But when Jesus was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi, he demanded of his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I the Son of man am?
Jesus leaves the crowds of Galilee and travels north to the district of Caesarea Philippi. There He asks His twelve disciples what people are saying about Him. He is not after information. This is a test, and the rest of the chapter — including His word about building His church — turns on the answer.
The place matters. This district lay outside Jewish territory, and what the Lord announced there fits the ground He chose for it.
There seems to be a fitness in the place where and the time when the announcement, "I will build My Church," was made. It was in the district of Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13), in Ituraea, outside Judea and even outside Galilee (Luke 3:1). We are here on Gentile ground, and there the Lord announces that He would build His Church, made up not of Jews only, but of Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:11-13, 19-21). And it is after He had given the Pharisees the sign of His death (Matt. 16:1-4; Matt. 12:40).
The question also closed something. It brought the nation's verdict on Him out into the open.
Here in the quiet region of Caesarea Philippi, the Lord, as we read, "asked His disciples, saying, Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" By this He intended to draw out the full and formal proof of the nation's unbelief. He was closing His controversy with them. They had failed or refused to see in Him the light that was to give light to the Gentiles, and to be the glory of His people Israel.
The title He gives Himself is the one He takes up after they refuse Him as Messiah. Older translations read "I the Son of man," and the writers below comment on that wording. Two Psalms mark the change.
In Psalm 2 we have God's Anointed and God's King introduced, and He is God's Son. Rejection follows, pictured in the history of David and his experiences. Then in Psalm 8 we read, "What is man, that You are mindful of him, or the Son of Man, that You visit Him?" That is, after the rejection of Christ as the Messiah He takes the wider title of the Son of Man. It is under Him in this character that all things will be put under His feet.
The wording had a purpose. By naming Himself in His lowliest character, He made room for a higher answer.
"Who do men — not you, but people generally — say that I the Son of Man am?" He called Himself "the Son of man," so that He might draw out more clearly from their hearts their confession that He was the Son of God. As the Son of God they had seen His glory and received Him (John 1:12-14). The disciples told Him the various opinions people held about Him.
The same question still tests everyone who reads it.
The great test question then, as now, is "Who do men say that I am?" All glory for God and blessing for man turns on the Person of Christ. It becomes clear that mere human intelligence will never arrive at the truth. The men of that day included many scholars with great intellectual ability. Yet all their thoughts about Christ ended in speculation and uncertainty. … In contrast we see in Peter the result of simple faith, in a man who was ignorant and unlearned when measured against the intellectual leaders of this world. Faith does not speculate or reason. It arrives at the truth with complete certainty, for faith is the gift of God.
He already knew the answer. The question was for their sake — and for ours.
In putting the question to His disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" He knew perfectly well what men said of Him, for He knows all things. Nor does He include in this question those proud and evil Pharisees with their blasphemies; He means the crowds who had followed Him, the men who had listened to His words and seen His miracles. … And is this not still the burning and important question, "Who is He? What do you think of Christ?" It is still so, and the attacks of the enemy are always aimed at the person of the Lord.
- Place — He asks on Gentile ground, outside Judea and Galilee. That fits the church He announces there: Jew and Gentile alike.
- Purpose — The Lord asks not to learn but to draw out formal proof that the nation had failed to recognise Him.
- Title — "Son of Man" is the wider name He takes after they refuse Him as Messiah. Under it, Psalm 8 puts all things under His feet.
- Method — He names Himself by His lowliest title to draw out the higher confession from His own.
- Reach — All God's glory and man's blessing turn on His Person. Cleverness never reaches Him; faith does, because faith is God's gift. "Who is He?" is still the burning question today.
And they said, Some, John the baptist; and others, Elias; and others again, Jeremias or one of the prophets.
Jesus had asked His disciples what people were saying about Him. The answers here are respectful, even flattering — and every one of them is wrong. This verse shows what human opinion produces when it looks straight at the Son of God.
The question came at the end of a ministry in which nothing had been held back.
A great crisis had come in the path of the Lord. The most perfect witness to the Messiah had been given in the middle of Israel. There had been signs, miracles, and fulfilled prophecies. In word and life, He displayed the highest moral perfection before men, along with love, grace, and sympathy that reached out to everyone, without distinction or limit. But it was all in vain. The unbelief, the scorn, and the deadly hostility of the leaders grew with every fresh display of grace.
Jesus put the question using one name for Himself: "Son of man."
"Son of man" is the title of His rejection. "Son of man" is the name that He took when the Jews refused Him as the Messiah. You will find a remarkable proof of this in Matt. 16:13 and Luke 9:18 (the same event recorded by two different Gospel writers).
Jeremiah's appearance in the list is not random. He held a leading place in Jewish thinking. His own call echoed the promise of a coming Prophet.
The same words spoken there about the coming "Prophet" are used of Jeremiah too, though they clearly refer first of all to the Lord. God said to Moses, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him" (Deut. 18:18). Of Jeremiah we read, "the LORD said to me, Behold, I have put my words in your mouth" (Jer. 1:9)... It is easy to understand, then, why the prophet Jeremiah had such an outstanding place in the mind of an Israelite; and why, when our blessed Saviour was here, some thought He was "Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." Jeremiah himself becomes a distinct picture of Christ as the Prophet promised in Deuteronomy.
Every name on the list has one thing in common. Each one needs someone from the past living on earth again.
In each case — John, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the old prophets — huge numbers of people were willing to believe the incredible. They thought a man who had died had come back to live here on earth again. Elijah had not died; he had been taken to heaven alive. The disciples never suggested that people took Him for an ordinary man. That was not a credible option.
The crowd meant to honour Him. That is what makes the answer so sobering. This was the best that human reasoning could reach.
"One of the prophets!" That was the highest point the natural man could reach by his religious reasoning and conclusions. It was the same whether the speaker was "men" in general or "a man of the Pharisees," who said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."
The list looks varied. The variety hides one shared failure.
The answer only takes the judgment of friends into account, and it varies... But this varied judgment is, in fact, just one: no one really knows. Among the crowds around Him there is, so to speak, no true faith. We can allow the best that could be said for them: they wanted to honour Him. Even so, the difference between these thoughts matters far less than their amazing agreement.
Being content to guess about Christ says something about the guesser.
Men are content to speculate about Christ and willing to stay uncertain. That is solemn proof that they have no sense of need on the one hand and no faith on the other. With a sense of need, they would have had discernment; with faith, they would have had certainty. And in all their speculations, they never once came near the truth. This shows how completely unable man is to see the glory of Christ, even in the most favourable circumstances and in the presence of the Son of God Himself.
Every answer in this verse is a near miss. A near miss will not do.
No confession short of "the Son of the living God" will do. The people may have high and honourable thoughts of Jesus... They may speak of Him as "a good man," or as "a prophet," as Elijah or Jeremiah. But nothing of this kind will do. Nothing less will do than the faith that grasps and receives Him as the Christ, the Son of the living God.
- Evidence — Israel had perfect witness in word, life and miracle. The weak answers were not for lack of proof.
- Estimate — Every name offered was a compliment. "One of the prophets" is as high as human reasoning can climb.
- Echo — Three different replies, one result. Nobody really knew, and the variety only exposed a shared unbelief.
- Emptiness — To keep guessing about Christ shows no sense of need and no faith. Need brings discernment; faith brings certainty.
- Enough — Only one confession will do: He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Anything less leaves Him rejected, which is what the name "Son of man" marks.
He says to them, But *ye*, who do ye say that I am?
The Lord first asked His disciples what people were saying about Him, and they reported a spread of guesses. Then He aimed the question straight at the men in front of Him. Everything in the chapter turns on how they answer.
The first question surveyed what people thought. One writer sees that range of answers as a sign of not caring, not of honest searching.
Afterwards He asks His disciples what people in general said about Him. It was all a matter of opinion, not of faith. Such uncertainty belongs to moral indifference. It belongs to people who feel no need in their soul — the need that can only rest in the truth, in the Saviour one has found.
People often use that spread of opinions to argue that nobody can know for sure. One writer answers that argument.
There are so many opinions among men, unbelief argues, that certainty is impossible. Some say one thing and some another; you talk of truth and Scripture, yet after all it is only your view. But what does faith say? Certainty from God is ours the moment we see who Jesus is. He is the only remedy that banishes difficulty and doubt from the mind of man. "But who do you say that I am?" This question was meant to bring out the pivot of man's blessing and God's glory. It becomes the turning point of the chapter.
The Lord stops asking for a report about other people. He puts the matter to the men closest to Him.
He leaves the outside circle. He brings the question into a much closer circle, much nearer to ourselves: "Who do you say that I am?" How beautiful this is! The man who is taught of God answers at once. There is no hesitation, no uncertainty, no fear, but a distinct utterance.
The question asks a person what he holds about a Person.
The Lord now put the question to them. He wanted them to confess with their mouths what was in their hearts about Him. "Who do you say that I am?" It was a personal challenge. The word of the Lord Jesus Christ came direct to their hearts, bringing them face to face with Himself. "What do you think of Me?"
This question sorts out true faith from opinion. One writer calls it the decisive question of the whole exchange.
A searching and decisive question, all-important in its bearing and results! His disciples had told Him what "men" in general thought, and those opinions varied a great deal, as they still do today. But now He put that testing, searching question to them — the touchstone of genuine faith!
The Lord had just rebuked Peter for weak faith. That did not spoil his answer.
Peter's faith may indeed have been weak, for the Lord had just said, "O you of little faith." But it was a living faith. It saw the glory of the Person of Christ, and it confessed Him with complete certainty.
If human opinion produced only guesses, the true answer must come from somewhere else. One writer names the source.
This confession was not a deduction of logic. It did not spring from Peter's own mind or his own feelings. It was a word that was completely true, and right for that moment, because the Father in heaven had made it known to the apostle.
Peter's confession does not stay a private opinion. It becomes the ground of what the Lord announces next.
This truth is the special foundation on which the church is built. It gives the church stability, so that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. The Messiah must be the Mighty God, or He has no Messianic glory. It is just as necessary that Jehovah should be Jesus, or there is no calling and forming of the assembly of God. There could be no church, no restoration for Israel without Him.
- Opinion. The crowd's answers were guesses. Such uncertainty comes from not caring who He is.
- Question. The Lord moves from the outer circle to the inner one. The question becomes a personal challenge: what do you think of Me?
- Touchstone. This is the testing question that shows whether faith is genuine — and Peter's weak but living faith passed it.
- Revelation. No one reasons his way to the right answer. The Father in heaven makes the Son known.
- Foundation. Peter's confession is the ground the church is built on, and hell cannot break it. The same question still waits for your answer.
And Simon Peter answering said, *Thou* art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Just before the cross comes into view, Jesus takes His disciples aside and asks who people say He is. The answers vary. Then one man answers for them all, and everything after that turns on his reply.
The disciples report only guesses. One writer says the Lord asked because human uncertainty draws out the faith of His own.
There was the usual answer of men, the uncertainty of human opinion. "He said to them, But who do you say that I am?" He asked because the very uncertainty of men brings out the faith of God's elect. So there is no time at all that God does not turn for good to the believer.
Peter's first title, "the Christ," names Jesus as Israel's promised King. Yet in the same chapter He tells the disciples to stop announcing it. The whole direction of His ministry changes.
The public preaching of the kingdom to the Jews was now to stop. He no longer offered Himself to the nation as their Messiah or Christ. Instead He told His disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ. Instead of pointing to national acceptance and an earthly crown, He speaks of national rejection and an earthly cross. Instead of the old hope of the prophetic kingdom, He mentions a new thing which He was about to establish: the assembly or Church. He had set aside the name Messiah, which linked Him with the throne of David. In its place, for the Church, He takes up a title just made known and infinitely higher: the "Son of the living God."
Peter does not stop at "Son of God." He says "the living God," and one writer shows how much rests on that one word.
He owns Him to be the Son of the One in whom is life and life-giving power. The life of God cannot be destroyed, and the Son of the living God cannot be overcome. In Him is that power of life which nothing can defeat. Satan had the power of death; the Son of God has the power of life. The unchangeable power of life, even though He goes into death, cannot be overcome by death. It is the very reverse. He annuls death. Every other man was overcome by death; the Son of the living God could not be. It is worth noticing the force of "living" here, because He goes on to speak of death, and of "the gates of hell," which mean Satan's kingdom. The Assembly is founded on the unchanging power of life in the Son of God. So the kingdom of death cannot touch it.
That power was not merely claimed; it was demonstrated when the tomb could not hold Him.
The resurrection of the Son of God, according to the power of life which was in Him, is the foundation and measure of the life and security of the church, and it was sheltered, and the church by it, from all the attacks of him who had the power of death. In vain the tomb wrapped itself in darkness — out of the middle of it came life more powerful than ever.
The Lord does not trace this confession to Peter's own thinking. He points to another source, and the Father still opens hearts the same way today.
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah," said the Lord, "for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." We all come to this same blessedness if we know our Lord as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." It is the Father's work to reveal Him to us this way. How wonderful it is! We have not only tasted that the Lord is gracious, equal to all our deep need. The Father in His grace has also opened our hearts to a new position, a new calling, a new place of favour, by revealing to us who His Son is.
Mark and Luke record only the first half of Peter's answer — and in neither place does the Lord speak of building. That difference is not accidental.
If He had been only the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, that would not have been a firm enough basis for the Church. His Messianic dignity might have been rock enough for Israel, since it was their faith and hope. Psalm 2 also speaks of Him in that dignity as Son of God. But "the Son of the living God" was a revelation of His glory that went far beyond it. Once you know and confess the Lord in this His highest glory, He begins for the first time to announce His building of His Church.
Commentators differ on how to name the rock. Some point to the confession, others to the Person confessed in it.
That confession was the rock on which Christ would build His Church — not poor Peter, who so soon denied his Lord and Master. Peter was a stone — a living stone — built into the rock, but the foundation is the confession of Christ Himself.
- Question — Human opinion about Jesus ran out in uncertainty. The Lord's question brought out the faith of His own.
- Gift — Peter did not work this out. The Father revealed it, and the same blessedness belongs to everyone who knows Him this way.
- Word — "Living" is the key word. He is Son of the One in whom is life and life-giving power, and He annuls death.
- Reach — The Lord lays "the Christ" aside as a public title. The higher name takes its place, and He announces a new thing: the Church.
- Result — The Church rests on that unchanging power of life. The kingdom of death cannot touch it; the gates of hell will not prevail.
And Jesus answering said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed [it] to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens.
Peter has just confessed who Jesus is, and Jesus points straight to the source of that confession. The verse shows how anyone comes to know who Jesus is.
Jesus calls Peter blessed. But the confession behind that blessing was not Peter's own achievement:
Jesus Himself declares that the soul who knows Him as the Son of the living God is blessed of the Father. No doubt Peter had learned much from the Lord, as he had followed that lovely and blessed life of devotion and self-sacrifice. But the Father took hold of that uneducated, unlettered Galilean fisherman and taught him the truth. The blessed Man he was following was the Son of the living God. The Father Himself alone can teach you this blessed truth, my friend. No university course and no human teaching can give your soul this knowledge of the Son. But the Father loves to teach the willing soul that seeks Christ.
So what does "flesh and blood" mean here?
Here "flesh and blood" means everything that belongs to man as he now is. It means man in his present condition: a poor, weak, miserable creature... So here the Lord says, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you ... but My Father who is in heaven." You have no power to discover this by man's wisdom.
This settles what argument can and cannot do:
So we have no hope of convincing the natural man that the Son is God. Argument will not do it, and no proof of any kind will do it, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said to an apostle, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you." And we are also told that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.
Jesus does not say God, or the Almighty, but My Father. That choice of name is itself part of the gift:
We have tasted that the Lord is gracious and equal to all our deep need. But the Father in His grace has done more. By revealing to us who His Son is, He has opened our hearts to a new position, a new calling, a new place of favour. The revelation is from heaven, and God has made it not as the Almighty or as Jehovah, but as Father, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Lord calls him Simon, son of Jonah, not Peter. Commentators see a deliberate contrast:
Was not this to emphasise his lowly position as a man? Apart from divine grace, was he not merely Simon, son of Jonah?... Here, at Caesarea Philippi, the contrast is between two things. On one side is what man is by nature, weak at the core. On the other is the high privilege given to the apostle: to declare the divine glory of his Master more fully than ever before. So we see there is a very pointed contrast between Simon Bar-jona and Peter.
What Peter confessed reached past the title Israel was waiting for:
A confession so remarkably rich drew out the Saviour's recognition of His Father's grace to Simon Barjona... He was the Son of the living God. If He had been only the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, that would not have been a strong enough basis for the Church. His dignity as Messiah might have been rock enough for Israel, since it was their faith and hope. But "the Son of the living God" was a revelation of His glory that went far beyond it.
Receiving a revelation and living up to it are two different things:
Though he had just made the blessed confession of Christ which the Father had revealed to him... when the Lord spoke of His path of humiliation, as Son of Man, Peter could not bear it... Peter's flesh was not broken down enough to walk in the power of the truth he had received and rejoiced in. So it is with us.
- Source — Peter did not reach this himself. The Father in heaven revealed it, and so Jesus calls him blessed.
- Limit — "flesh and blood" is man as he now is, and no amount of human wisdom or argument reaches this truth.
- Name — God gives it as Father, not as Almighty, so the revelation brings a new place of favour along with it.
- Contrast — Jesus names him Simon, son of Jonah — the weak man by nature — and hands him this high privilege.
- Foundation — the Father showed more than "Messiah." He showed the "Son of the living God," the one basis of the Church.
And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The Lord answers by announcing something new: He will build a church of His own. Two questions have divided readers ever since. What is the rock? And what is this church He promises to build?
The Lord's words turn on a difference between two Greek words that English hides. One writer sets them side by side:
The Lord now speaks to Peter by the name He had given him. Peter is petros, a stone. The rock He builds on is petra, the great rock foundation. And the gates of hell — the schemes and plots of Hades, the underworld — will not prevail against it.
So the new name is a gift of grace tied to what Peter had just said, while the foundation itself is the truth he confessed:
By grace Peter had confessed what no one ever had: that Christ was the Son of the living God. The Lord acknowledges the grace given to him. He gives him the name Peter, a stone. So by grace, through his confession, Peter shares in the very thing he confessed. For it was on that truth — that Christ is the Son of the living God — that He would build His church.
The tense of the verb matters. The Lord had not built anything yet:
Notice the expression. It is not, I have been building; but I will build My Church. He had not built it yet, nor begun to build it: it was altogether new. I do not mean that no one believed in Him before, or was born again of the Spirit. But it is a mistake to call all believers from the beginning to the end of time "the Church."
If the building had not started, something first had to happen:
When the Lord spoke, He had not begun to build. "I will build" is future. That building could not begin until Christ had finished the work of redemption, until He had risen and gone up into heaven, and until the Holy Spirit had come.
The Lord calls this building His own. That ownership decides what it will be like:
Here we see what the church is for Christ. He says, "I will build my church." Many other Scriptures speak of the church as belonging to God. But here the Son of God speaks of it as His own, as something He Himself is building… Men can spoil, break and ruin what they build. What Christ is building stays perfect, and nothing can break into it.
Commentators read "the gates of hell" as the power of death, and they tie the promise back to the confession it rests on:
So the gates of hades — the power of death, held by Satan — will not prevail against the church. For the resurrection declared Christ to be Son of God with power, above all the power of Satan. The church is built on this rock, on His being the Son of the living God. So Satan's power, the power of death, could not overthrow it.
The exact word the Lord uses matters:
Note, it is His church, and He is still building. No wonder then that the gates even of Hades shall not prevail against it. They shall not "prevail." The Lord does not say that His church will escape heavy and painful blows. He says the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. This should comfort us; for His church must stand.
Knowing the doctrine is not the end of it. One writer presses the verse home:
So it is not enough to say, "I have Christ," however blessed that is. If I know that He is the Son of God, I must also believe that He is now building the church. Do I know my place in His church? Am I walking in the life of Christ, a living stone in my proper place in the house He is building?"
- Confession — Peter names who Jesus is first. Only then does the Lord announce the building.
- Foundation — Grace gives Peter a name meaning "stone." But the rock underneath is the truth he confessed: Christ, the Son of God.
- Future — "I will build" is future. The work waited for redemption, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Spirit.
- Ownership — He calls it "My church." Men can ruin what they build. Nothing can break what Christ builds.
- Outcome — Death and Satan may strike heavy blows. They cannot prevail, because the risen Son of God is the foundation.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens.
Peter has just confessed Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." The Lord answers with a promise to build, and then a promise of keys. What are these keys? Who holds them? How far does the power to bind and loose reach?
The Lord does not hand over heaven's gate. He does not hand over the church He has just promised to build.
Did Christ give Peter the keys of heaven? Impossible. Men have painted pictures of the Lord and His apostles, and Peter with keys hanging at his belt, while a flock of sheep surrounds them. So many people think Peter has the keys of the Church. There are none such. This is a pure fallacy. Sheep are not fed by keys, and Christ does not build with keys. The value of keys is to open doors, and once the doors are opened the keys are of no more use.
One writer names what the Lord never said, and what He never meant:
People have badly misapplied these words, and have built the most terrible doctrines on them... The Lord did not say that He gave him the keys of heaven. And with the loosing on earth and loosing in heaven, the Lord never meant that the eternal destiny of one single soul was left in Peter's hands.
If the keys belong to the kingdom of heaven, everything depends on what that phrase means — and it is not a synonym for heaven or for the church.
There is no deeper mistake than confusing "the kingdom of heaven" with "heaven." The kingdom of heaven is the rule of heaven over the earth... We must not confuse the kingdom of heaven with Christ's church. The kingdom of heaven is what He governs... it is the scene of profession, and so there may be all sorts of things there that are far from Christ; weeds as well as wheat.
One writer links these keys to an Old Testament picture — the steward who runs the royal house:
"I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David"... A housekeeper, or steward, has the keys, and administers the household affairs as a trust. Peter did so in the kingdom and with full authority.
Keys open doors, and Peter opened two — one for Jews, one for Gentiles, who were not Jews:
God chose Peter to preach the first sermon after the Holy Spirit came down from heaven. Three thousand people were brought to repentance, and were baptised at once in the Saviour's name. But these were Jews only. In Acts 10 the same apostle proclaims Christ for the first time to a Gentile gathering. Everyone in Cornelius' house believed, and they received Christian baptism straight away.
Binding and loosing also show up in the record. One writer sees Peter's welcome of both Jews and Gentiles as "loosing," and his rebuke of Simon the sorcerer as "binding." Simon was baptised as a professed subject of the kingdom, yet he "had never been built by the Lord into His church" (F. B. Hole).
The verse says "on earth" twice, and that limit is deliberate.
The promise limits itself to earth as the sphere of this binding or loosing... The earth is the only place where the binding applies. Heaven is the seat of authority for the kingdom, so "shall be bound in heaven" simply means that heaven would confirm the act of its representatives on earth. There is power on earth, and for earth, only. Yet whoever rebels against it rebels against the authority of heaven.
Heaven does not approve just anything, either. One writer warns that these words are "not unconditional and absolute." He adds that "the throne of heaven can only approve what is righteous and according to God's Word and of His Spirit" (Raymond K. Campbell).
One writer is blunt about succession, and points to where the same words appear again:
Does this authority given to the apostle pass on to successors? There is no hint of such a thing in Matthew 16:19. The Saviour's words give nothing beyond a personal commission. But in Matthew 18:18 the very same words appear in a completely different setting. Peter is not in view there, but the assembly of God's people, gathered in any place on earth and at any time... To receive into fellowship from the world outside is to "loose"; to put away a wrongdoer is to "bind"; to welcome the repentant one back again is to "loose" again.
- Keys — of the kingdom of heaven: not of heaven, and not of the church. Christ builds; keys open doors.
- Kingdom — heaven's rule over the earth: the scene of profession, holding weeds along with wheat.
- Stewardship — a key is a steward's badge. Peter administered the kingdom as a trust; nothing beyond his personal commission passes on.
- Use — Peter turned the key at Pentecost for Jews, and at Cornelius' house for Gentiles. He bound and loosed in the discipline recorded in Acts.
- Limit — the binding is on earth. Heaven confirms what its representatives do there, and can only approve what agrees with God's Word.
Then he enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ.
Peter has just confessed Him, and Jesus has spoken of building His church. Now the Lord tells the disciples to stop announcing the very truth Peter declared. Why silence a confession that heaven itself had revealed, and what takes its place?
The verse opens with "Then." That word ties the charge to what has just happened. Commentators read it as the Lord accepting Israel's refusal.
A remarkable change comes here. Peter had confessed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God: now the Lord charges them to tell no one that He was the Christ. It was as good as saying, It is too late; I am rejected as the Christ — the Messiah, the Anointed of Jehovah. Israel refuses Him, and He accepts the fact.
The ban was not about doubt. The nation had the evidence already and would not have Him.
Was He the Christ? Undoubtedly. But here He says, Tell them no more that I am the Christ. Why this remarkable charge? Because all the proofs given of His Messiahship had been in vain to the nation.
Commentators give a second reason: the disciples themselves. Peter had just protested against the Lord's coming death.
Also, the disciples were not yet fit to bear further testimony, even if it had been needed. Peter did have some measure of spiritual sight, for he had just confessed Him as the Christ. Yet the news of His coming rejection and death raised a fierce protest from this very man… So how could he go out as an effective witness to the Christ he recognised?
"Christ" means the Anointed One, Israel's promised King. He now lays that title down and takes up another.
They were no longer to speak of this glory of Judaism and truth of God, this fitting, divine, and Jewish dignity, this office to the nation. They had refused Him on the merits of His glory and truth. So He would not now be put before them to stir and satisfy their passions. They were to tell no one that He was the Christ. He had presented Himself to them as the fulfilment of the Prophets. Now, as Son of Man — a larger and humbler name, but with glory reaching much farther — He was to suffer. He would be owned by no attractive title honoured in one place. Instead He would do a much larger and more important work through this very rejection.
Earlier the message had been that the kingdom was near. That public offer now stops.
This public proclamation of the kingdom to the Jews was now to cease. From now on He no longer offers Himself to the nation as their Messiah or Christ. Instead He "strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ." Instead of pointing to national acceptance and an earthly crown, He speaks of national rejection and an earthly cross. Instead of the old hope of the prophetic kingdom, He mentions a new thing which He was about to establish: the assembly or Church.
Setting aside His Jewish rights opened the door to a wider blessing.
He came to the house of Israel as the promised seed of Abraham and of David, to reign over the house of Jacob for ever. Yet He gave up that earthly glory, which was and is His by oath and promise, so that He might have the saints of the heavenly calling. That could not be if the kingdom had been set up in power then… But in resurrection He is offered to all, not to Jews alone. The gospel frees those who believe from all earthly distinctions and links them with Christ on high.
The silence has a time limit. Resurrection changes what may be announced.
His people had rejected Him as the promised Messiah. He is now to go on towards Jerusalem. There He will be handed over, and then raised from the dead, to be announced as Lord and Christ. Therefore He commanded His disciples not to publish Him as the Christ.
The older message about the kingdom is not lost for ever. It is on hold.
At that moment the kingdom was presented in Christ in person, and it was refused. So the testimony was withdrawn, as we see in Matthew 16:20. It will be resumed when the gathering out of the church is completed.
- Rejected — the silence is not doubt about who He is. The proofs of His Messiahship had been given to the nation in vain.
- Renamed — He lays down the title "Christ" and takes up "Son of Man." That name sounds humbler, but its reach is far wider.
- Redirected — He no longer points to national acceptance and a crown. He points to rejection and a cross, and names a new thing He will build: the church.
- Reaching further — He gives up the earthly glory promised to Him. In return He gains the saints of the heavenly calling, and a gospel offered to all, not to Jews only.
- Resumed — the silence lasts only until the resurrection. Then He is announced as Lord and Christ. The kingdom testimony is on hold, not cancelled.
From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised.
From the moment Peter confessed who He was, the Lord's message to His disciples changed. He told them to stop calling Him Israel's promised King. From now on He spoke of Jerusalem, suffering, death, and rising on the third day. Why the change? And why the word "must"?
Verse 20 tells the disciples to stop announcing Him as the Christ. One commentator reads that command as the Lord's acceptance of a settled fact. He also marks the difference between two of the Lord's titles.
A remarkable change comes here. Peter had confessed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God: now the Lord charges them to tell no one that He was the Christ. It was as good as saying: It is too late; I am rejected as the Christ — the Messiah, the Anointed of Jehovah. Israel refuses Him, and He accepts the fact… There is a great difference between "the Christ" and "the Son of Man." The second is His title as rejected, and then as exalted in heaven.
The change is not only in what the disciples say. It is in what the nation is about to do.
The disciples must no longer testify of Him as the Messiah. In that character the nation had rejected Him. For Him there was to be at this time no national recognition of His just rights and divine authority. Instead of a Crown, the nation was about to give Him a Cross. Instead of a palace, a grave… Only death and resurrection could open the way to any blessing at all: earthly blessing for the Jew, heavenly blessing for the Christian.
He does not say He will suffer, but that He must. One writer asks what the alternative would have been.
The Lord, who knew everything, said to His disciples over and over again, The Son of Man must suffer… How was a race of ruined sinners to be saved? … It was an absolute necessity that He should die. Without His death the Kingdom could not be set up, and we could not be saved or have all the blessing of eternal life with the Father. He had to die, and blessed be His name, He went to that Cross and suffered for us. He never turned back.
The verse names who would make Him suffer: elders, chief priests, scribes. One commentator reads the list as a picture of everything people trust in.
He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders (man's authority), the chief priests (man's religion), and the scribes (man's wisdom), and be killed. But He does not leave matters there. He adds, "and on the third day be raised."
The disciples heard the words for the first time. He did not.
When this solemn announcement came from His blessed lips, He knew the full meaning of "suffer many things and be killed." He knew before He came into the world what work He was to do… He knew the suffering, for His own Spirit was in the prophets long ago, testifying in advance to the sufferings that belong to Christ (1 Pet. 1:11). He began then to speak of these sufferings to His disciples, but He alone knew what it all meant.
Every time the Lord announced His death, the third day came with it.
How blessed that in what speaks of death, of sacrifice, there should be also in the height of the altar the pledge of resurrection. So, in speaking of His death, our Lord did not stop there, but foretold also His resurrection.
Verse 18 had just promised, "I will build my church." Commentators connect the two statements directly.
The words "from that time" are used because the Church could only be founded on His death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit came down and formed it, after God exalted Him to His own right hand.
A right confession about Christ and a heart ready for the cross are not the same thing.
Simon Peter was not yet prepared for the profound mystery of the cross. He loved Christ, and God had taught him to acknowledge Him in a very full and blessed way. But he still had much to learn. He was not ready for the truth that subdues the soul: this blessed Son of the living God must die.
- Must, because rejected — His order to stop announcing Him as the Christ accepted Israel's refusal. The nation would give Him a cross, not a crown.
- Must, because necessary — He said "must," not "will." Without His death no sinner could be saved and no kingdom could be set up.
- Must, because foreknown — He alone knew what "suffer many things and be killed" held. He knew His work before He came into the world.
- Must, because fruitful — He did not stop at death; He added the third day. Only death and resurrection could give the church its foundation.
- Must, and still hard to hear — Peter's confession was true and taught by God, yet he was not ready for the cross. Loving Christ and accepting His path are two lessons, not one.
And Peter taking him to [him] began to rebuke him, saying, [God] be favourable to thee, Lord; this shall in no wise be unto thee.
Moments earlier Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, and Jesus called him blessed. Now the Lord announces His coming death, and Peter pulls Him aside to tell Him it must never happen.
The words carry more than a polite protest. One writer sets out how the phrase has been rendered, and what lay under Peter's good intentions:
The Revised Version goes too far in its margin, where it renders the apostle's first words "God have mercy upon You." Darby gives it literally: "Be favourable to Yourself, Lord." Peter certainly meant well. He could not bear to think of suffering and shame for his beloved Master and Lord. But Satan often uses a kind nature to turn God's witnesses aside from the path of faithfulness.
Read that way, his request turns back on itself. He asks God to spare the One who came to be the propitiation — the one through whom God's favour reaches others:
Satan too would gladly have spared Him the cross that He foresaw, for all the counsels of God hung on it. Peter is praying God to be favourable to the One who was Himself to be the one propitiation for others. He is asking God to spare Him the very thing by which propitiation could alone be made. So human wisdom may mistake its way, and human affection set itself against the path of divine love.
Peter's expectations left no room for this announcement. It tore up the hopes he had carried:
Here the solemn truth begins to break through the clouds. But Simon Peter is not prepared for it. It withered up all his Jewish hopes and earthly expectations. What! The Son of the living God must die! How could it be? The glorious Messiah nailed to a cross!
Peter clearly cared for Jesus. That is what makes the moment so unsettling. Warm feeling on its own steered him wrong:
Peter had real affection for the Lord; but this affection could not preserve him from the gravest of falls. He lacked what he could not do without — knowledge... When he said, "Far be it from You, Lord! This shall never happen to You," it was his affection which spoke. Yet at that very moment Peter was a Satan. Because he did not know the heart of Christ, he dared to think that the God of love would agree to save Himself.
Notice the posture, not just the sentence. Peter takes Jesus aside, uninvited, and begins to correct Him:
The Lord had not asked him what he thought of His statement. He speaks on impulse, out of the flesh, as a natural man... He acts with astonishing forwardness. He takes his Lord aside and then began to rebuke Him. The Lord, who rebuked the winds and the sea, rebuked by His creature! What ignorance of the person of the Lord, and what failure, this action of Peter reveals.
How can the same man confess the Son of the living God and then oppose His cross? The gap lies between what a person believes and what shapes his daily life:
You can be convinced of the highest truths, and even enjoy them sincerely as truths. That is still not the same as having your heart shaped to the feelings, and to the daily walk here, that match those truths. What is missing is not sincere enjoyment of the truth. What is missing is the flesh, self, put to death — being dead to the world.
The Lord reacted strongly, because Peter's instinct is everyone's instinct:
What was it that so roused our Lord? The very snare to which we are all so exposed — the desire of saving self, the preference of an easy path to the cross. Is it not true that we naturally want to escape trial, shame, and rejection? We shrink from the suffering that doing God's will must always bring in a world like this.
The same choice stands before anyone who follows Him:
If we are going to follow Christ, we must accept His pathway of shame and sorrow here. If we refuse the cross, we shall not have the crown.
- Words — Peter's plea means "be favourable to Yourself, Lord." He asks God to spare the One who came to make propitiation. Sparing Him would remove the one thing that could bring God's favour to others.
- Motive — his affection was genuine. What he lacked was knowledge of Christ's heart, so love spoke and got it wrong.
- Root — his hopes for a reigning Messiah left no place for a dying one, and the announcement withered them.
- Diagnosis — sincerely believing a great truth is not the same as having self put to death. That is why blessing and rebuke followed each other so fast.
- Warning — we feel the same pull Peter felt, to spare ourselves shame and suffering. Refuse the cross, and we lose the crown.
But turning round, he said to Peter, Get away behind me, Satan; thou art an offence to me, for thy mind is not on the things that are of God, but on the things that are of men.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For whosoever shall desire to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Peter had just tried to steer Jesus away from the cross. In reply Jesus told all His followers what His road would cost them, and His words sound like a riddle: which "life" does a person lose, and why is losing it worth it?
Peter had just urged the Lord to spare Himself, and the answer exposed the instinct behind that advice as the enemy's own counsel. One commentator draws the line between the two voices:
Peter's error gave the Lord the chance to point out the kind of path all His own must walk... If the cross must be His portion, His followers must accept the cross also. For Him the cross meant atonement for sin, as well as rejection and shame. We share only the rejection and shame. But nature shrinks from this, and even resents it. Satan suggests its motto: "Spare yourself." God's motto is "Deny yourself." Someone said it well: Peter "at the last denied the Lord because he had not denied himself."
Everything turns on the word Jesus used for "life":
The word translated life here is the one usually translated "soul." It refers to that "soul life" which characterises man in his natural fallen condition. The soul is not the same as the spirit. The spirit is the higher part of man, able to put him in intelligent touch with God. The soul is the seat of our natural desires and longings. So "soul life" is the life of enjoying all the things that appeal to us by nature.
The Lord's words "deny himself" and "take up his cross" show how the losing works:
"Self-denial" is too weak a word for the force of "deny himself." Self-denial means going without something. The Lord is not speaking of that. He means denying yourself — saying "no" to yourself. "Take up his cross" does not just mean putting up with trials and troubles. In those days, a man who took up his cross was on his way to execution. He was a man who had to accept death at the hands of the world. Saying "no" to yourself means accepting death inside, in your own spirit. Taking up your cross means accepting death outside, at the hands of the world.
This saying is not only for those who die for their faith:
The world to come turns around the finding and losing of the soul in this present world. There the finding becomes losing, and the losing becomes finding. He who makes himself the object of his life loses himself and is cast away. He who sacrifices self and its interests for Christ's sake is really preserving everything for the world to come... You do not have to die as a martyr for this to apply. Do only those who die a martyr's death live for ever?
One commentator weighs up the two choices:
To save your life means giving your life in this world first place. Do that and you only lose it. Such a pursuit is pointless. But one who will lose his life for Christ's sake will find it. If he puts Christ first, he may seem to be giving up his life as far as natural advantage goes. But his life will bear lasting fruit. Selfishness will defeat its own ends, but unselfishness for Christ's sake gains far more than it gives up.
What comes instead is a higher kind of life, and Paul's own story shows what the exchange looks like:
Some turn their back on the soul-life of this world because they are joined to the rejected Christ and His death. They are going to keep life to life eternal. Here the word for "life" is changed, for "life eternal" is a far higher thing. Philippians 3 shows what this means. There Paul lists all his natural advantages, and then counts them loss for Christ. Christ became so infinitely attractive to him that he hated all else in comparison with Him.
The Lord does not leave the demand hanging on its own. Two verses later He points forward to His coming in glory, and commentators read that as deliberate encouragement:
In Matthew 16:27 He casts the eye of the one who would follow Him on to the future, in order to give a stimulus for devotion in the pathway now... According to what we have been for Christ now will be the reward in that day. If we have not been true to Christ now, He must withhold reward then, which will not be a joy to His heart. How necessary, therefore, to seek to be for Him now!
- Two mottos. Nature, prompted by the enemy, says "Spare yourself." God says "Deny yourself." Peter denied the Lord at the last because he had never denied himself.
- Two lives. The "life" at stake is the soul-life of natural desire in this world. What you keep instead is life eternal — a far higher thing.
- Two deaths. Saying "no" to yourself is death inside. Taking up the cross is death at the hands of the world.
- Two outcomes. Make yourself the object of your life and you lose yourself. Give up self for Christ and you keep everything for the world to come.
- Two timings. The loss looks total now. In the world to come, the losing turns out to be the finding.
For what does a man profit, if he should gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
The Lord has just told His disciples that He must suffer and die, and that following Him means taking up a cross. Against that background He weighs two things: the whole world on one side, a single soul on the other.
One writer points to where the Lord's words come from:
Our Lord uses the language of the merchant. He speaks of profit, loss, and exchange. He is thinking of a bargain. Suppose a man could get the whole world. To take it in exchange for a share in the glory that is to be revealed would be a bad bargain. He decides this for the comfort of the believer. Most people take Him to be settling the question of personal safety here. He is settling the question of profit and loss.
One writer ties this verse to the one just before it:
With all the gain men have made of things in this world, no one has yet gained the whole world. But our Lord says that if that were possible and someone lost his soul, what would it be worth in the end? This word "soul" is the same word translated "life" in verse 25, and I am persuaded it is the same thought as in that verse.
The second half of the verse asks what a man could hand over to get his soul back. One writer answers it from Psalm 49:
There is a striking word in Psalm 49: "Those who trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the abundance of their riches — none of them can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him. For the redemption of their soul is precious, and must be let alone for ever." That is the right rendering. No one could touch that matter. How it shows the value of the soul!
(That is the writer's own translation. The ESV reads: "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice.")
The Lord asks and does not reply. That silence is itself the point:
The Lord closes here with an appeal to consider the soul's value. That appeal has rung through so many hearts since then. The question needs no answer: the impossibility of answering it is the answer.
Other losses in life sting, but they are not final. This one is:
People mourn over losses in this life. Lost fortunes are often recovered and lost health regained, but the soul! Once lost, it is lost for ever.
It came to this: if you spare the flesh in this life, you will lose your life in the next... It is giving up the world for eternal life, or for eternal misery, that is the real question. You must give it up; you cannot keep it.
The next verse turns from loss to reward, and that ordering is deliberate:
In Matthew 16:27 He turns the eye of the one who would follow Him toward the future. He does this to stir up devotion in the pathway now. He says, "When the Son of Man comes in the glory of His Father, with His angels, then He will reward every man according to his works." What we have been for Christ now will determine the reward in that day.
- The bargain. The Lord talks business: profit, loss, exchange. His own verdict is that trading the world for the soul is a bad deal.
- The goods. "Soul" here is the same word as "life" in verse 25. What you would trade away is your own life.
- The price. Psalm 49 closes the account: no one can ransom another or pay God for a life. The buy-back price is beyond every fortune.
- The silence. He asks what a man could give in exchange and gives no answer. The impossibility of answering is the answer.
- The payday. The verse that follows moves the ledger to the day the Son of Man comes in His Father's glory. What you are for Christ now is what He rewards then.
For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to each according to his doings.
Jesus has just called His followers to take up a cross, warning that the whole world is a poor trade for one soul. This verse gives the reason: a day is coming when the rejected One appears in glory and settles every account.
Two verses earlier Jesus told the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ. One writer traces how that silence shapes the title used here.
In verse 28 the Lord had charged His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. He was at this time really rejected, and so the testimony to Jesus as God's anointed was for the time ended. The result was that from this moment He took the title of the Son of Man.
That charge to silence is verse 20 in today's Bibles.
The One who must suffer and the One who comes in glory are the same Person.
If the Son of Man is truly rejected by the world — the One who shows perfectly the ways and the character of God here in the world — then a time comes when God will make good the rights of Him who was faithful. He will show those rights in the glory that is due and belongs to Him. The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father. He will not come in the humiliation of obedience, in which His moral perfection was shown, and in which, at His own cost, He perfectly glorified God. He comes instead — for He is Son of the living God — in the glory of His Father, and with His angels. Then He will render to each according to his conduct.
Two glories are named in the verse. Each says something different about the One who comes.
The glory of the holy angels bears witness to His greatness as Creator. Angels are the highest order of created beings known to us; they excel in strength. But the Father's glory shines out in Him who sought it and secured it when here on earth, in life and in death. It marks Him out as the One in whom the Father finds His deep delight, the object of His affection.
One writer names which coming this is, and what it comes to do.
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father to take rightful possession of all the earth, to dispossess those who think it belongs to them, and to reward every man (saved or unsaved) according to his works. This of course is not His coming for the church, but His coming in power at the end of the tribulation.
The next verse points to a preview of that coming, and that preview shapes what the repayment means.
In every one of the three Gospels the transfiguration follows these words, as in Mark 8:38. Peter declares it to be a display of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Son of Man coming in His kingdom... So we learn that when He speaks of rewarding every man according to his works, He means especially the coming in His kingdom, not the final state, though judgment will still continue then.
If everything is repaid by works, where does that leave grace? Commentators draw a firm line between salvation and reward.
Here too comes the scriptural teaching about rewards. As regards righteousness and salvation, reward can have no possible place. These privileges are in Christ, and perfect... So if anyone takes reward as the motive for work, he is entirely on false ground. Love and obedience are the only true motives, as they were in Christ Himself... But rewards come as encouragements in the difficulties on the road where love and obedience lead us.
The repayment reaches down to the smallest act.
In that day the Lord will not forget even a cup of cold water given to one of His little ones in the name of a disciple (Matt. 10:42). What a Lord we have to serve! Who else would think of noticing something so small? He will reward everyone according to his works when the Son of Man comes in the glory of His Father with His angels.
- Rejected — His people refused Him as the Christ. So He takes the title Son of Man — the name under which He returns in public power.
- Vindicated — The One who gave up everything to glorify God returns in His Father's glory. Open display answers the humiliation.
- Attended — Angels come with Him as witnesses to His greatness. The Father's glory marks Him as the One the Father delights in.
- Repaid — At that coming He repays each person, saved or unsaved, for what he has done. Commentators place this at His coming in kingdom power, not the final state.
- Encouraged — Reward is never the motive; love and obedience are. Reward is God's encouragement on a hard road, where He remembers even a cup of cold water.
Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Jesus had just said the Son of Man would come in His Father's glory to repay each person for what he had done. Then He promises that some standing there will see that coming before they die — and readers have long disagreed about what He meant.
All three Gospels place this saying just before the Transfiguration. Jesus took Peter, James and John up a mountain and showed them His glory. One writer rejects the popular alternative — that Jesus meant the destruction of Jerusalem — and points to the order of events and to when the apostles died:
I think it is quite wrong to apply these words to the destruction of Jerusalem. Their true connection is with the scene of the transfiguration. The two come one after the other in the first three Gospels. And 2 Peter 1, as I see it, treats that scene as a display of Christ's power and coming — a sample of His future glory. James and Peter did taste death, the one long before and the other shortly before Jerusalem was destroyed.
Part of the confusion comes from the page layout. The verse ends chapter 16, so readers stop there instead of reading on into chapter 17:
This should silence once and for all the strange interpretations made of the last verse of the previous chapter, which the unfortunate division of these chapters tears from its true place. The favourite explanations are that the Lord meant "the destruction of Jerusalem," and others tell us "they were to see the Lord coming in the triumphs of the gospel."
If the King is heading for a cross, has the visible kingdom been cancelled? One writer raises that question, and answers it from this promise:
He foretells the kingdom of heaven in a new form, not in glory but in weakness; not connected with the crown of earthly power, but with the cross of earthly rejection. But is the outward kingdom therefore abandoned? At the close of His discourse, Jesus adds — "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
So what exactly did those three men see on the mountain? One writer answers, and separates the kingdom as it is now from the kingdom as it will be:
Peter, James, and John were allowed to see a specimen, a sample, a foreshadowing of the glory of this kingdom a few days after Jesus spoke these words. Compare the passage with 2 Peter 1:16-18 and you will see that this is how they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. It was a type or pledge, showing even their senses what the glory of that kingdom will be — not the kingdom as it exists now in mystery, but as it will exist in open display later on.
In what way was that scene a sample of His coming kingdom? One writer answers by naming who was there and whom each one stood for:
It was so, because He was the central and glorified Object of all. Saints enjoying a heavenly portion were represented in Moses and Elijah. Saints upon earth were represented by Peter, James and John. The heavenly saints were joined with Him, and they talked with Him, entering with understanding into His thoughts. The earthly saints were blessed by His presence, though dazzled by His glory.
Notice which name Jesus gives Himself here: not the Christ, but the Son of Man. One writer explains what lies behind that change:
He was at this time truly rejected, and so the testimony to Jesus as God's anointed was ended for the time. From this moment He took the title of the Son of Man… So what is in view here is His personal glory as Son of man. This glory, displayed before the disciples, was God's answer to the rejection of Christ by His people.
Luke records the same promise. Writing on that account, one commentator weighs the phrase "taste of death":
The expression the Lord used — "taste of death" — is worth noting. It would cover not only actual dying but also the spiritual experience which He had pointed to in Luke 9:23. The same thing holds true for us in principle. It is only as we see the kingdom by faith that we are prepared to taste of death in that experiential way.
- Rejected. Israel rejected Jesus, so the testimony to Him as God's anointed ended. He takes the title "Son of Man" instead, and speaks of the cross.
- Promised. The rejection does not cancel the kingdom. He pledges that some standing there will see it before they die.
- Shown. A few days later three disciples saw Him in glory on the mountain — a sample of the glory, not the kingdom in open display yet.
- Confirmed. Peter names that mountain scene as "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," a sample of the glory still to come.
- Applied. Only as we see the kingdom by faith are we ready to taste death in that deeper sense.