Matthew 16:13-20 | "Real ID pt.2"

This sermon was recorded at Faith Evangelical Free Church in Grand Forks, North Dakota.

And beginning our time together this morning in singing about our great God and his great and awesome Son who gave his life for us that we see revealed for us in Matthew chapter 16.

Matthew 16 · chapter mention

Matthew chapter 16.

Matthew 16 · chapter mention

Last week we started looking at verses 13 through 20 and did not get all the way through that.

So we're going to pick up where we left off last week.

Try to finish that this morning.

So if you have your Bible with you, I encourage you to take it and open it to Matthew 16.

If you have an electronic device and have your Bible there, we're beginning in Matthew 16, verse 13.

Matthew 16:13

Sometime around the year 1369, Jan Husinek was born to a family of peasants in the Bohemian village of Husinek, roughly translated Goose Town, in the southern part of the present-day Czech Republic.

Jan Husinek later attended the University of Prague, where he eventually earned a doctorate degree in the arts and was ordained to the ministry.

And he quickly gained notoriety in his preaching and in his ministry because he began taking in the teachings of a man by the name of John Wycliffe.

If you don't know John Wycliffe, Google that later and you can get more on that.

His connections to the teachings of Wycliffe eventually earned excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church for those views.

And in the year 1412, he withdrew from his pulpit in Prague for those views.

And he withdrew to the countryside and began to write one of his greatest treatises entitled The Church.

Husinek wrote that Christ is the head of the church.

And that a pope, I quote, through ignorance and love of money, can make many mistakes, and that to rebel against an erring pope is to obey Christ.

Three years later, three years after publishing that treaty on the church, after refusing to recant his evangelical convictions, Jan was burned at the stake for his refusal to recant.

His ashes were gathered together and dumped into a lake in order to rid the Holy Roman Empire of Jan Husenech.

Jan was born with the surname Husenech because that's the town in which he was born.

He later shortened it to Hus.

Jan Hus.

Hus meaning goose.

That's why, a little over a hundred years later, another dissenter of the Roman Catholic Church named Martin Luther would speak often about the goose that had been cooked for speaking out against the Pope.

The Protestant Church was born during the time that we refer to as the Reformation, roughly 1400 to 1600 AD.

It's called the Reformation because of scattered pockets of believers that had a desire to reform, to transform the Catholic Church.

Now at that time, the term Catholic had its proper meaning of universal.

So the desire was to bring biblical reform to Christ's universal church.

But when that reform was squelched, when those desires were squelched, the voices turned into protest against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Among the many doctrines and teachings at the heart of the Reformation was the doctrine of the papacy.

That is, what is the proper place of the Pope?

What biblical basis is there for the rule and the authority of the Pope?

Maybe you don't know exactly what that rule and authority is supposed to be.

Let me help you with that.

The catechism of the Catholic Church states this, and I quote, the Roman pontiff, by reason of his office as the vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Later, the catechism claims this quote, the Pope enjoys by divine institution supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.

Some of you that grew up in the Roman Catholic Church may remember that.

That is exactly what the reformers rejected.

For example, Martin Luther in one of his table talks said, The chief cause that I fell out with the Pope was this.

The Pope boasted that he was the head of the church and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority, for he said, although Christ is the head of the church, there still must be a corporal head of the church upon the earth.

Luther said, With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its place.

Further, he took upon him rule and power and authority over the Christian church, over the holy scriptures, the word of God, so that no man must presume to expound the scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits, so that he made himself Lord over the church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother and empress over the scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient.

This was not to be endured.

The Pope attributes more power to the church which is begotten and born than to the word which has begotten, conceived, and born the church.

They're sometimes difficult to spot.

But there were objections to Rome's doctrinal and traditional errors throughout the centuries, far before the time of the Reformation.

Most of the time they were insignificant voices.

Or the objectors were excommunicated, put out of the church.

And in some cases, in many cases, like Jan Hus, the voices were silenced by execution.

But there was one voice the Roman Catholic Church could not silence.

And that was Martin Luther.

Luther was nearly unstoppable after the grace of God rescued him by granting Martin the faith to believe in the unmerited justification found in Christ alone.

But it's truly surprising to understand how little Luther really did.

In the grand scheme of eternity, Martin Luther was an insignificant monk who taught Scripture to some students in an out-of-the-way village in Germany.

In fact, Luther himself said he did nothing.

He said he rested upon sola scriptura, scripture alone.

And that he simply taught the word.

And the word did the rest.

He said the word of God accomplished everything.

All Luther did was study Scripture and teach Scripture and write of Scripture and apply Scripture to life, and the Word of God did the rest.

You didn't know you were getting a church history lesson when you came to church this morning, did you?

But that church history lesson is important as we come to Matthew 16.

Because it's a foundational text for Roman Catholic doctrine.

And because it's an important text for Roman Catholic doctrine, it's an important text for us to understand why we are different.

So let's look at it.

Matthew 16, beginning in verse 13, it says, Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea, Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do people say that I am?

Who do people say that the Son of Man is?

And they said, Well, some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

And he said to the disciples, But who do you say that I am?

Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Last Sunday we looked at the background of this account, set against Mount Hermon looming in the background, with the pagan worship of Hermes on that mountain, and at the base of the mountain, the pagan worship of his son Pan.

And we learned that Pan, in the context of mythology, is said to have been the only God to have died, the only mythological God to go through, to pass through the gates of Hades.

And in the context of the geography of the region, Jesus and his disciples are near the place where the god Hermes would have taken his own son to Hades at the time of his death.

And it's there that Jesus asked his disciples, Who do you say that I am?

Peter responded with certainty.

Pan is not the son of the living God.

For Pan died.

But Jesus is the king, Peter says.

Jesus is the son of the living God, and we all, as disciples, believe that, Peter said.

Of course, we know, having read the end of the story, that Jesus also endures the gates of Hades.

But he returns alive.

And Peter's profession is true.

It's revealed to him by God the Father, Jesus says.

And that confession became the church's proclamation.

That's what we proclaim.

Jesus Christ is the true Son of God.

He is the Son of the living God who has passed through the gates of Hades, who has conquered death, and has returned alive.

Now, in a few moments left this morning, we're going to continue from last Sunday in verse 18.

We're going to cover this astounding claim that Jesus makes, and then we'll consider Peter's commission.

But the most important truth to understand as we come to this passage is that it is about Jesus.

He asks who people think he is, and who the disciples think he is.

He tells the disciples that he will build his church, that he's the one who's going to give the keys to Peter, etc.

This is not about Peter.

It's not about Peter's authority, it's not about papal or pastoral succession.

In fact, this isn't even about the church, it's about Jesus.

It's about Jesus and his actions as the Son of God who is the king of God's kingdom.

And Matthew intends for us to come away from this utterly overwhelmed by who Jesus is.

Since it's about Jesus, it's not prescriptive.

It doesn't give us instructions that we are to follow and to put into place.

Jesus doesn't establish a pattern and give commands to be followed.

He merely says, this is what's going to be.

I'm going to build my church.

Now let's turn to verse 18 as we see Jesus' claim.

I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This really is the difficult portion of this passage.

And it's the one that lends itself to being, for lack of a better term, more intellectual.

It's been a battleground for the church even before the Reformation.

So we're picking up on an argument, on a debate, on a struggle with what's going on here that has lasted far longer than we can imagine.

And whether you experience it or not, this verse impacts you no matter what church you call home.

You have been impacted by this verse, regardless of where you've gone to church, regardless of where you grew up, regardless of what kind of church you call your own.

The issue is this.

What is Jesus' claim?

Specifically, what is the rock?

What is the rock upon which Jesus will build his church?

You've probably heard that there's a play on words going on in this statement.

Because Jesus says, you are Peter, in Greek that's petros, masculine form of the word.

And on this rock, petra, I will build my church.

And a lot of people have played games with that and gone far astray, far out of the field and gotten lost because of that play on words.

The question is, what is the rock?

What is the petra upon which Jesus is going to build?

Now you don't need to know Greek to answer that question.

The words themselves don't really matter.

One is merely a masculine form of the word because it's a man's name.

The other is the normal form of the word.

Linguistically, there's no difference.

In fact, a lot of scholars believe that Jesus actually spoke in Aramaic, that Jewish people spoke in Aramaic as their common language, and that when Matthew wrote his gospel, it was written in Greek.

Now, if Jesus spoke in Aramaic, these two forms of the word would be exactly identical: Caphas, Cephas.

You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my church.

So it's merely a play on words that's happening here.

But that leads to the next question: what is the importance of that play on words?

Why does Jesus do that and what does he mean by it?

The language doesn't help us at all other than to clarify that for that for Peter there's this rock and they're the same word.

What do we do with that?

Knowing Greek doesn't give us a golden key of interpretation on this, so what do we do?

Well, let's think about church history.

What has happened throughout church history?

How has this been viewed?

Well, let's begin with the Roman Catholic view.

The Roman Catholic view is that Peter is the rock.

You are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church.

So Peter is the rock on whom Jesus is going to build his church, according to the Roman Catholic Church.

They deduce from that that Peter is given authority over the new church.

He's given the keys to the kingdom, and it's Peter who is ruling and running the new church, including authority over the other disciples.

So Peter is given the authority to speak for God.

We know that today as ex cathedra.

That inherently leads to authority in papal succession as well.

But there are some issues with that.

This text is not about Peter, it's about Jesus.

It's not even primarily about what is given by Jesus, but what Jesus is going to do.

He is going to build his church.

So even if we assume that the rock is Peter, there's nothing here about papal succession or even apostolic succession.

The text can't be used rightly to justify that conclusion.

So at best, the Roman Catholic view is a stretch.

It's a reading into the text, a theology that simply is not present here.

There's been a lot of research about history looking back, and we can actually see how the structure of the Roman Empire at the time that papal succession began, the structure of the Roman Empire fed into the Roman Catholic Church, and they borrowed a lot of that same ideology to structure the leadership of the church.

That's just one option, and there's a whole lot more you can read about that.

We can't go into depth about these this morning.

There's another option that we might call the evangelical reaction view.

This is the view that developed during the Reformation in reaction to the Roman Catholic view.

So the Reformers objected to papal authority.

They said the Pope does not have absolute authority, especially when he contradicts Scripture.

They reacted to that and they reacted to the tradition of succession from the Apostle Peter.

Those who were seeking to reform the church taught that this text does not refer to Peter as the rock upon which Christ will build his church.

Instead, they argued that the rock is Peter's confession.

That Jesus is building on what Peter has said.

Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus says, Yes, that's the truth, that's the theology, that's the rock upon which my church will be built.

That's what the reformers taught.

In fact, in a letter to Johannes Eck in 1519, Luther argued that the rock upon which the church was built is Peter's confession.

So Peter is essentially out of the picture then, and the Roman Catholic view is undermined, undercut.

So you can see then why that reform was crushed and began to turn into a protest that instigated an entire era of reform.

Now many evangelicals today hold on to this interpretation.

This continues still today.

And it's very legitimate to make an argument for it.

And as a retort to the Roman Catholic view, it sounds good.

It sounds right.

But even this view is not without its problems.

What are the issues?

Well, it minimizes the play on words.

Why, if the confession is the rock, then why does Jesus say, You are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church?

It doesn't give a good explanation for that.

If this view is correct, there should most likely be an additional word or even an additional phrase in the Greek language, especially a conjunctive, a but or an and or a rather to point to a change.

Yes, you are Peter, but it's on this rock of your confession that I will build my church.

So this view takes a theology and forces it on the text.

And in this case, we don't have to force it too much, but it doesn't really come from, out of the text.

And we have to be careful about relying on theologies that are built on reactions.

Reaction theologies are filled with emotions, which leads to a subjective interpretation of God's word.

And that's not to say that there isn't something correct in those kinds of reactional theologies.

It's just that we need to be extra careful.

But not all evangelicals hold to this view.

There's another option, and that is an evangelical stretch view.

An evangelical stretch view.

And that is the rock has to be Jesus.

It can't be a disciple.

But there has to be a rock upon which the church is built.

So it must be Jesus.

And the way this works is that you look at the rest of the New Testament and you say, what does the rest of the New Testament say about the church?

What is the bottom line cornerstone of the church?

Well, it's Jesus.

It's Jesus.

He's the chief corner.

He's the primary locating foundational point for the church.

So it has to be Jesus.

And I don't know about you, but I've often heard this of you presented like this.

It's as though Jesus says to Peter, pointing at Peter, you are Peter.

But it's on this rock, turning the finger to point at himself, that I'm going to build my church.

Well, the problem with that is that it effectively ignores everything that's going on here.

It's like a shrugging of the shoulders that says, I can't make sense of this, so let's turn to the rest of the New Testament and make up something that seems to fit with the whole New Testament.

Bottom line is there's really no support for that kind of view from this particular text.

We'd say that's eisegesis, that's taking something and reading it into what's here.

The view that this is Jesus completely ignores this play on words between Petra and Petros.

It completely ignores the linguistic patterns in the text.

It says, Well, I don't like what this says.

I'm just going to try to make sense of it.

And so what does the whole New Testament say?

There's a fourth view, and that is the evangelical textual view.

Just a reminder here, by the way, if you're taking notes, or if you're watching online and want to look at it again, my terminology here is exactly that.

These are my terms, my descriptive terms, so don't go blaming anyone else for these descriptions but me.

It's my fault.

I'm calling this the textual view because this fourth interpretation looks at the problem of this passage in two ways.

It looks at the grammar of the original language, and in a more general linguistic manner, looking at the patterns of the language to determine is there something here that helps us understand what Jesus really meant.

From this approach, there is really no other option but to see that when Jesus said, You are Petros, and upon this Petra, I will build my church, he was speaking to Peter.

He was speaking to Peter.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

That sounds an awful lot like the Roman Catholic view.

So what do we do with that?

Well, that's where we start to split away from the Roman Catholic view.

Because we've already seen in our first study of this passage that Peter stands out from the rest of the disciples, doesn't he?

Jesus asked his very first question, who do you say that I am to the whole group?

He uses a plural pronoun to refer to all of the disciples, but it's Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Peter is always the disciple that sort of steps out and answers on behalf of the group.

He's sort of the leader of the group.

He's the first among equals, we might say.

He speaks as a representative of the disciples.

Now, before I go on about this view, there's actually a fifth view.

And that is, that is, you might call it a geographic view, that says that Jesus is using that word rock to refer to the rock cliff at the base of Mount Hermes that houses the spring that's the gate of Hades.

So Jesus is sort of using the rock as a metaphor, saying it's on this rock where the gates of Hades and Hermes and Panorates on that rock that I'm going to build.

That has even less connection here, I think, but that option is the out there.

But it's this evangelical textual view that I think has the strongest argument.

Like Roman Catholics, I think that the best view is that Jesus is speaking to Peter about Peter.

But that's as far as I can go with the Roman Catholic view.

The question then becomes: what does Jesus intend when he says that he's going to build his church on the rock which is Peter, and he will give to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

Is your mind hurt yet?

Now you know why I preach first.

It'll get easier from here, I promise.

I know we've covered some tough ground and it's hard to keep up.

So let me let me just pause here and summarize.

Peter, on behalf of the disciples, professes faith in Jesus as the divine Son of God.

And that's a divine revelation given to him by God the Father.

God the Father has granted the faith to believe the unbelievable.

Peter answered a direct question that was directed to the group.

But when Jesus responds to the answer, he directs his speech only to Peter.

You, you are Petras.

And on this Petra I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

This is Caesarea Philippi.

It's a village that was previously named Panaeus or Panaeus, after the god Pan in pagan mythology.

In fact, during the time of Jesus, there was a statue of the god Pan located at the base of that cliff, at the opening of that cave, half goat and half man.

His worshipers gathered there to worship Pan at the entrance to the cave that was believed to be the entrance to Hades, the place of the dead.

They gathered there beside the temple Herod built to Caesar, and it's there with the backdrop of this rocky cliff where people worship the gods of mythology that Jesus says to Peter, You are the foundational rock upon which I will build my church.

And that happened.

That happened.

Peter, as the first among equals, leads the disciples.

Do you remember that in Paul's letters to the churches, the apostles are called the foundation of the church?

The Apostle Paul says the church is founded upon the prophets and the apostles.

And Peter is the first one of all the disciples to declare that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

He is the first one to preach a gospel message in the book of Acts.

He's the first one seen leading the fledgling church in Jerusalem.

He is among the first to be imprisoned.

He is the first one to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

And after the church is established among the Gentiles, Peter begins to fade away.

He's the spokesman for the apostles.

When Paul is converted and wants to have confirmation that he's preaching the right thing, he goes to the Jerusalem church and he appeals to James and Peter, who are leading the church, who are the elders of the church, the founders of the church.

Peter, in his role as first among equals, is the rock upon which the Lord himself will build his church.

Later, Paul would write that Christ is the cornerstone, but the apostles and prophets are the foundation.

See, Jesus here is speaking about his work of building his church.

It's not Peter building the church.

It's not the apostles building the church.

It's not us building the church.

Jesus builds his church.

But that work is led in Jesus' absence by the apostles who were themselves led by Peter.

And once the church is founded, Peter begins to fade from the scene.

So here at Caesarea Philippi, with what was commonly believed to be the gate of Hades, the realm of death and evil standing out before them, Jesus declares that even idolatry and death itself will not succeed, Jesus, will not succeed in stopping Jesus' work, building his church.

Jesus' claim then becomes the church's provision.

What do I mean by that?

Well the important point here is this is not about Peter.

It's about who?

Jesus.

He will build his church.

And he provided for that construction through Peter and the apostles.

And he will continue to provide for it today.

But that means nothing without the resurrection.

We're going to get several previews here in the next few weeks for Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday.

Jesus' claim here and his provision for the church means nothing without the resurrection.

Pan, the son of Hermes, died.

And Jesus, the son of the Father, would die.

But only one son would conquer death, rising victoriously to build his church.

Victorious over even the gates of death.

And it's his identity upon which the promise rests.

And that promise is that he will build his church.

It's not up to us.

It's his work.

Our duty is simply to be faithfully obedient, no matter the cost.

The emphasis here, and what we need to hang our hats on, so to speak, is that Jesus is in charge, not Peter.

It's his power, it's his authority, it's his directive that becomes the church's provision for all of its ministry.

But there's still this issue about Peter's commission.

Jesus says, I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What's that mean?

Sure sounds like Peter's the authority, doesn't it?

This is where an understanding of culture is helpful because this is an image from ancient cultures.

First, keep in mind that a kingdom is ruled by what?

You can say a king, right?

A kingdom is ruled by a king.

The kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, has as its king Jesus, the Messiah.

Jesus is the king, not Peter.

Secondly, the one who keeps the keys is a highly entrusted servant who's often called a steward or a household manager.

Think of Joseph in the Old Testament, in the book of Genesis.

It's a biblical picture of a steward.

A steward had the responsibility to make sure that the will of the master of the home was carried out.

The steward held the keys to the storerooms, to the storehouses.

He was responsible for making sure that the family was cared for from those provisions.

He carried out the master's work and the master's will.

The steward knew the will of the owner.

And whatever it took to ensure that it was done was handed over, was entrusted to the steward.

So having the keys of the home was a delegated responsibility.

The steward only, only exercised the authority of the master of the house and nothing more.

And that's what we see here.

Peter is put in place as the steward of Christ's church.

There's an unusual verb form found twice in verse 19 that's caused a ton of trouble.

Most of your Bibles will translate it, shall be bound in heaven.

And shall be bound on earth, or shall be loosed on earth.

Scholars have disagreed over the centuries on how best to translate this, but it basically comes down to two options.

One is translating it as a simple future tense.

You didn't know you were getting a language lesson this morning with a history lesson, did you?

One option, and this is the way that most translations will take this, is that it is a simple future tense, right?

It shall be bound.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound.

Whatever you loose shall be loosed.

Meaning that whatever Peter decides is going to be echoed in heaven.

Now that that feeds right into a Roman Catholic view of this passage, doesn't it?

The problem is this verb form is not a simple future form.

It's complicated.

It is a future passive form.

A future passive form, and that kind of verb is often translated shall have been bound.

Shall have been loosed.

In that sense, Peter is simply following through on what the master of the house has already decided.

Rather than Peter acting first, heaven acts first.

It's already been decided in heaven.

It's already been determined by the king.

It's already been determined by the master, and the steward simply follows through because it has been done already.

That takes the authority away from Peter and places it where it should be.

On Jesus, the King, the Son of the living God.

So Peter is simply first among the servants to do what the king has said should be done.

And that's what you see when you follow through on the events in Acts.

For example, in Acts chapter 5, God reveals to Peter that Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and that they would die right there in the gathering of the church.

Acts 5 · chapter mention

And they did.

Later, a centurion named Cornelius comes to faith in Christ because the king directs Peter, the steward, to open the door to the Gentiles.

It's already happened in this passage.

Peter has made a profession of faith in the deity of Christ.

Did Peter's profession make that a reality?

No.

That was already a reality in heaven, and God revealed it to Peter.

Father reveals it to the disciples, and they follow through on the declaration.

And so Peter's commission then becomes the church's validation.

As these same disciples would later do.

The church of any age, our fellowship, can do nothing but speak of what we have seen and heard.

Our responsibility is simply to say, What has the master said?

Let us do it.

That's our place.

That's our validation.

The work of the church is to merely follow through on what's already been declared and what's already been determined.

And so our worship, our fellowship, our teaching, our actions as the Lord's church are to be grounded in his commission through the revelation of his will and his word.

Our work, our mission, our worship are validated when it's driven by and conforms to what God has already determined.

And that is what Jan Hus was burned for.

We must never depart from that truth.

For Jesus is the only Son of the living God who has gone through the gates of Hades and torn down those gates as he conquered death in victory over sin and Satan.

It's through him, the true Son of God, that we have been redeemed, forgiven, and brought together as adopted children of the Father who continue the stewardship to make disciples as Christ the Lord builds his church.

Let's pray together.

Lord Jesus, we come and we bow before you.

Humbled that you would you would entrust to us such a responsibility to follow through on your word.

To be entrusted with the place of carrying out your will.

At the same time, it's intimidating.

We cannot do this work.

So with the apostles and with all of your true church throughout the ages, we come to you asking for your help, for your grounding of us in the faith, for your teaching us your word and instilling it deep within us so that we might know in all times and in every place in every situation what your will is.

And may we at the end say, like Martin Luther, I've not done anything.

It's the word that's accomplished it all.

Because in the end, Lord Jesus, we do not conquer death.

We may endure the gates of Hades.

We do not rise from the dead on our own.

Only you, the Christ, the Son of the living God, has passed through those gates, has been raised from the dead.

And because of that promise, because of that faithful work of God, we can be raised to new life spiritually now.

And one day, even we look forward to being raised to new physical life.

Not because of who we are, but because of who you are and what you've done.

You are the one we lift up, you are the one we magnify, you are the one that we praise.

Amen.

That concludes this sermon from Faith Evangelical Free Church.

Our mission is to declare the Word of God and disciple believers into mature, devoted followers of Jesus.

You can learn more by visiting our website at faithfree.com.