The Invincible Church, Part 5
One tragic consequence of the controversy is that it has caused some believers to focus on the first part of verse 18 to the neglect of the second part. Winning the debate against false interpretations of the verse is a pitiful achievement compared to grasping the true significance of Christ's promise concerning the church. For this reason, now that we have laid the foundation, we will direct our attention to the second part of verse 18, where Christ says, "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Or, as the KJV and ESV read, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The expression represents the forces of Satan, including the power of death.
The statement in itself could be considered an unconditional declaration of intent. It is not a proposal to be approved, a possibility to be realized, or a reward to be earned. He says, "I will do this. It will happen." There is no chance that it would fail to occur. He declares it to his disciples as something for them to believe and recall, so that he also intends for it to be a promise, and it is entirely appropriate to think of it as such. The fact that it is unconditional means that it will happen for sure; nevertheless, it does not mean that its fulfillment will benefit every individual no matter what. The promise concerns the "church," and not to every person who claims to be a part of it. We will say more about this important point later.
There are three major points that we can derive from Jesus' statement. After that, to properly grasp and apply these points, we will have to keep in mind all that we have said in connection with verses 16 and 17, chiefly, the doctrinal content of Peter's confession, and the sovereignty of God in the matter of faith and unbelief, that is, in causing a man to affirm or reject such a confession.
First, Christ makes a promise regarding the construction of the church. He says "I" will build – he will do it, not men. The construction of the church will not depend on human ability or come under human authority, but Christ will build his church by his own power and wisdom. He will use human instruments as he sees fit, but the effects of these human instruments are still produced by divine power. And he calls it "my" church. He takes ownership of it. He assumes personal responsibility and takes a personal interest in it. He takes personal offense at any unruly conduct within the church, as well as any persecution directed against it. As for the "church" itself, it is a worldwide community of believers who affirm that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God," and who suffered death to atone for the sins of his people. He promises to establish a community of people who are united and governed by such a confession.
Second, in connection with the next point, there is the assumption that there would be opposition from the enemy. The forces of Satan will attempt to destroy the church. In fact, Scripture does not say that the demonic spirits have anything to do other than to usurp the purposes of God and to spread rebellion against him. And they usually attempt to achieve this by attacking and tempting his people. So, how much of the forces of hell are dedicated to the destruction of the church? "The combined strength and cunning of all the powers of hell" is the likely answer. And, what tactics and methods will they use to achieve their purpose? "Everything they can without any mercy, hesitation, or integrity" is the simple reply. If it seems that the powers of hell have been restrained throughout the centuries, that is a testimony to Christ's faithfulness to his promise. And as we will discuss, even the attacks that occur serve the purpose of the promise.
Third, Christ promises the perpetuation of the church – "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The "gates of hell," of course, represent not only direct attacks from demonic spirits, but also all the forces that fall under their category and their control, and this includes all non-Christians. As John writes, "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). He makes a sharp distinction between Christians and the rest of the world. Christians are the children of God, but non-Christians work for the devil.
This is a "we" against "them" situation (Matthew 12:30). Unbelievers ridicule such an attitude as unenlightened and counterproductive, but tout tolerance, dialogue, and cooperation. I say, rubbish! It is a tactic of the enemy to undermine our vigilance. But the very suggestion is in fact implicit surrender – if the non-Christians could snuff us out, would they really offer peace? Rather than detecting this sign of weakness for what it is and pursuing our enemy to the ends of the earth, it is astounding how many Christians have accepted this indoctrination – it is spiritual castration. And then, as the men of Judah betrayed Samson to the Philistines (Judges 15:12), these traitors turn around and persecute those who refuse to make covenant with the enemy. But whether we are facing demons, or unbelievers, or professing believers who betray the cause of the gospel, Christ promises that all the powers of hell will not overcome the church.
The Invincible Church, Part 4
When we come to verse 18, there is the temptation to bypass the controversy surrounding the first half of the verse and straightway proceed to the second half, since the main purpose of our discussion is Jesus' promise regarding the construction and perpetuation of the church, and an overemphasis on the debate on the first portion of verse 18 is likely to detract from it. Nevertheless, to not deal with the first part at all might permit doubt as to the proper application of the second part. Therefore, we will now direct our attention to the first part of verse 18, not to answer all questions regarding it, but only to establish a sufficient basis for the second part.
So, Jesus says, "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." The general meaning is in fact clear enough, and the promise regarding the church is not obscured by the various interpretations given to the statement. The debate regarding the exact meaning of this verse would not have such significance attached to it if not for the abomination of Catholicism, which abuses the passage so as to attribute a supreme authority to Peter, and which invents the idea of an apostolic succession so that this authority might pass on, and which then claims for its pope the role of successor to the seat of Peter.
Protestants sometimes prefer to think that the "rock" refers to the confession that Peter has made, and that any believer should and would make, so that the foundation of the church is not Peter, but a true confession regarding Christ. In this view, the "rock" is a doctrine and not a person; or, even if it is a person, it is Christ and not Peter. This is an attractive interpretation, and it is true in the sense that it is supported by other portions of Scripture. However, our present concern has to do with the meaning of this passage in Matthew, and not just a general doctrine about the foundation of the church.
It is true that in this verse the Greek uses one word for "Peter" (petros) and another for "rock" (petra), and on this basis, some contend that Jesus distinguishes the two, so that in fact he does not say that he would build his church on Peter. This argument is convenient but inconclusive. This is because there are plausible reasons as to why the Greek words could differ even if Jesus is referring to the person in both instances. It is sometimes pointed out that, although Matthew writes in Greek, if Jesus is making the statement in Aramaic, then he would be using the same word for both "Peter" and "rock." But this is irrelevant since Matthew indeed writes in Greek, and we must derive our doctrine from the actual written revelation rather than our own speculation.
The common word for "stone" or "rock" is petra, and is in the feminine. As it must be changed to the masculine when applied as a name to the male person, Peter, this could explain why petros is used instead. Moreover, petros and petra do not always differ in meaning, but petra could also refer to a stone or rock, so we cannot conclude that two different words are used in the text because Jesus intends to distinguish between "Peter" and "this rock." And whether or not "Peter" and "rock" mean the same thing, it seems unnatural to distinguish the two when Jesus says, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build." In addition, the fact that Jesus uses the second person singular pronoun "you" throughout verses 17-19 reinforces the interpretation that he is addressing Peter in the entire passage, including his reference to "this rock."
That said, it remains that this passage does not provide any support to Catholicism. In the first place, it does not provide Peter with supreme or unique authority. Although Jesus employs the second person singular pronoun in verse 19 when he speaks of the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and to loose, when he repeats the authorization in 18:18, there he speaks to a number of disciples (18:1) and employs the plural pronoun. There the authority to bind and to loose is not even limited to the apostles, but is granted to "the church" (18:17). Also note John 20:23, where Jesus speaks to a group of disciples, and not just to Peter or any single apostle.
When Peter's behavior is challenged by believers in the Book of Acts, he does not appeal to apostolic infallibility, but provides a sound explanation (Acts 11:1-18). There he is in the right, and the matter is settled in peace. Does the pope defend his claims and his actions? And does his explanation prove him right? Then, when Peter plays the hypocrite among the Galatians and behaves in a manner contrary to the gospel, Paul rebukes him to his face and in public (Galatians 2:11-14). If the pope is only as good as Peter, then when he makes claims and performs actions that are contrary to the gospel, do we not have the right to rebuke him to his face and in public according to Paul's example? And if we consider the pope part of the church in the first place (although we do not), when he fails to repent, do we not have the right to excommunicate him in the name of Christ (Matthew 18:15-20)?
Even if "this rock" refers to Peter, the person cannot be considered apart from his confession. It is to the Peter who makes the confession of verse 16 that Jesus makes his statement. So when it comes to apostolic succession, what is there to succeed, and who is the successor? As we have shown, Peter never had a supreme and unique authority for the pope to receive and wield. And even if he had such an authority, does it properly belong to the pope?
To begin with, Scripture does not teach the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. Even if it does, the entire New Testament stresses an inheritance that is transmitted and identified through common faith, and not through geography, ethnicity, heredity, or any natural or human connection. But the Catholic doctrine contradicts Peter in his teachings on the nature and makeup of the priesthood (1 Peter 2), the nature, extent, and effect of the atonement (1 Peter 2), the tasks and powers of elders (1 Peter 3), and the possibility and means to the attainment of assurance (2 Peter 1). Moreover, Peter's doctrine includes an endorsement of Paul's letters as well as the rest of Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16), and this permits us to point out that Catholic theology contradicts Paul's doctrines on the atonement, justification, sanctification, glorification, the sacraments, marriage, and an almost endless list of other biblical doctrines.
No wonder many biblical commentators conclude that the pope is the anti-Christ, as he is also anti-Peter and anti-Paul. For this reason, although we deny the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, even if there is such a thing, we deny that the pope is the proper and rightful successor to the seat of Peter, since he contradicts Peter's teachings, and contradicts the teachings of those whom Peter endorses. On the other hand, since my doctrine agrees with Peter and those whom he endorses, if anyone now fills Peter's seat and office, I do, and not the pope. Let all Catholics, then, bow their knees to me – or any believer who affirms Peter's faith – and not the pope. But unlike the pope, I would say with Peter, as would any Christian, "Stand up, I am only a man myself" (Acts 10:26). As it is, by their own standard, all Catholics are subject to us so-called Protestants, for we are the true heirs of Peter's confession and authority.
In any case, this verse is in the Bible not to fuel a debate on Catholicism, but it provides a positive contribution to our understanding of the faith. It is easy to see in what sense Christ builds his church on Peter. As the early chapters of Acts indicate, after the ascension of Christ, Peter assumes a leadership role in gaining a foothold for the Christian faith in the world and in breaking through to both the Jews and Gentiles with the gospel (Acts 2, 10, etc.). In this manner, what Jesus says to him in our passage – "on this rock I will build my church" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" – have been fulfilled.
We can safely regard Peter as the foundation of the church in this sense. But when speaking from a broader perspective, Paul writes that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). The statement hardly needs explanation, but it is devastating to Catholic doctrine. Jesus is the cornerstone, the point on which and from which the foundation is built. The apostles and prophets form the rest of the foundation because they have been sent to do his bidding, to establish the church through their words and deeds. As important as he is, Peter is considered only a part of the foundation along with the other apostles and prophets.
Again, even if the church is built on Peter in a sense, it is not built on just any Peter, but a Peter who makes the confession in verse 16, so that the confession is necessary for the promise that Jesus makes in verse 18. Of course Peter is also necessary, since he is one of the chosen instruments by which Jesus would build the church. And as Jesus builds the church, he perpetuates the fruit of Peter's labor. That is, he continues to establish and develop a worldwide community of believers who affirm the same thing as expressed by Peter's confession in verse 16 – but also by all other apostles and disciples in the rest of the New Testament – that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Therefore, even if we concede that "the rock" of verse 18 refers to Peter, the foundation of the church is still Christ, or the right confession about Christ (Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7). And as Paul writes, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). This is a sufficient basis for us to proceed.
The Invincible Church, Part 3
But before we proceed to verse 18, we should return to examine Peter's confession in verse 16: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Whereas Jesus explains the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of the confession in verse 17, verse 16 addresses the intellectual aspect of the confession, that is, its doctrinal content. This doctrinal content is crucial to what Jesus is about to say regarding the church, because it is verse 16 that provides a basis for verse 18. Also, because of its extensive doctrinal content, the confession (v. 16) limits the applicability of the prediction (v. 18), and thus offers us a specific idea as to the kind of church that Jesus promises to construct and perpetuate. So, we will make four observations about the confession.
First, Peter directs the confession to "you" – that is, Jesus, who asks the disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" The entire confession hangs on this, since it identifies the person about whom the confession is made. The "you" that Peter is speaking to is the Jesus of Nazareth that Matthew has been writing about since the beginning of his Gospel. He was born of a woman, has a physical body and a human nature. He has been teaching, healing, and making contact with men and women. In other words, the "you" that Peter speaks about, and that he calls the Christ, is not a cosmic Christ, or some abstract idea of Christ, but a historical person. The word stresses the historicity and humanity of Christ.
As we will see in a moment, the confession indicates that he is more than a human person, but whatever else he might be, it does not take away from or contradict the fact that he possesses a human nature. Because the confession is directed toward a definite historical "you," it applies to only the Jesus of the Gospels. Anyone else who claims to be the Christ is an imposter, and any doctrine about Jesus of Nazareth that contradicts the Gospels is a falsehood.
Second, Peter's confession says that this person, Jesus, is the "Christ." By that time, the Jews have burdened the idea of the Messiah with a number of false expectations and human traditions (Matthew 16:23). Nevertheless, it is understood that all Old Testament predictions concerning a Messiah would converge on this person. Therefore, when Peter calls his master the Christ, he acknowledges that everything that is written in the Old Testament about the Messiah is fulfilled in this Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 24:27, 44). Among other things, this means that he would be the supreme King and Prophet, and the Savior of God's people. A fuller study of the Messiah comes under the doctrine of christology. Here we are only pointing out the substantial doctrinal content of Peter's confession.
Third, Peter's confession says that the Christ is "the Son of the living God." He does not mean that Jesus is God's son in an ordinary sense, or in the sense that any believer could be considered God's child, or in the sense that any creature of God could be considered his offspring. Rather, Peter calls Jesus "the Son" in relation to his unique identity as "the Christ." And Matthew uses the term to designate the second member of the Trinity, as in "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (28:19; also see 3:17). As the Gospel of John says it, Jesus is "God the One and Only…who came from the Father…who is at the Father's side" (John 1:14, 18).
Although it is probable that Peter does not understand the full meaning of his confession at this point, it is not an anachronism to understand "the Son" in this confession as first, an acknowledgement of the deity of Christ, and second, an acknowledgement of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is because, although Peter might have an imperfect understanding of the confession – or, more precisely, his understanding might fall short of the full meaning properly given to the words of the confession – this limitation does not apply to Matthew. By the time Matthew pens 16:16, he already understands the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, and he sees no need to adjust the term here, or to harmonize 16:16 with 28:19, since "the Son" refers to the same thing in both places.
When we put together the fact that Peter is making the confession to the historical and human person of Jesus, the fact that he at the same time confesses the deity of Jesus ("the Son"), and the fact that this person is "the Christ," this must mean that the Christ predicted by the prophets is to be an incarnation of deity. And such is the nature of Jesus of Nazareth – he is the Christ, both God and man. There is no doubt that it is Matthew's intention to convey this doctrine, because even at the beginning of his Gospel, in connection with the human birth of Jesus, Matthew records that he would be called "Immanuel," which means "God with us" (1:23).
Fourth, Peter confesses the Christ as something that is consistent and inseparable with his existing belief in "the living God." This is an Old Testament designation for the God of the Jews, that is, the Christian God.
For the sake of both convenience and accuracy, unless the context of a discussion somehow requires the distinction, we should not refer to the God of the Old Testament as the God of the Jews rather than the God of the Christians. This is because God, whether in the Old or the New Testament, has always been a Christian God, and only a Christian God. He revealed and preached the Christ no later than Genesis 3:15. Since this Christ is the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, God has been a Christian God, and has revealed himself as such, and the Bible has been a Christian Bible, and has revealed itself as such, since the very beginning – and that was even before the Jewish people came into existence.
Moreover, those Jews who were saved received their salvation not because of their natural heritage, but because they believed in the promise concerning a redeemer, who would make atonement for sin. This is the promise that was made in Genesis 3:15, and that had been added to and expanded upon throughout the history of revelation. Therefore, all redeemed Jews are Christians. The Jewish part is irrelevant, just as a Chinese Christian is saved only because he is a Christian, and a Chinese non-Christian is damned only because he is a non-Christian. We do not even need to mention the Chinese part, just as we do not even need to mention the Jewish part when we mention a Jewish person who is saved through faith in Christ. Only Christians are saved, whether Jewish or non-Jewish.
That is, although historically believers were first called "Christians" in Acts 11:26, theologically they have been Christians since Genesis 3:15. For this reason, at least when we are speaking theologically, it is not an anachronism to call Old Testament believers Christians. Thus Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, and such men, were all Christians. And for all we know, a man like Cain was a non-Christian. It is not an anachronism for the writer of Hebrews to say, "[Moses] regarded the disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt" (Hebrews 11:26). Moses was a Christian. His faith was not in a generic deity, or even a Jewish God, but an explicitly and exclusively Christian God, a Christian Messiah, and a Christian revelation and religion.
Therefore, when Peter confesses "the living God," he confesses the Christian God. The Christian God is the only God, or in other words, only Christians have the correct understanding of the one true God. Thus this part of the confession excludes and condemns all non-Christian religions, including Judaism, that is, any so-called Jewish faith that is not in fact Christian, and that does not affirm what Peter now confesses about Jesus of Nazareth. One can claim to believe in the promised Christ, but when the fulfillment of the promise has arrived and this person rejects him, it shows that he does not in fact believe in the promise. Whatever he thinks he believes, he has in mind something else, something other than the true content of the promise. Such a confession has no corresponding saving promise, so that its end is damnation, and this is the downfall of the Jewish faith.
It is irrational and inaccurate to accuse this position of anti-Semitism. First, truth is truth, regardless of whether it seems to be "anti" anything. It is foolish to cite racial or cultural prejudice as an argument against a theological doctrine when we are considering its veracity and not the motive for supporting it. Second, since God made the Christian covenant with Abraham, so that it might be propagated through the Jewish people to the whole world, in this sense the Christian faith is "of the Jews" (John 4:22). Therefore, there is a stronger warrant to accuse non-Christian Jews of anti-Semitism than they have to accuse Christians of anti-Semitism.
If they are against Christianity, or if they are against the idea that only Christianity can save and that any "Jewish" faith cannot, then they are in fact the true anti-Semites. They are against the Jewish faith and the Jewish people. They are against Abraham, his God, and his Christ. As Jesus says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). He was a Christian, so that for a Jew to be a non-Christian is to reject the faith of Abraham. If they are disturbed that Christianity seems to be anti-Jewish, then let them first cease their hypocrisy in being anti-Christian. What, are the Jews a people, and we Christians are not? We are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, an people belonging to God" (1 Peter 2:9).
We mentioned the issue of Peter's imperfect understanding. Verses 21-23 show that, at this point, Peter has not grasped the full meaning and implication of the confession. If Jesus is the Christ, the fulfillment of all messianic prophecies, then it follows that he would also fulfill the mission of the Christ as foretold in the Old Testament. Jesus apparently thinks so, so that once the revelation that he is the Christ has been given to the disciples, he "began to explain…that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life" (v. 21). Jesus considers the confession inclusive of or the basis for the doctrine of the atonement.
Peter becomes alarmed and rebukes Jesus for saying something like this, but Jesus responds that Peter has in mind the things of men rather than the things of God. That is, at that moment he considers the messianic mission from the perspective of men's priorities and traditions rather than what the messianic prophecies in fact describe. Peter may have in mind the promise that the Christ would save his people. This is true as far as it goes, and even with only this broad promise in mind, he perceives that Jesus of Nazareth is the one who would fill the role. However, it is another matter as to the exact nature and method of this salvation, and what the process of deliverance entails. Although the Old Testament is clear and specific, the people do not always understand: "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46-47).
A minimalist interpretation of Peter's confession would be erroneous. Again, Jesus considers it inclusive of or the basis for the atonement. Moreover, the placement of verses 21-23 implies that it is Matthew's understanding that the confession of "the Christ" ought to include a proper understanding of his mission as well, and that is to make atonement for those whom God has chosen to save. Matthew intends for the work of atonement to be included in and applied to Peter's confession of the Christ.
Therefore, Peter's confession in verse 16 refers to a faith that affirms at least these major doctrines: the God of Christian Theism, including the Trinity of God, a Christ who would lead and save God's people (according to the biblical messianic prophecies), the deity of this Christ (the Son of the Trinity), the humanity of this Christ (the incarnation of the Son as a historical person), the work of atonement that this Christ would perform to deliver his people through his death and resurrection, and that this Christ is the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospel of Matthew.
The Invincible Church, Part 2
In any case, the people tend to identify Christ with one of the prophets in the past. Some say that he is John the Baptist, perhaps because he also comes preaching faith and repentance. Some say that he is Elijah, perhaps because of the amount and magnitude of the miracles that are associated with his ministry, and that he has come to turn the hearts of the people back to God. And some say that he is Jeremiah, perhaps because he stands alone against the religious institutions and traditions of the day, declaring the futility of an external piety that does not arise from an internal reality. As in Jeremiah's day, the people derive their security from temple rituals and human traditions, and with these have rejected God's demands for faith, mercy, and justice.
As positive as these opinions may be, they fall far short of the truth about the person of Jesus Christ. An ordinary preacher could hardly receive greater flattery than to be called an Elijah or a Jeremiah, but to the Lord these would be more like insults than compliments. The truth is, as Peter will declare in a moment, that this is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." He is greater than all the prophets, and the fulfillment of all their prophecies. He stands in a class by himself, and failing to see this, the people lack an existing category with which they could classify him. So it is supposed that they see in Christ something of the spirits of the prophets, but what they fail to grasp and express is that they see in each of the prophets something of the spirit of Christ, who spoke through them concerning himself. Therefore, anyone who says that Christ is nothing more than a prophet, even if the greatest of all prophets, dishonors and slanders the Son of God. There is no salvation and no promise in such a confession. By this standard we judge the peoples and religions of the world.
Jesus does not assume that his disciples share the positive but inadequate opinions of the people, so that he asks, "But what about you? Who do you say I am?" Peter answers, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." To this Jesus responds, "Blessed are you, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." Cutting through the traditions propagated by society, the confusions amidst the people, the oppositions from religious leaders, and the questions within the disciples themselves, God the Father sovereignly revealed his Son to the apostles, and here specifically to Peter.
He says that Peter's confession arises from a revelation that comes from God and not from man, one that comes from the spirit and not the flesh. This could mean that Jesus thus far has never claimed to be the Christ, or has never given any indication that he is the Christ, and now the Father has revealed the needed information to Peter apart from any natural means, as well as caused him to assent to this revealed information. Taken by itself, the Lord's statement does not exclude this interpretation. It is certainly possible for God to reveal Christ to an individual apart from a man's preaching. This is not to say that Christ is revealed apart from the "word," only that God would be revealing (or even preaching) his word directly to the man's spirit. Scripture never indicates that this is impossible, even if it would be unusual.
Nevertheless, we see that this is an unlikely interpretation of the verse when we consider what has transpired in the Gospel of Matthew. By Matthew 2, John the Baptist has already pointed out Jesus as the Christ, the one who would baptize his people with the Holy Spirit, and the one whose perfect righteousness is such that he requires no repentance or baptism in water. And a voice from heaven announced, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (v. 17). In Matthew 7, it is supposed by some that they could call him "Lord, Lord," and enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus implies that some would, but only those who also do the will of the Father (v. 21). Thus he acknowledges that he is the confessional key to salvation, only that he requires a true confession that results in obedience (Luke 6:46). It is also possible to prophesy, cast out demons, and work miracles in his name (Matthew 7:22-23), implying that he is no mere prophet. Verse 29 indicates that he is different from the teachers of the law, but he is "as one who had authority."
In Matthew 8, Jesus calms the storm with a word, so that the disciples exclaim, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!" (v. 27). When the demons see him, they cry out, "What do you want with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" (v. 29). He states in Matthew 10, "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven" (v. 32-33). And even more significantly for our context, he says in Matthew 11, "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (v. 27). Then, in Matthew 12, he calls himself "the Lord of the Sabbath," who is "greater than the temple" (v. 6, 8).
It is unnecessary to multiply examples. It is not that Christ has never taught about himself, or that he has never given any indication as to his nature and identity. The people fail to recognize him for who he is not because there has been no explanation, and not because there has been no demonstration. On the contrary, there have been multiple explicit explanations and numerous spectacular demonstrations. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells us why people do not recognize him, saying, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving" (v. 14). Or, as Paul puts it, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
So it is not that Christ has not explained his nature and demonstrated his power, but that spiritual perception has not been granted to the people. He says in John 6, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me" (v. 44-45). Therefore, whether with or without explanations, and whether with or without demonstrations, a person comes to Christ when the Father performs a direct work in his heart, causing him to perceive and believe the truth about Christ, that he is the Son of God, and the one who redeems his people through an atoning sacrifice.
This is the basic reason as to why one person believes in Christ and another does not. I can walk up to a person and say, "Repent, and believe the gospel!" And if God enables him to perceive the truth and generates faith in him, then this person will be converted and confess Christ as Lord. It may even be the case that this person has heard the gospel numerous times before, but not until now does God reveal Christ directly to his heart. If so, the person might exclaim, "Why, of course this is so! Of course this Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, who took upon himself human flesh to die for the sins of his people. I thought I was wise – rational, scientific, and all that – but I have been the world's greatest fool until this day. I now see that only an imbecile would deny the truth of the Christian religion." So a person can come to faith through a simple message that contains little explanation or argument.
On the other hand, I can sit for many hours with another person, and set forth the whole of the Christian faith to him in a systematic fashion, providing rational justification for every claim and every premise, now defending this assertion, now refuting that objection, until I have seized total victory over his obstinacy, and until his mind and body come to a point of exhaustion. And still, he could fail to perceive the truth about Christ, and thus fail to believe and confess him. The defect is not in God, in me, in the message, or in the presentation, but in the unbeliever. I can put Christ before his face, and he would fail to perceive him. I can put the gospel in his ears, and he would fail to grasp it. Oh, stupid non-Christian! Who will deliver you from your mental retardation? The unbeliever is a broken, defective, stupid person.
That said, we must not conclude that all our preaching and argumentation are worthless. Human responsibility is determined by divine command, and not by the anticipated effect of our action. Paul writes, "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). He does not conclude from this that he should stop planting and that Apollos should stop watering. No, we are directed by the command and not by the effect. And God commands us to preach the word, to defend sound doctrine, and to refute those who oppose. Whatever their effect may be in a particular instance, sound preaching and argumentation honor God, and he often uses them to effect his purpose, or as means by which he changes the heart of man.
So preaching and argumentation are most necessary, but it is God who determines the effect. Although Peter has been presented with explanations and demonstrations concerning the truth about Christ, he has not always perceived and confessed this truth. It is not until the Father directly reveals Christ to him that the truth finally dawns in his heart like the sunrise dispels the darkness of the night. "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6).
Peter does not make his confession apart from explanation and evidence. In fact, there has been plenty of explanation and evidence, and they logically necessitate the confession. However, although the confession is rational, man is not always rational. Before God's revelation causes the realization to dawn in his heart, Peter has been unable to perceive the truth even when the explanation and evidence about Christ are presented to him over and over again.
Therefore, although truth and reason are on our side, because God hardens the foolish and irrational reprobate, no argument can convince him. And because God preserves the elect, whose mind has been enlightened to perceive and believe the truth, no objection can dissuade him. It is not that man's efforts are meaningless, but that man's efforts in themselves do not produce the effect, whether faith or unbelief. Rather, God often uses man's efforts to bring about his purpose, whether to convert or to harden, although he is able to produce the same effect apart from such efforts. This is crucial for our understanding and application of verse 18. We shall see that this truth should not lead to a feeling of futility and despondency, but a sense of confidence and invincibility.
The Invincible Church, Part 1
MATTHEW 16:13-18
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
When a prophet speaks, it is often difficult for people to place him into a category. Is he preaching or teaching? What is he doing? He seems to be preaching, but what kind of preacher says such things? He seems to be teaching, but what kind of teacher instructs in this fashion? At times he is too direct for comfort, and even very harsh, but it seems overly simplistic to relegate this to a character flaw or a lack of compassion. It is not the typical directness of a Christian zealot or the harshness of a non-Christian. It is not the cynicism of the traditionalist, who upholds a human creed more than a divine revelation, or the bitter sarcasm of the idolater, who would sacrifice his own brother on the alter of his preferred theologian. There seems to be more to this person.
The offense that arises from hearing or reading his words, if one is to be honest about it, comes about because he is righteous and accurate in all that he says. He is so right that it leaves no room for dialogue or discussion, crushing man's pride and exposing his shame. The prophet is so righteous and accurate that the hearer's attempt to suppress the erupting guilt turns into anger, and anger turns into hatred and murder. If the call to repentance is rejected and the heart hardens against the message, then religious tradition is donned as a cloak to disguise the evil within, and Christ's righteousness is replaced by human endorsement. Putting off the armor of God and putting on the armor of the devil, one who has heard and refused the prophetic word sets out to destroy God's messenger, for he must be silenced to preserve their peace and sanity.
There is something about the prophet that sets him apart from other speakers. At times it might be difficult to specify the differences, but it seems that he has a different spirit, a greater power, a special boldness, a deeper insight, and a divine mission in what he speaks and writes. He is, to say this one way, as one who speaks with authority. And this is the impression that the people have of the Lord Jesus. They are perplexed about him – What kind of preaching is this? What kind of man is he?
He does not speak like the scribes, who depend on the sheer number of footnotes in their discourses to assert their conclusions. In every tradition, there are Christians who, boasting of a scholar's mentality, judge what they read and hear by this standard. This tells us more about them than those that they criticize. May revelation and reason be damned. May God himself be beat down and silenced. They respect only human approval and agreement. They would condemn the Lord Jesus himself as uneducated and amateurish, although they are forced to respect him for the sake of appearance. But the people know better – this person's authority goes beyond footnotes. He is certainly no ordinary rabbi.
Does anyone speak with authority today, as one who has received a word from another world, or are we back to making footnotes? Jesus promised to his disciples the power of the Holy Spirit, by which they would become his witnesses. But because of a cessation of faith, the Holy Spirit himself has been excommunicated as a heretic. "Oh, no," they say, "we do not deny it. In fact, everyone already has it!" Well, if all believers already have it, where is it? Since when is the power of the Holy Spirit not associated with miraculous demonstrations? Since when is it reduced to a mere boldness of speech? Wait, do we even have that? Since when is the work of the Spirit reduced to the development of virtues? And do we have that in our churches? Really? Where? What do we attribute to the Spirit of God that cannot be easily imitated by any non-Christian? In Scripture, the power of the Spirit impresses and intimidates the unbelievers. How often does that happen today? No, most Christians do not have this power, but it makes them feel better, and it relieves them of their responsibility, if their doctrine says that they already possess it.
According to the prophet Joel, "God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams….I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy" (Acts 2:17-18). The theology that encourages a cessation of faith in spiritual manifestations cannot make sense of such a declaration. For example, John MacArthur has to push its fulfillment to the Tribulation period in his false dispensational eschatology. Yet is it true that the Canon kills the visions, and the Tribulation kills the Canon? If the Tribulation does not kill the Canon but resurrects the visions, then the Canon has never killed the visions in the first place, so that the former does not necessarily exclude the latter. Anyway, Joel also says in the same passage, "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (v. 21). For some reason, no one questions that this always applies. The truth is that they do not have the Spirit's power. They are lying about it. They do not enter themselves, and also forbid others to enter.
There are different maneuvers, but the tactic is the same – things that they do not wish to deal with can always be relegated to a time other than their own. It does not really matter when they had happened or when they will happen again, as long as they do not happen now. They are like Martha, who whines with all the piety she could muster, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24). But Jesus replies, "I am the resurrection and the life," and asks, "Do you believe this?" (v. 25-26). Many Christians answer emphatically, "No."
It is futile to cloud the matter with an avalanche of footnotes as to why it cannot be true, with artificial schemes of dispensations as to why it cannot be now, or with a shameless hermeneutic that labels all biblical examples "exceptions," because the Lord Jesus says, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you" (Acts 1:8). They must submit to Scripture's own definition of this power, as to its purposes and effects. If this power, as explained and illustrated by Scripture, does not manifest in their experience (when Scripture assumes that it ought to), then we must conclude that they do not possess it, and that it is still to be sought and attained. Any other conclusion is of human tradition, concerned with protecting its own pride about its self-proclaimed orthodoxy and its authority over the lives of men, rather than with truth, humility, and obedience.