding punishment for the person who supposedly hurt you, and the fact they were telling the truth, then to forgive them is really not that hard to do. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

1William Blake (1757-1827): Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion, Printed by William Blake, South Molton Street, London, 1804, p. 91