Matthew 16
Matthew 16:1-3: The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus to test Him in order to see if He was the Messiah or not. This is almost comical when you consider what had just happened, Jesus had just healed the sick, lame, deformed, mute and blind (Matt 15:30). Then Jesus fed four thousand right before their eyes. What other sign could be given? Jesus had fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies speaking of His healing the sick, and of His providing for His children. The signs had already been given! The sign that they were seeking was an effort to have Yeshua perform at their bidding. We know from previous scriptures that the Scribes and Pharisees had been shadowing Yeshua during His ministry. Yeshua performed signs, worked wonders and many miracles for the benefit of the common people. Yet He had done nothing to cater to or acknowledge the authority of the religious leaders. They wanted Jesus to perform for them.
Conspiracy theory, a deviation from the text for a moment: The “weather” rebuke in verses 2 and 3 is not in the oldest manuscripts. This could be a problem for some, so we will discuss it for a moment. It is possible that a well-meaning scribe inserted these two verses. On the other hand, it could also be that in the oldest manuscripts that we have the verses were inadvertently left out. Many have taught that the New Testament was written in koine Greek. This was the common Greek that was spoken by the masses at the time. It is very much like modern English that is the language of the world. When I speak with people from abroad, many tell me that English is taught in the schools as a mandatory language so that they can converse with the world. Greek was the same way. This is a thumbnail sketch of the argument.
There is a new slant on this argument that takes the opposing position. Some feel that the majority if not all of the New Testament was actually written in Hebrew. Later it was translated into Greek for the very reasons listed above. Although I entertain this idea, I will not preach it as the gospel truth. Through my studies I am leaning more toward this direction. I have noticed in my study of Matthew that many of the Greek words, phrases, and connotations do not reflect back to koine Greek, but rather to the Septuagint. It seems obvious that either Matthew used the Greek words for the Torah found in the Septuagint to write his gospel or someone used the Septuagint as a guide for translating the Gospel of Matthew from a Hebrew text into Greek.
It is quite possible that these elusive Hebrew manuscripts were destroyed either intentionally or by accident through the violent drama of early church history. History is very clear that Constantine hated everything Jewish. His main goal in joining the Christian Church with Mithra (Sun) worship was to blend the two religions into one, thus uniting his kingdom. Jewish people would not budge or blend, so they were his arch enemies. The early church also hated everything Jewish, look at the Crusades and the way that the Jewish people were nearly annihilated for a case in point. I am convinced that if the argument is correct that the original New Testament was written in Hebrew, then it was quite probable that these documents were destroyed while Greek was still the predominate language. However, it could have also happened later as the Catholic church that was born out of Constantine’s reign and anti-Semitic attitude, cleaned its roots. Perhaps one day someone will be digging through the archives of the Vatican and find these missing documents. It is clear that a spirit of antisemitism permeated the early church and thus led to the development of Replacement Theology which colors every aspect of modern Christian teaching across virtually all Christian denominations.
Let’s be perfectly clear that this is a theory. There is not a single fragment of any Hebrew New Testament documents that has been located to date. Biblical theorist have developed the idea of a “Q” Gospel that predates the others. Point being that even the serious Greek student recognizes that something is amiss with the Greek Manuscripts. The Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are the only ancient manuscripts that we have. All that we are discussing here is simply theory.
The correlation between the Septuagint Greek word usage through translation of Hebrew terms into Greek, are consistent with the Greek found in Matthew’s Gospel. The correlation is uncanny because when referring to the koine Greek, many of Matthew’s statements would have made more sense if worded differently. This Gospel utilizes the words from the Septuagint which were used to translate the Hebrew text into Greek instead of the common koine Greek of the time. This leads me to believe that the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that we have were translated from Hebrew using the Septuagint as a translation key. We also have absolutely no historical evidence outside of translation anomalies that demonstrate the truth of this argument.
Many try to claim that Hebrew as a language was dead at the time. Biblical evidence proves this to be error. If this were true, then when Paul was speaking to the Jews in Hebrew, none would have understood him (Acts 21:40; 22:2). The scriptures record that they understood him perfectly and were determined to kill him for his message. Yeshua also spoke to Paul in Hebrew (Acts 26:14). Mary also referred to Yeshua as “Rabboni” which was Hebrew (John 20:16). The final thought on this is that if Hebrew was a dead language, it would not have been necessary for Pilate to have ordered the message on the cross to be written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek (John 19:20). It would have been pointless to put a Hebrew message on the cross if no one could read it. Consequently, the acronym YHVH which is the exact name of God was indicated by the inscription of the inscription of Hebrew on the cross. We have the evidence that Hebrew was a live language. It is problematic for some because they are justifying Greek manuscripts. Did Yeshua teach in Hebrew or Greek? We will not know until we see Him in Glory.
Returning to the Text Matthew 16:2-3: We also find a similar “weather” statement in Luke given in a different context (Lk 12:54-56). If a scribe inserted these verses or not, we will not know until we reach heaven. What is important is the context of the passage does not change. The message without the rebuke is quite softer, but it is still the same message. The result is not significant in the end. It is clear that if Jesus was rebuking the teachers, He had excellent ground. Matthew was careful to teach Torah to his readers and very careful to demonstrate how that Torah is the message of our Messiah, Yeshua. In my opinion, discussion of the weather is a break from his norm since this argument is not found in Torah. Matthew to this point has taught how Yeshua taught Torah exclusively. This is the second deviation in the Gospel from that theme. The first one being the second mile (Matt 5:41). Yet the message of Torah carries forward. Yeshua is pointing the Pharisees and teachers to the point that if they are studying the scriptures, it is very evident that the signs of the scriptures speak of Him.
The message from the Gospel still rings true. Especially today. At that time Yeshua rebuked them because they were unable to discern the truth of the times. He was not speaking to unbelievers trying to convert those who had never been exposed to salvation. Yeshua was speaking to believing Jews who were well studied in the scriptures. Many of these were well aware that the signs of the times demanded that the coming of the Messiah was in the works. This was one of the main things that drove the Qumran writers of the dead sea scrolls. Their writings show strong evidence that they were looking for the Messiah and were actively building a profile of the Messiah from the scriptures. Little did they know that the Messiah, Yeshua was in their back yard and lived just a few miles away.
Today we are faced with the same problem on a smaller scale. Many untold billions of Christians are looking for the rapture because they realize that the times demand that the Messiah, Jesus is soon to return. Many millions of Jews and Christians are exploring the scriptures to realize that Jesus is a Jewish Messiah and are turning back to the ancient paths of the feast and festivals of the Jews to have a richer relationship with Him. Yet the vast majority of Christians are refusing to entertain the idea that Yeshua is a Jew. They refuse to acknowledge that He designed the entire Gospel as a commentary on Torah. He also designed the way of salvation in a way that it is impossible to understand it without understanding Torah.
Trying to understand the Gospel without considering the source material of the Old Testament is simply incomprehensible. The New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament. To this point in our study of Matthew, we are running right at over ninety-five percent of all the verses so far have directly pointed back to the scriptures of the Old Testament. A very small percentage of these scriptures were pointed at the Babylonian Talmud, and an even smaller percentage were directed toward the extra-biblical writings such as the Book of Jashar. Overall, Jesus did not teach anything new in the New Testament.
Sign of Jonah, Matthew 16:4
The signs of the times demand the coming of the Messiah is very near. We today ignore the lesson from Jonah as he was sent to an unbelieving city that repented. Many fail to understand the risen Messiah because they have discarded the source material of the Old Testament and consider it is obsolete. In a nutshell, when the false teaching is put for that the “law” has been done away with, it is saying that “Torah” has been done away with. Therefore, many are being duped by well-meaning teachers who are squelching the move of the Holy Spirit by fighting hard against the Messianic truth that is being revealed today.
Today a large majority of Christians are looking for the sign of the rapture demanding that God has placed this in the scriptures. This is probably one of the biggest deceptions of all times. If you carefully study the doctrine, it’s source and take all the scriptures that are used for it in context it quickly falls into the category of “fable” because nothing can be proven through careful Bible study. The large majority of Christians are looking for this “sign” as validation of the return of the Messiah. A very small number of people are realizing that the Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. These realize that the way to understand Him is to return to the scriptures and change our understanding to come into accordance with Torah. We have fallen into the exact error that the Pharisees and Sadducees made in their day. In or effort to look for the rapture we have failed to look intently into the scriptures to understand our Messiah.
To this day the miracle of Nineveh through the ministry of the reluctant prophet Jonah stands as a testimony against us. The truth of our Messiah is hidden by fluff that clouds our thinking. We need to call every teaching into question and carefully examine them according the scriptures to see if they are true. Enough preaching, back to the study.
Just as the sign of the weather, Jesus replies to them that no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah. This removes the rebuke and turns the reply into a statement. Yeshua used Jonah as an example of His resurrection earlier in Matthew (Matt 12:40). I went into this in the study on Matthew 12 at length. The context of this chapter indicates that we are looking at the same lesson. Yeshua is discussing the fact that He will die and rise from the dead. The archived study on Matthew 12:40 goes into greater depth, here is the basic idea:
Jonah was a type of Messiah. However, he was a reluctant prophet who prophesied only because God forced him to do so. He ran the opposite direction when instructed to go to Nineveh. He was cast into the sea and swallowed by huge fish, which symbolized or may have possibly been death, transported underwater for three days, and then he was puked back up onto the shore. It is unclear whether he was brought back to life or survived the journey. Then he proceeded to Nineveh to preach a gospel of repentance. Jonah made the quickest trip through the city of Nineveh, which was three day’s walk across, and Jonah made it across in one day preaching the message that Nineveh would be destroyed (Jonah 3:3-4). Some may argue that this is simply a reference to the size of the city. Context seems to indicate that Jonah walked through the city very fast preaching as he power-walked through. It was almost as if he was preaching on the run and had to clear the city before the wrath was rained upon it. The city of Nineveh responded by taking his message very seriously.
Nineveh repented and God spared them. No signs, no fantastic wonders brought down from heaven. Jonah was a rebellious prophet preaching a message that he did not want to preach, taking the quickest route through town in order to fulfill the requirement of the task at hand. Then he waited for God to destroy the city, parking himself at a location where he could watch the fireworks. In the end of the book, Jonah never repented, and was rebuked by God for his bitterness. Jonah’s only credit was that he knew that God would destroy Nineveh; he exercised a believing faith in the power of the God that he served. He misunderstood God and did not factor the repentance of Nineveh into his expectation. Nineveh repented with the smallest of messages, the Jews refused to repent when Jesus was coming with signs and wonders, no wonder Jesus was frustrated. If you have not read Jonah, spend some time there, the book is short and very compelling.
Matthew 16:5-12
First of all let’s look at the text of this passage:
Matthew 16:5–12 (NASB95)
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 “Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 “Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 “How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Notice the setup for the scene. The disciples had forgotten to bring bread (Matt 16:5). The first and most important rule of interpretation is simply to read the passage and look at the elements of the passage in context. The disciples were noticeably upset because they forgot to bring bread.
The second element of the passage is Yeshua uses their forgetfulness to bring bread as a vehicle to teach a lesson. They had just finished witnessing the scene where Yeshua rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for failing to see the signs that He was performing. Yeshua was not doing it the way that the religious leaders expected Him to perform. Although He was teaching Torah, keeping the festivals and encouraging people to turn to the leading of God (true Torah), He was not doing it according to traditional rules. Yeshua was working outside of the box. Yeshua was not following the traditions of men or coming under the authority of the religious leaders.
I can’t tell you the number of times that I have seen people write and preach that leaven always means sin. Honestly, this attitude stifles good interpretation of scripture. We are not seeing Yeshua condemn the religious leaders for failing to follow Torah. Incidentally, any deviation from Torah according to the scriptures is sin. The reason for this is the Hebrew word Torah simply translated is “instruction”. God gave His instruction of the expectations that He has for men to follow in order to have right standing with Him.
As Christians we have been grafted in to the root of Judaism and effectively have become spiritual Jews. If I were to ask any pastor concerning the covenants of the Old Testament, most will say that they apply to Christians. However, they somehow ascertain that the Torah (Law) has been done away with. This is problematic when we look at the exodus when the Jewish people ratified the contract (covenant) of Torah (Ex 19:7-8). Exodus 19-23 outlines the Ten Commandments and the basic instructions of God (Torah). At the marriage supper of YHVH, the people of Israel ratified the covenant saying that they will certainly follow all that God commanded (Ex 24:1-11). Moses then went back up on the mountain to receive further instruction. This is what we are grafted into. Sin is “missing the mark”, failing to follow the instructions of God, therefore, without Torah (God’s law) sin is not defined (Romans 3:20-23). If Torah is done away with, then we are not faced with sin since Torah defined how to follow God’s instructions. Paul concluded that since we now follow God by putting His words into action (faith), we establish Torah to be true (Romans 3:31).
We have established that sin is simply deviating from the instructions of God (Torah). John teaches us that when Yeshua came in the flesh, He was the living Torah that came in the flesh (John 1:1-18). He went further to clarify that Yeshua was living Torah and what this implies, as the subject of his epistles (1 Jn 1:1-4). He is the very instruction of God born in the flesh. With this established, let’s discuss leaven for a moment.
In the past as we discussed leaven or yeast, it is clearly evident from the scriptures that bad leaven is mixing Torah with pagan teaching. This is the crux of the drama that took place during Judges and Kings. Bad judges/kings mixed Torah with paganism. Good judges/kings tore down the pagan altars and reestablished Torah. Let’s apply that to the religious teachers in Yeshua’s illustration. They mixed Torah with what? The religious leaders mixed the instructions of God (Torah) with the traditions of their past or simply the traditions of men. The leaven according to this understanding is simply taking God’s instruction and adding tradition to it. That was the crime of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is evident through the scriptures that they added so many requirements that they were not even able to live up to their own standards!
Yeshua made it very clear that the bread was an illustration for a deeper truth (Matt 16:8-11). The deeper truth is bread which is leavened by the word of God feeds the world (Matt 13:33). This bread is multiplied in magnificent ways according to Yeshua’s instruction. The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees is to be avoided at all costs (Matt 16:12).
Let’s put this in shoe leather for a moment. Many of us will say that we don’t have a problem with that since the “church” does not follow the Jewish traditions. This is true. However, the church does add tradition to the teaching of the word. Historically speaking the church has effectively blended paganism with Bible. The truth is self-evident, do research on Christmas, Easter, and Sunday worship…to start.
I move in Messianic circles where we blend Jewish thinking/Torah with the understanding of Christian thinking borrowing from both the true elements from the Word. Here is the danger that many Messianic people are faced with. The Messianic community at large sees the corruption and deception that has been handed down through the ages through the church that has turned the hearts of God’s people away from Torah. Many Messianic people are turning “Jewish” to the point that they embrace all the traditions and customs of the Jews as the right way of living. Although they still hold firm that the Yeshua the Messiah is still their savior, they abandon everything they have been taught to embrace the traditions of the Jews. Here we have inadvertently embraced and are selfishly protecting the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. We certainly abandoned the leaven of paganism where the church blended Torah with Pagan teaching. Many Messianic people have overcorrected to embrace the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees where the traditions of the Jews take the same authority as Torah.
On both sides of the fence, Christian and Messianic, we need to call all practices into question. Does our liturgy/way of life line up with the scriptures? Are we following the teachings of men or the teaching of God? Can we clearly teach and demonstrate from the scriptures that our common practices are in alignment with God’s word? I submit to you that if we have to pull scriptures out of context, or have to jump through hoops to explain our understanding of the scriptures without being able to clearly demonstrate it through the scriptures, then we stand on dangerous ground.
As we near the coming of the Messiah, it is time for all believers to throw off the bad leaven that has permeated our worlds in order to embrace the good leaven of God’s truth (Matt 13:33).
Matthew 16:13-18
Yeshua asked the disciples an interesting question in this passage that almost seems like a poll of the ideas of the people at large. In the previous passage we studied we see that the religious leaders considered Yeshua to be a wildcard that they needed to bring under their control. They sought to manipulate Him to perform for them.
The first indication of the seriousness of the question is the title that Yeshua claims in the first place. He identified Himself as the “Son of Man”. This is a term that God used when speaking to Ezekiel. At first this seems to be a term of identity for Ezekiel. However, upon scanning the ninety-three references a different picture comes into play. Almost every reference to the “son of man” regarding Ezekiel can be applied to the life of Yeshua. There are too many parallel’s where Yeshua puts to action the prophecies that were given to Ezekiel addressed as the “son of man” to ignore the correlation. It would be a rich study to take each of the references and see how they apply to the Messiah Yeshua.
Daniel used the term “Son of man” to refer to the Messiah when he takes reign over the entire earth:
Daniel 7:13–14 (NASB95)
13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
Yeshua used this term to refer to Himself. We can be certain that He knew exactly what He was saying. Yeshua, by claiming that title claimed to be God in the flesh.
Matthew 16:14: Public speculation went all over the map. The people felt for certain that Yeshua demonstrated the characteristics of the ancient prophets. They saw the characteristics of God in Yeshua as He lived out the message of the prophets. I am convinced that Yeshua was the YHVH of the Old Testament come in the flesh. It is difficult to split hairs and define who God really is since we as created beings are so incredibly inferior it is impossible for us to fully comprehend His nature. The evidence from the scriptures and the statements of Yeshua point to the fact that He is God.
I recently heard it said from a well-respected pastor that Yeshua set aside His Godhood and became wholly man while He was on earth. In other words, He was effectively not God during His earthly ministry. I went to the scriptures and dug deep on this subject, I wholeheartedly disagree. The proof text that is used for this argument comes from Philippians 2:5-8. What we have with that passage is a great demonstration of the inadequacy of the English language to translate ideas from the Greek language. The wording of the passage is tricky and has been translated with the doctrines of the translators coloring the meaning. Quite simply the passage teaches first of all that Yeshua is God, He was God in the flesh, and lived as a Human and as God simultaneously. Although He had the creative and awesome power of God within Him, He did not assert that privilege or nature as a priority while He lived in the flesh.
My friend stated that it would not have been a fair bargain for Yeshua to live a perfect life in the flesh if He was God in the flesh as a representative for the Human race as the unblemished Passover lamb. This makes sense to a point. However, it falls back on Replacement Theology that disregards the covenants of the Old Testament. According to the Abrahamic covenant, God had to die if the covenant was broken (Gen 12:1-3; 15:8-21). In ancient tradition, when animals were split in half, the covenant stated if the covenant was violated those making the covenant would become as the animals. God upheld this type of covenant (Jer 34:8-22). Abram went to sleep and was unable to pass between the parts to sign his part of the covenant. God ratified the covenant on His own as a smoking oven passing between the parts.
Yeshua had to die because of the curse of sin. He was born of a woman. The DNA of God spliced with the DNA of a fallen human to create a God-man. In order to defeat the curse of death, Yeshua had to die and rise from the dead (1 Cor 15:22-49). He is the second Adam, the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45).
Yeshua is also the Passover Lamb that was slain (1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:17-21). This is where the stumbling block falls in the paths of those who misunderstand the intent of Philippians 2:5-8. They claim that it would not have been fair for Yeshua to live life as God-man since God would certainly have the power to avoid sin. This can be argued. In my opinion, if the devil agreed to the terms of the agreement and was able to kill God, then acting according to the terms of the contract bound him to that contract. Secondly, Yeshua had the sin nature since he was born of a woman. The vehicle that He entered the world with was tainted and subject to temptation (Matt 4:1; Mark 1:13; Lk 4:2). He was tempted in all ways that we are yet found without sin (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:14-16). Therefore, since he had the propensity to be tempted, the probability that He could fall into sin and the effort of the devil to make that happen, He qualified as the unblemished lamb.
There are other arguments that can be made, we have chased this rabbit trail long enough. The website Hebrew4Christians has an excellent study regarding this topic: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Yeshua_is_Adonai/yeshua_is_adonai.html. It is an amazing article. Let’s get back to Matthew.
It is reasonable to consider that if Yeshua was the Old Testament God come in the flesh, then the message that He taught through the prophets would remain the same. The people of the time were perceptive enough to recognize that Yeshua was teaching what the Old Testament prophets taught so well that He could have filled their shoes. What they did not realize is the reason He taught what they taught was because He inspired them to teach their message many years prior to His earthly existence. YHVH’s message to the prophets had the mark of familiarity because Yeshua was YHVH born in the flesh.
Matthew 16:15: I recently watched the movie God is Not Dead 2, that focused on this very issue. I found the movie to be remarkably good. One drawback that it had was the scripture was left to be ambiguous without the background of the prophets. Often Scriptures are pulled out of context for the purpose of inspiring others to action. We are looking at this verse in context and will focus on how it applied to the Hebrew mindset.
Matthew 16:16: Peter responded that Yeshua was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Let’s break this down so that we can get beyond the English translation. Christ is transliterated from the Greek language from the Greek word “Christos”. In other words, the word is never translated. A loose translation that reflects the idea of the Old Testament meaning is “anointed one”. The word from the Greek if it were translated exactly would be “smeared on, anointed, or ointment”.[1] This reflects back to the kings and prophets of old who were anointed before they took office or position (2 Sam 2:7; 5:3; 1 Ki 38-40). The Hebrew word “masah” carries the same meaning, to smear or rub on an object with liquid in order to consecrate or dedicate a person or thing for service.[2] Anointing’s were reserved for three classes of people in the Old Testament (Tanakh). It was for the high priest (Zech 4:14), priests, prophets (1 Ki 19:16; Isa 61:1), and kings (1 Sam 9:16; 16:1-13). If we were to look at the exact Greek translation of this word, it would be very clear that Yeshua was anointed to the office of prophet, priest and king. Yet there is more because the Gospel of Matthew used the Greek Septuagint as a guide for translating Old Testament words into Greek.
There is a slight variation in the Hebrew word (Mishah) which refers to holy anointment for religious activity (Ex 25:6; 29:7; Lev 8:2, 10, 12, 30). This word is translated in the Septuagint from the Hebrew into the Greek as “Christos” (Lev 21:10, 12). While the word “masah” is translated in the Septuagint from Hebrew into Greek as “Chrio”. The word Messiah is derived from the Greek word Christos which refers to a holy anointing by God for the office of priest. This was not just an “anointed one”. Peter referred to Yeshua as “ho Christos” which is “the Messiah”. With our understanding of the word, this means that Yeshua is the Holy one anointed for service to God. So when we transliterate the word as Christ and give it zero meaning other than a title, we miss the boat entirely. What Peter was saying was simply that Yeshua was the “holy” one anointed by God for a particular ministry.
The idea of the Messiah is interwoven into every story in the Tanakh (Old Testament). One of the themes that runs through Matthew is that Yeshua is the promised Messiah. The Messiah for example was the promised Son of David that would regain permanent rule (2 Sam 7:11-17). The Messiah will reign, be highly exalted, and will restore the people back to YHVH (Isa 52). One cannot read the Old Testament without seeing a picture of a coming holy anointed one who will restore all things. There are many facets to the Messianic prophecies, we will leave those for later studies. What is important here is that Peter identified Yeshua as “the Messiah”. Yeshua was not just another prophet.
“Son of the living God”. Peter’s second name for Yeshua is not an additional name that was added. This was a clarification of the term “the Messiah”. Yeshua was not just a prophet, priest or king that was anointed for a special purpose. Yeshua was the actual Son of the living God who came for a specific purpose. Peter attested that Yeshua was the Holy living God in the flesh. This statement is easily missed if we see “the Christ” as a title rather than as a description of who Yeshua was. The description is clarified further by the second statement. Peter did not want the idea to be watered down.
It is intriguing that the spirit realm was well aware that Yeshua was God. For example, the demons in the gospels referred to Yeshua as “the Holy One of God!” (Mark 1:24-25; Lk 4:34). If this were translated into Hebrew, it would be “El Elyon”. Yeshua commanded the demons to remain silent about His identity. We see the same declaration by the legion of demons who identified Yeshua as “Son of the Most High God” (Mark 5:7). This title runs through the scriptures and identifies Yeshua as “Elohim Elyon” the Redeemer (Ps 57:2; 78:35-39, 56). If Yeshua is indeed the YHVH of the Old Testament, then the scriptures say that YHVH is the El Elyon, God Most High (Ps 83:18). This term for God is joined with the idea of the deliverer who delivers people from evil (Ps 97:9-12).
I have made the statement regarding YHVH a few times. The name of God in the Old Testament that is almost always translate as “lord” small caps is the name YHVH. The Complete Jewish Bible has attempted to correct the implication by using the name Adonai thereby confusing the problem since this is an entirely different name of God. The name consists of the Hebrew letters Yodh Hey Vav Hey. The name is never translated from the Hebrew for a few reasons. First and foremost, no-one knows how to translate it. The name was considered so Holy that the Hebrew people refused to write vowel markings or to say the name verbally. The real pronunciation was passed down orally and somewhere in time was lost entirely. When you read Hebrew commentaries or look on Hebrew websites, you will run into this tradition with the name G-d which honors this tradition by leaving the vowel out of God. Christians have attempted to figure out how to translate this name and have developed several good translations such as Yahweh and Jehovah. The problem is that neither of these are correct in that we cannot authoritatively say either translation is correct. Some claim that the beginning of the name must be “Yah” since that is a common name for God in the Old Testament. Even this is supposition. When Yeshua returns to the earth, His crown will be signed with a name that no-one knows (Rev 19:12). I believe that this name is the correct pronunciation of YHVH since it is the only Name of God that has been lost.
When the angel Gabriel visited with Mary, He identified Yeshua as the “Holy child shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). Gabriel certainly knew who God was.
We see clear evidence of this truth that Yeshua is YHVH in the temptation by the devil (Matthew 4:1, 7). If Yeshua was not actually (YHVH) God in the flesh, he would have been lying when He made the statement “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Matt 4:7; Deut 6:16). If this were a false statement, then the devil would have won the temptation then and there. Yeshua would have claimed a false identity as YHVH and sinned. The truth of the matter is that the devil recognized Yeshua as the YHVH and accepted His statement as truth. Then he moved on to the next temptation.
In the spirit realm, we get clear evidence that Yeshua was God Most High in the flesh. He is the one who was “anointed” by God for a specific Holy purpose. God took on the form of man to redeem mankind. The Spirit realm understood this and accepted this as fact. We could continue this discussion but, for the purpose of this study the evidence from the scriptures is clear. When Peter made the declaration that Yeshua was “The Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). He made a statement that took into account the Hebrew understanding of God and declared that Yeshua was YHVH.
Matthew 16:17: Yeshua validated Peter’s statement and declared that the revelation did not come from man, it came from the Father. He was saying simply that Peter did not figure it out from human wisdom or deduction. He became aware of this truth through revelation. The significance of this is that Yeshua declared that the words that were spoken were true, divinely inspired. Yeshua accepted the role of YHVH, the Son of the Most High as truth about Him.
Matthew 16:18-19: Having been raised a Catholic; these verses were drilled into my head as a child. I was taught that Peter was the first pope and the “Catholic” church was built on him. The Catholics teach that the entire church is built squarely upon Peter and the papal authority comes from these verses. Let’s see what the scriptures say:
“Peter” literally means “stone”. Yeshua said to him that his name is “stone” (Greek: petros), which means a small stone. The declaration of his name is similar to when God spoke to Abram and said His name is now Abraham, and Jacob was renamed as Israel, (Gen 17:5; 32:28). Yeshua returned the declaration that Peter had said about him by giving him a name. The name “petros” literally indicates a stone of the size that it could be picked up. It is not referring to a building stone, but rather an uncut stone that has the potential to be formed into something else.
What intrigues me is that the altar in the Old Testament carried the specific instruction that it was to be constructed of “uncut” stones (Ex 20:25; Deut 27:5). Any cutting of stones for the altar was considered profaning the altar. Anyone who has studied Peter at length understands that he was a rough character, who was rather rough around the edges. He was an uncut stone, solid as a rock in his commitment, but also rolled in unpredictable ways when times went hard.
When we take this idea and extend it to the passage, we get an entirely different picture than the one that the Catholics try to promote. Peter is a stone that is a part of the most holy part of the structure. He is a stone designated for the altar, holy and set apart.
Yeshua went on to say “and upon this rock, (Greek: petra), I will build My church, (Greek: Ekklesia), and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” There is a word play taking place. The word for “rock” is the word used for a mountain of rock or bedrock. The idea behind the word petra is a massive rock so big that a foundation for a building would not be necessary. The play on words is using “petra” to refer to Yeshua.
The Greek word Ekklesia has been translated almost exclusively as “church”. The idea behind it is simply “called out ones”. Carry on to the next verse now. It would be better to translate the word Ekklesia in this passage as “kingdom” since he tells Peter that he will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The sacrificial system in Torah deals with both the sin of man and with maintenance of a relationship with God. Peter, as a uncut stone who made up the spiritual altar stood as one who stood in the gap for the people. Peter interprets this passage for us in his epistle:
1 Peter 2:4–10 (NASB95) 4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,” 8 and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
You can see that the building Peter is talking about is a spiritual building built upon living stones. He interprets the words of Yeshua to reflect the called out believers who make up the kingdom of God on earth. Peter certainly carried the name “petros” or small stone. He motivated people to become part of the building of God, the called out assembly, holy, designated for a purpose.
When we see Yeshua giving Peter the keys to bind and loose, many have taken a lot of liberty with these verses. The meaning is not clear whether this ability was transferrable or remained with Peter. I believe Yeshua was referring to Peter as a living stone on the altar of sacrifice. The binding and loosing was specific to him as he was instrumental in building the assembly of God to become the first church. Peter carried an authority that was specific to him and was not transferrable. If it had been, that authority would have been given to the rest of the disciples as well.
Some argue that Pastors of churches carry this same authority. I do not see that in the scripture. This is simply pulling scripture out of context and continuing the false teaching that Peter was the first pope with a protestant twist. It is sad but often we receive a teaching from those in authority and look for scriptures that seem to justify the teaching. Having been justified, no further thought is given. Then false doctrine is born with a theoretical scriptural background. It is time that we call all teaching into question and return to the actual teaching of the scriptures.
An interesting note from the Jewish culture of the time, Hades was thought to be the gate to death. When a man died, he passed through these gates to go into the next world. Using that analogy, the gates of Hades could not overpower the Messiah because He would rise again! Not only that, as we place our trust in the Messiah, we will never taste the sting of death (1 Cor 15:50-57).
Matt 16:20: Jesus warned the disciples not to tell that He was the Messiah mainly because that would fan the flames that had already started among the religious leaders of the day. He had work to do on earth before he was to be crucified. The gag order was put in place so that He would not have additional problems.
I want to make sure that the understanding is made correctly here, the one who is the focal point in this passage is not Peter, it is the Messiah, Jesus. Look back at the beginning of our discussion today, everything started with Peter proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus built the illustration on the fact that He was the Messiah, and ended it by telling them that they should not tell anyone that He was the Messiah, the Christ.
Yeshua reveals the Suffering Messiah: Matthew 16:21-23
A shift in focus takes place for the disciples. The Jewish people at that time, read the scriptures and rightly interpreted that the Messiah would set up an earthly kingdom where He will rule with a rod of iron (Psalm 2). What they did not see was the multitude of prophecies that explained how that the Messiah will suffer and die a hideous death (Isaiah 52:14-53:12). The disciples simply did not understand the idea of the first stage of the Suffering Messiah. This stage was necessary for the fulfillment of the Spring Festivals. We will be covering the festivals of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Passover, and the Feast of Fruits and others, as we study the Suffering Messiah in the coming chapters. Setting up the earthly kingdom does not take place until after the Great Tribulation, (that is another study and is rooted entirely in Old Testament prophecies).
It is fascinating when you think further on the context this passage. Yeshua was identified as the Messiah, as YHVH born into the flesh. Immediately upon verification of this, He informed the disciples that He must complete the requirements of the scriptures for the Messiah. He came to purchase back mankind by fulfilling the festivals and by putting the covenants into full effect. The response in verse 23 reveals the full dynamic of His mission in the statement “for you are not setting your mind on God’s interest (literally the things of God, NASB note) but man’s” (Matt 16:23b).
God’s interest has always focused on Torah. To this point in Matthew we have found that almost every verse is laced in some way with a commentary on Torah or on demonstrating how that Yeshua fulfilled Torah. Yeshua did not just happen on the scene. He was sent to the earth for a purpose that was pre-determined from the very first sin of Adam (1 Cor 15:45-49). If you look at the “scarlet thread” that runs through the scriptures, you will see that every single covenant looked forward to the coming Messiah. The New Covenant, which so many mistaken for the New Testament, also looked forward to the Messiah, because without Him, the New Covenant would have never been implemented (Jer 31:31-34). By the way, the New Covenant was not made with Christians, it was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah thus inferring all Hebrews. We as Christians are riding on their coattails.
Peter is an interesting study. Jesus commended him for his rock-like revelation that he had made. Now Peter takes on the role of Satan by discouraging Yeshua from fulfilling his task. Peter did not want a suffering Messiah, He wanted a military Messiah who would set up the Millennial reign on earth. This gives us insight into Satan’s role in the New Testament. He did not understand the implications of what Jesus was going to do on the cross; otherwise he would have never incited the crucifixion. In that way Peter was like the devil by not wanting to allow the Messiah to fulfill His destiny. Satan thought if he killed the Messiah, he would prevent the Messianic rule over the earth.
If you are still holding to the Catholic perspective, Peter went from being a stone that the church would be built upon to a stone (stumbling block) on which God could trip over (v.23). Interesting problem isn’t it? The context of the entire passage relates that Peter is merely a man, a perceptive man, who was called out by God. He is also a man who is fallible and subject to making mistakes. Just as a stone can be utilized to build, it can also prove to be a tripping hazard in the wrong place. Peter was simply a small stone utilized by God in spite of his weaknesses. Only the Messiah is the one that is the foundation for all who are called by God for a specific purpose.
Discipleship: Matthew 16:24: Some have titled these four verses as “the cost of discipleship”. We are missing the point with that title. This is not the cost of discipleship since many who claim to be followers of Yeshua simply will not be discipled. This is the nature of the true believer that has been called out by Yeshua for a specific purpose.
Jesus continues the thought of the necessity of His death and infers that it will be by crucifixion. We understand this passage in retrospect because we are looking at the entire picture of the life of the Messiah. It must have been confusing for the disciples when Jesus started talking about how that they had to take up their cross and follow Him. Criminals carried crosses to their death, and at this point they were not convicted of a crime. Yeshua was preparing them for the events that were soon to take place. In order for sin to be paid for, the Messiah must lose His life. Jesus related that to the disciples, the ones who were called out in His name, that they must be willing to lose their lives. They must be willing to follow in His footsteps, even if it meant following Him to death.
The Roman custom of making a convicted criminal carry his own cross is well known. Yeshua was saying simply that if someone is “convicted” of being His disciple, they will certainly bear the evidence in their lives. What is discipleship? Earlier in Matthew this exact topic was discussed with the same conclusion, take up the cross (Matthew 10:16-38). The message that followed the missionary journey of the disciples is now refocused to the mission of a disciple of the Messiah.
There has been a lot of speculation on the meaning of these verses. Taking up your cross makes good preaching material. The gambit of application runs all over the place. When a verse is pulled out of context it can be tweaked to apply to a broad spectrum. This spectrum ranges from simply living the believing life to sickness, persecution, financial difficulties, marital issues, or any number of applications, almost all of them are in error. What I encourage is context. In the context of the passage these verses simply speak of the devotion of a believer to the Messiah Yeshua. Does the believer have enough evidence in his life to convict him of being a follower of Yeshua?
three “for” statements that follow followed by an “amen” statement:
The word “for” comes from the Greek word “gar”. It simply translates as “for” or “because”. All the preaching prompts aside, Yeshua defines His own three-point sermon which results from “taking up the cross”. Let’s see where this is going.
The first “for” or “because”: Matthew 16:25: Normally the Greek word for “life” is “zoe”. This is not the word used in this passage. Our translators have led us astray by giving a bad translation, again. The New American Standard makes a footnote that it could also be translated as “soul”. Even this is lame. The Greek word used in this passage is as follows: “whoever wishes to save his “psyche” will lose it; but whoever loses his “psyche” for my sake will find it” (Matt 16:25 NASB95, Greek substituted). The Greek word used is “psyche”.
The word carries a deep meaning that includes life and soul. It carried a more complete meaning in the Greek culture. It carried more of the idea from Plato where we get the word psychology. This idea was utilized in the Greek world at large. It also included a massive amount of scripture from the Old Testament that covered all aspects of living life. Here is a small excerpt from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
In the period around and after 500 b.c. ψυχή is then commonly used as an omnibus term for human thought, will and emotion and also for the essential core of man which can be separated from his body and which does not share in the body’s dissolution.[3]
Little Kittle also notes that the Septuagint (LXX) utilized this word to express the totality of man as in his thinking process:
- LXX. In works with a Hebrew original psychḗ mostly translates nep̱eš either as: vital force or as seat of the mind or spirit (cf. Num. 35:11; Dt. 11:18). The idea of the soul as an essential core, however, is alien to the OT, which posits no antithesis of body and soul. In Is. 10:18 the expression “soul and body” denotes the total person with no thought of antithesis. Ps. 16:10 means that God will keep the author alive; only the LXX suggests that the soul will spend some time in the underworld, but that God will not leave it there. When the LXX uses psychḗ for living people, however, this fits in well with Hebrew usage (cf. Ex. 16:16).[4]
- Palestinian Judaism. 1. nep̱eš denotes the vital element, the breath, or the ego. In Qumran texts it is often equivalent to “life.” It is not the soul as a distinct part, but the whole person living in responsibility. In many references it simply means the self.[5]
As you can see the word “life” shorts us by playing down what Yeshua was teaching. It also misleads us by thinking that when we come to Yeshua as our savior, all we have to do is surrender our life to Him for salvation. It does not make us realize that part of surrendering our life is surrendering our entire thought process and our worldview to Him.
When we look at the word from the New Testament usage we see a different picture of Yeshua as well. We read that Yeshua gave His “psyche” as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). As a good Shepherd, He lays down His “psyche” for His sheep (John 10:11). The martyrs of Revelation did not love their “psyche” even when faced with death (Rev 12:11). These few references demonstrate that when Yeshua died on the cross, He did not just give up the physical life of the body that He was dwelling in. He comprehensively died, body and soul. Consequently, it makes sense that He went to the underworld and preached there (1 Pet 3:18-20). Death of His entire being body and soul resulted in a visit to the underworld. Lots of speculation has been made regarding Peter’s words. Paul alludes to this when He noted that the Messiah descended to the lower parts of the earth (Eph 4:9). Peter went on to explain that the process of descending completely into complete death was necessary in order to place all angels and authorities to become subject to Him (1 Pet 3:21-22). We don’t give this much press in the Christian realm simply because we must go back to Torah for understanding.
In the Hebrew way of thinking, Torah is life. The teachings and instructions of Torah covers virtually every aspect of life. It deals with how to relate to God through instructions on worship and on a personal relationship. It deals with how to relate to others. The idea of binding the word to the head, and hand means simply that every aspect of life is tainted with the Torah. Therefore, when Yeshua said to save your life you must lose it, the Hebrew listeners understood. He was not just talking about “life” but rather the entirety of life from all aspects, physical, psychological, social and spiritual.
The simple truth of Torah is that if you embrace Torah, you embrace the very essence of life. Yeshua was stating that if the Hebrew people embraced Him, they embraced life. Step back a few verses and remember, we discussed that Yeshua was the YHVH of the Old Testament. This was validated by Peter’s testimony that Yeshua was not only the Holy Anointed One, He was the very Son of the Living God (Matt 16:16). Therefore, if Jesus was the YHVH of the Old Testament, God born in the flesh, then He was the original author of Torah. By embracing Him, you embrace the very essence of life and receive life in abundance.
Second “For”: Matthew 16:26: It is intriguing that the translators translate the Greek word psyche to be “life” in Matt 16:25, then in Matthew 16:26 it is translated as “soul”. What we are seeing is a continuation of the discussion of the Hebrew idea of the entirety of life.
The idea that is put forth in Ecclesiastes is that life is worth living. Yet the futility of life is that if you gain the entire world, it is only vanity (Ecc 1:2). Everything is striving after the wind, only to end in futility and foolishness (Ecc 1:13-15, 17). Solomon determined that after gaining all the worldly possessions possible, all the multiple wives and great assets, all was vanity and there was no profit (Ecc 2:11). The wise man and the fool gain the same demise (Ecc 2:12-17).
Thanks for reading
Joe Turner
[1] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1322.
[2] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
[3] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 611.
LXX Septuagint
[4] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1346.
[5] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1347.
