Bibelkommentare

None of Christ's miracles are recorded in this chapter, but four of his discourses. Here is, I. A conference with the Pharisees, who challenged him to show them a sign from heaven, Mt 16:1-4. II. Another with his disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees, Mt 16:5-12. III. Another with them concerning himself, as the Christ, and concerning his church built upon him, Mt 16:13-20. IV. Another concerning his sufferings for them, and theirs for him, Mt 16:21-28. And all these are written for our learning.

The Pharisees insidiously require our Lord to give them a sign, Matthew 16:1. They are severely rebuked for their hypocrisy and wickedness, Matthew 16:2-5. The disciples are cautioned to beware of them and their destructive doctrine, Matthew 16:6-12. The different opinions formed by the people of Christ, Matthew 16:13, Matthew 16:14. Peter's confession, and our Lord's discourse on it, Matthew 16:15-20. He foretells his sufferings, and reproves Peter, Matthew 16:21-23. Teaches the necessity of self-denial, and shows the reasons on which it is founded, Matthew 16:24-26. Speaks of a future judgment, Matthew 16:27. And promises the speedy opening of the glory of his own kingdom on earth, Matthew 16:28.

CHAPTER 16.

SIGN SEEKERS: CAESAREA PHILIPPI.

Again a dramatically impressive juxtaposition of events. First an ominous encounter with ill-affected men professedly in quest of a sign, then in a place of retreat a first announcement in startlingly plain terms of an approaching tragic crisis.

CHAPTER 16

Matthew 16:3. ὑποκριταί] omitted before τὸ μέν in C* D L Δ, Curss. Verss. Aug. Deleted by Lachmann (who has καί instead, only after C**) and Tisch. Correctly; borrowed from Luke 12:56.

In accordance with important testimony, Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly deleted τοῦ προφήτου, Matthew 16:4 (comp. Matthew 12:39), as also αὐτοῦ, Matthew 16:5.

Matthew 16:8. ἐλάβετε] Lachm.: ἔχετε, after B D א, Curss. Vulg. It., and other Verss. (not Or.). Correctly; ἐλάβ. was more likely to be derived mechanically from Matthew 16:7 than ἔχετε to have been adopted from Mark 8:17. Had the latter been the case, we should likewise have found ἔχομεν in Matthew 16:7.

Matthew 16:11. ἄρτου] Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.: ἄρτων, which Griesb. likewise approved, in accordance with a preponderance of testimony. The sing, would naturally come more readily to the transcribers, and that on account of the material rather than the numerical contrast.

For προσέχειν, B C* L א, Curss. Verss. Or. have: προσέχετε δέ (D, Curss. and Verss., however, omitting the δέ). Correctly adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The infinitive, as well as the omission of δέ, originated in the reference of the words not having been understood.

Matthew 16:12. τοῦ ἄρτου] Tisch. 8 : τῶν Φαρισαίων κ. Σαδδουκ., only after א* 33, Syrcur; Lachm. has τῶν ἄρτων, which, however, is not so well supported as in Matthew 16:11 (B L א**), besides having the appearance of being simply conformed to this verse.

The reading of Tisch. 8 is somewhat of a gloss.

Matthew 16:13. με] is omitted after τίνα in B א and several Verss. and Fathers; in C it is found after λέγ. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. Omitted because, from the circumstance of τ. υἱὸν τ. ἀνθρ. following (otherwise in Mark and Luke), it seemed superfluous and out of place.

Matthew 16:20. διεστείλατο] Orig. already found ἐπετίμησεν in Codd. So Lachm. after B* D, Arm. Taken from Mark 8:30, Luke 9:21, for διαστέλλω occurs nowhere else in Matthew.

ὁ Χριστός] Elz., after numerous and important Codd. (also C א**): Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός. But Ἰησοῦς is omitted by very important authorities, and, as it is out of place in the present connection, the transcriber must have inserted it mechanically.

Matthew 16:23. μου εἶ] B C א, 13, 124: εἶ ἐμοῦ (so Lachm. Tisch. 8), or εἶ μου. D, Marcell., in Eus. Vulg. It. al.: εἶ ἐμοί (so Fritzsche). With such a want of unanimity among the authorities, the reading of the Received text cannot be said to have a preponderance of testimony, while the variations turn the scales in favour of εἶ ἐμοῦ.

Matthew 16:26. ὠφελεῖται] Lachm. Tisch.: ὠφεληθήσεται, after B L א, Curss. Verss. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Altered to be in conformity with the verbs in the future that precede and follow. Comp. also Mark 8:36-37.

Matthew 16:28. τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων] Elz.: τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, after K M Π. Fritzsche: τῶν ὧδε ἑστῶτες, after Ev. 49. Both are to be rejected, owing to the testimony being too inadequate. Scholz and Tisch. 7 : ὧδε ἑστῶτες, after E F G H V X Γ Δ, Curss. No doubt τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων is supported by the preponderating testimony of B C D L S U א, Curss. Or. Ephr. Chrys. Epiph. Theodoret, Damasc., and adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8; still it is clearly taken from Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27. It therefore remains that ὧδε ἑστῶτες is the correct reading.

Mt 16:1-12.

A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--CAUTION AGAINST THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES.

For the exposition, see on

Mr 8:11-21.

See also Mark 8:11-12.

The Pharisees also, and the Sadducees - See the notes at Matthew 3:7.

Tempting - That is, trying him - feigning a desire to see evidence that he was the Messiah, but with a real desire to see him make the attempt to work a miracle and fail, so that they might betray him and ruin him.

A sign from heaven - Some miraculous appearance in the sky. Such appearances had been given by the prophets; and they supposed, if he was the Messiah, that his miracles would not all be confined to the earth, but that he was able to give some signal miracle from heaven. Samuel had caused it to thunder 1 Samuel 12:16-18; Isaiah had caused the shadow to go back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz Isaiah 38:8; and Moses had sent manna from heaven, Exodus 16:4; John 6:31. It is proper to say, that though Christ did not choose then to show such wonders, yet far more stupendous signs from heaven than these were exhibited at his death.

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees - Though a short account of these has been already given in a note on Matthew 3:7, yet, as one more detailed may be judged necessary, I think it proper to introduce it in this place.

The Pharisees were the most considerable sect among the Jews, for they had not only the scribes, and all the learned men of the law of their party, but they also drew after them the bulk of the people. When this sect arose is uncertain. Josephus, Antiq. lib. v. c. xiii. s. 9, speaks of them as existing about 144 years before the Christian era. They had their appellation of Pharisees, from פרש parash, to separate, and were probably, in their rise, the most holy people among the Jews, having separated themselves from the national corruption, with a design to restore and practice the pure worship of the most High. That they were greatly degenerated in our Lord's time is sufficiently evident; but still we may learn, from their external purity and exactness, that their principles in the beginning were holy. Our Lord testifies that they had cleansed the outside of the cup and the platter, but within they were full of abomination. They still kept up the outward regulations of the institution, but they had utterly lost its spirit; and hypocrisy was the only substitute now in their power for that spirit of piety which I suppose, and not unreasonably, characterized the origin of this sect.

As to their religious opinions, they still continued to credit the being of a God; they received the five books of Moses, the writings of the prophets, and the hagiographa. The hagiographa or holy writings, from αγιος holy, and γραφω I write, included the twelve following books - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. These, among the Jews, occupied a middle place between the law and the prophets, as divinely inspired. The Pharisees believed, in a confused way, in the resurrection, though they received the Pythagorean doctrine of the metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. Those, however, who were notoriously wicked, they consigned, on their death, immediately to hell, without the benefit of transmigration, or the hope of future redemption. They held also the predestinarian doctrine of necessity, and the government of the world by fate; and yet, inconsistently, allowed some degree of liberty to the human will. See Prideaux.

The Sadducees had their origin and name from one Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, president of the Sanhedrin, and teacher of the law in one of the great divinity schools in Jerusalem, about 264 years before the incarnation.

This Antigonus having often in his lectures informed his scholars, that they should not serve God through expectation of a reward, but through love and filial reverence only, Sadoc inferred from this teaching that there were neither rewards nor punishments after this life, and, by consequence, that there was no resurrection of the dead, nor angel, nor spirit, in the invisible world; and that man is to be rewarded or punished here for the good or evil he does.

They received only the five books of Moses, and rejected all unwritten traditions. From every account we have of this sect, it plainly appears they were a kind of mongrel deists, and professed materialists. See Prideaux, and the authors he quotes, Connex. vol. iii. p. 95, and 471, etc., and see the note on Matthew 3:7.

In Matthew 22:16, we shall meet with a third sect, called Herodians, of whom a few words may be spoken here, It is allowed on all hands that these did not exist before the time of Herod the Great, who died only three years after the incarnation of our Lord. What the opinions of these were is not agreed among the learned. Many of the primitive fathers believed that their distinguishing doctrine was, that they held Herod to be the Messiah; but it is not likely that such an opinion could prevail in our Savior's time, thirty years after Herod's death, when not one characteristic of Messiahship had appeared in him during his life. Others suppose that they were Herod's courtiers, who flattered the passions of their master, and, being endowed with a convenient conscience, changed with the times; but, as Herod was now dead upwards of thirty years, such a sect could not exist in reference to him; and yet all allow that they derived their origin from Herod the Great.

Our Lord says, Mark 8:15, that they had the leaven of Herod, i.e. a bad doctrine, which they received from him. What this was may be easily discovered:

1. Herod subjected himself and his people to the dominion of the Romans, in opposition to that law, Deuteronomy 17:15, Thou shalt not set a king over thee - which is not thy brother, i.e. one out of the twelve tribes.

2. He built temples, sat up images, and joined in heathenish worship, though he professed the Jewish religion; and this was in opposition to all the law and the prophets.

From this we may learn that the Herodians were such as, first, held it lawful to transfer the Divine government to a heathen ruler; and, secondly, to conform occasionally to heathenish rites in their religious worship. In short, they appear to have been persons who trimmed between God and the world - who endeavored to reconcile his service with that of mammon - and who were religious just as far as it tended to secure their secular interests. It is probable that this sect was at last so blended with, that it became lost in, the sect of the Sadducees; for the persons who art called Herodians, Mark 8:15, are styled Sadducees in Matthew 16:6. See Prideaux, Con. vol. iii. p. 516, etc., and Josephus, Antiq. b. xv. c. viii. s. i. and x. s. iii. But it is very likely that the Herodians, mentioned c. xxii. 10, were courtiers or servants of Herod king of Galilee. See the note there.

Show them a sign - These sects, however opposed among themselves, most cordially unite in their opposition to Christ and his truth. That the kingdom of Satan may not fall, all his subjects must fight against the doctrine and maxims of the kingdom of Christ.

Tempting - him - Feigning a desire to have his doctrine fully proved to them, that they might credit it, and become his disciples; but having no other design than to betray and ruin him.