Matthew 16:13-19

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 16:13. Coasts.—Parts (R.V.). I.e. neighbourhood. There were various inhabited places in the locality (see Mark 8:27). Cæsarea Philippi.—Probably on the site of the Old Testament Baalgad (Joshua 11:17), at the foot of Hermon, built by Philip the tetrarch, and distinguished by his name from other Cæsareas (Macpherson’s Bible Dictionary). This conversation at Cæsarea Philippi is universally regarded as marking a new era in the life of Christ. His rejection by “His own” is now complete.… With the very small band He has gathered around Him He withdraws to the neighbourhood of the Gentile town of Cæsarea Philippi; not for seclusion only, but, as the event shows, to found an Ecclesia—His church (Gibson).

Matthew 16:14. And they said.—Some, entertaining the opinion suggested by the fears of Herod, say, that Thou art John the Baptist; others, adopting the Jewish notion of the advent of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah, say that Thou art Elias; others, in accordance with the prevalent tradition that Jeremiah was to come and reveal the place where the sacred vessels were concealed (2MMalachi 2:1), say that Thou art Jeremias; and others, generally and Indefinitely, that Thou art a prophet, perhaps the herald of the Messiah (Gloag).

Matthew 16:17. Bar-jona.—“Bar” is Aramaic for “son”; cf. Bar-abbas, Bar-tholomew, Bar-nabas. For flesh and blood, etc.—Not man, but God; “flesh and blood” was a common Hebrew expression in this contrast (Carr).

Matthew 16:18. Thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this rock (petra), etc.—The only natural interpretation is that which refers the rock, on which Christ builds His church, to St. Peter himself. This is the opinion adopted not only by the Romanists, but by most recent critics and commentators. It is certainly the one most agreeable with the connection and the sense of the passage; and is assuredly not to be rejected, merely because it appears to militate against our preconceived opinions. There is in the passage an evident play upon words; a paranomasia which is not seen in our version; the πέτρος in the first clause refers to the πέτρα in the second; so that the words might be rendered: “I say unto thee that thou art indeed a rock (πέτρος), and upon this rock (πέτρα) will I build My church.” It is assuredly most natural to refer the emphatic pronoun this to the rock previously mentioned; that rock was St. Peter, being his name, and the rock afterwards mentioned is a manifest allusion to that name. The whole beauty and force of the allusion would be lost, and the meaning of the passage rendered obscure, if we did not adopt this interpretation. Similar allusions to names are common in the Old Testament. As when God said to Abraham, “Thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made thee” (Genesis 17:5); and to Jacob, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men and hast prevailed” (Genesis 32:28); so here, in precisely the same manner, it may be said: “Thy name shall be called Peter; for on this rock will I build My church.” The interpretation, then, most agreeable with the connection of the passage, the natural meaning of the verse, the force of the allusion to the name Peter, and the grammatical structure, is to refer the rock on which the church was built to St. Peter (Gloag). On these words mainly rest the enormous pretensions of the Roman pontiff. It is therefore important:

1. To remember that it is to Peter with the great confession on his lips that the words are spoken. The Godhead of Christ is the keystone of the church, and Peter is for the moment the representative of the belief in that truth among men.
2. To take the words in reference:

(1) To other passages of Scripture. The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:20), on Christ Himself (1 Corinthians 3:11).

(2) To history. Peter is not an infallible repository of truth. He is rebuked by Paul for Judaising. Nor does he hold a chief place among the Apostles afterwards. It is James, not Peter, who presides at the council at Jerusalem.
(3) To reason. For even if Peter had precedence over the other Apostles, and if he was Bishop of Rome, which is not historically certain, there is he proof that he had a right of conferring such precedence on his successors (Carr). The gates of hell (hades, R.V.) shall not prevail against it.—Death is the entrance into hades, and therefore the gates or entrance of hades denote death. The expression may accordingly denote that death will not destroy the church of Christ. The church will never become extinct (Gloag).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 16:13

A culminating point.—The Saviour is once more at the outskirts of the land. This time He has gone to the north of it, to the “parts of Cæsarea Philippi,” near the sources of Jordan. It can hardly be, however, that He should thus continue to absent Himself from the proper sphere of His work (Matthew 15:24). Some day the dangers which threatened Him there would have to be faced, if only for the sake of that very work which had led Him to shun them for a time. How would it be, when He did face them, with regard to His disciples? Apparently His present object is to prepare them for this. Knowing so fully, as He presently shows that He does know (Matthew 16:21), all that is to happen so soon to Himself, He would first establish them in their faith. And this He does, first, by eliciting from them what they have to say about Him; and then by informing them, secondly, of what He has to say about them.

I. What they have to say about Him.—This is brought out, on the one hand, in the way of report. They knew His usual name for Himself. He had called Himself constantly “the Son of man.” Who did men say that He was? (Matthew 16:13). The answers given are one in substance, though they vary in form. Some identify Him with His predecessor, the Baptist. Some with the Baptist’s predecessor, Elias. Some with that prophet Jeremiah who is said to have been looked upon by the Jews as the greatest of the prophets. While others again only regarded Him as a conspicuous and undoubted revival of the old spirit of prophecy, without identifying Him with anyone in particular. All practically agree, therefore, in pronouncing Him equal to any before. There are no men like men of God in any age of the world. There are no men amongst such to whom Jesus had not been compared. That, in substance, is their report (Matthew 16:14). The same is brought out, on the other hand, in the way of confession. This report of theirs, though striking enough so far as it went, did not yet go, for all that, so far as it ought. The Saviour, therefore, inquires further,—“But who say ye that I am?” (Matthew 16:15). The answer is given by that one of their number who usually speaks out for the rest (Matthew 16:16). He does so, to begin, in a way which marks the depth of their faith. It is not of that which they think or suppose—nor even of that merely which they hold or believe—but of that which they regard as undoubted, and which is, therefore, to them, in short, nothing less than a fact—that this witness proceeds to speak: “Thou art the Christ.” How brief, how emphatic, how unqualified, and, therefore, how undoubting this confession of faith! He answers next in a way that shows the clearness and definiteness—and that in two ways—of their faith. Their faith in the office of the “Saviour”:“Thou art the Christ”—the Anointed One—such as never any, therefore, so fully before. Their faith in His nature. Of all life the life of God Himself, is the intensest and highest. To that life no other stands in so intimate a relation as Jesus. “Thou art the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Do all the creeds together say more than this, as a matter of fact?

II. What the Saviour has to say about them.—This we learn from what He says to that one of their number who had just spoken for all in answer to His question, “Who say ye that I am?” Taking him thus as a sample of all, He speaks, first, of the present. He declares with unusual fervour how great is the blessedness of being enabled to make such a confession as that. All that we have just seen in it the Lord sees in it too. It is indeed, in its way, the very summit of truth. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah”—blessed art thou, who soever thou art, who hast reached such a height. Never, as it were, had any father’s son a happier standing than this. The Saviour next, in a precisely similar spirit, proceeds to speak of the past. Not by any mere human power had that happy disciple been brought to that height. Not “flesh and blood,” but the wisdom which made them, had taught him these truths. He has acknowledged Christ as the Son of the Father. He has been taught to do so by the Father Himself. Finally, the Saviour addresses Peter with regard to the future. Having received so much, he was to give as much in His turn. First of all mankind, in this solemn way, to make this confession, he was to be first in other ways too. As his very name signified, e.g. he was to be the first “stone” in that edifice of the church which the Saviour was then intending to build (1 Peter 2:4), which was to be also so emphatically His church (observe “My” in Matthew 16:18) because built upon Him as its only foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), and against which, therefore, all the powers of the unseen world, though often attacking, should never prevail (Matthew 16:18). Also, as being such, this “Peter” was afterwards to be the first man authorised to proclaim to mankind, whether Gentiles or Jews, the terms of admission into that heavenly kingdom, and to lay down the requisites to be demanded of those who sought admission thereto (see Acts 2:37; Acts 10; Acts 15:7). The first so to do, but not the only one (Acts 15:13); nor yet in all things the chief (1 Corinthians 15:10). First in order, in short, if not first in everything, because first to confess.

Certain things, therefore, even in this disputed passage, would appear, in conclusion, to be clear. One is that we see here, in the strictest sense, the first beginning of the church of Christ in the world. “The holy church throughout all the world doth acknowledge Thee.” The first beginning of that wide acknowledgement is what we read of in this place. Another is that none but those who make such a confession, as well in life as by the lips, really belong to that church. A third would seem to be that all those who really do make such a confession do belong to that church (Ephesians 6:24). A fourth certainly is that we can only make such a true confession by help from above (see above, also 1 Corinthians 12:3). And a last is that there shall never be wanting a true succession of such true confessors whatever the “times” that pass over the church, and whatever the powers that rise up against it. Here, in short, began a confession which is never to end.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 16:13. The Divine Christ confessed.—I. The preparation for the confession.—Our Lord is entering on a new era in His work, and desires to bring clearly into His followers’ consciousness the sum of His past self-revelation.

II. The contents of the confession.—It includes both the human and the Divine sides of Christ’s nature.

III. The results of the confession.—They are set forth in our Lord’s answer, which breathes of delight, and we may almost say gratitude. His manhood knew the thrill of satisfaction at having some hearts which understood, though partially, and loved even better than they knew.—A. Maclaren, D.D.

Matthew 16:13. “What think ye of Christ?”—Our Lord’s Divine wisdom is seen as well in the questions He put as in the answers He gave.

I. Our Lord’s question reminds us that at the very beginning there were various and conflicting opinions concerning Him.

II. We learn from our Lord’s question that amidst the diversity of opinion we must look well to our own belief. “Whom do ye say that I am?”

III. We learn from our Lord’s question that He counts correct opinions of Himself to be of great importance.

IV. Amidst the diversity of opinions concerning Him, there was one which our Lord emphatically commended, and the possessor of which He pronounced to be blessed. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Charles Vince.

Matthew 16:13. What men say of Christ.—Christ did not ask this question:

1. For information.
2. Nor because He desired the applause of men.
3. Nor because He intended to form His course according to the reply.
4. But because He desired to ground His disciples in the deepest faith. It was a kind of catechising to photograph and engrave the fact upon their hearts. The answer to His question suggests the following things.

I. People held different opinions concerning Christ.—“Some say,” etc. These different opinions were very natural. There was something like every one of these men in Christ. I should like to speak here in praise of Christ. All the virtues, all the graces of the ancient spiritual men met in Him.

II. The opinions held of Him were high and honourable.—Only some five or six people in the whole history of literature have spoken disrespectfully of Him.

III. High as these opinions were they fell short of the reality.
IV. It is important that we should have this high estimate of Jesus Christ.—Thos. Jones.

Matthew 16:13. Who is Christ?—I want to show that Christ in the gospel is the resting-place where the heart of man can find repose; not because we there at once learn all that we want to know, but the greatest questions are there set at rest; and there we may ultimately find the key to interpret all the problems that have so long and so painfully agitated the thoughtful mind. Two phrases, full of deep significance, Christ applied to Himself; Son of God and Son of man; and different as may be the precise meaning of the term “Son” in these two applications of it, the two phrases point in the same direction—viz., that Christ is the best and completest revelation of both God and man.

I. Son of God.—How did men conceive of God without Christ? We know quite well how they did, and how we should if we were left once more without a gospel. The human mind wavered, and was cast about in painful perplexity between mere abstractions that could not move the heart, and gross ideas, that corrupted the heart. The men of genius, the philosophers, who knew quite well that no idol, no material thing, could represent God, lost themselves in the abstractions of their own minds, or confounded the Deity with the powers of nature, or tried to rest in the Athenian belief in the unknown God. The mass of men, incapable of rising to such conceptions, found gods in every material object, and then came to shaping gods for themselves—ending, at last, in a low, sensual, and debasing worship. Men of shrewd intelligence, with too much sense really to believe in any sensual religion, and too little devotion laboriously to think of God philosophically, took refuge in a universal scepticism, until they came to doubt, not only whether God could be known, but whether it was possible to know anything at all, when the highest Object of knowledge seemed so inaccessible. Now, in the midst of all this confusion, superstition, gross folly, and unattainable abstraction, when the mind of man seemed rapidly sinking into the most dreary despair, Christ stood forth, and said to the world, I can tell you what God is; I am the Son of God; he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. How, then, shall we understand this phrase, Son of God? Doubtless Paul has given us the best interpretation of it. “In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Suppose we had heard of such a thing as loving generosity, but had never seen a generous action. Our own feeling of love might tell us something, but whatever we may be conscious of in our hearts, we do not really know its meaning till it appears in the life. Never, then, having seen an action of self-denying love, never having put forth a hand to help a fallen brother, or to feed a hungry brother, how little would the word “love” convey to the mind. It would be only an abstraction. But if, while trying to imagine what love might mean, we should see an act of splendid generosity, how instantly would the meaning of love, in all its depth and tenderness, be revealed to us; and we might then comprehend the power of this principle throughout the universe of intelligent creatures. This is true of everything; it is life alone that we can understand. Only in living does any principle of heart and mind become intelligible. Just what this explanatory action is to the inexplicable principle, just that is Christ to God.

II. Son of man.—By the universal consent of mankind, man’s own poor life does not tell him what man is. Yet till Christ came there was no other source of knowledge accessible to the masses. We may be perfectly sure that when any thoughtful mind looked on human life—then as now—it could not possibly appear as if man—the race—was answering the end of his creation. How little can we tell the passionate earnestness with which the best men longed, for ages, that some one would arise and tell them what life meant and why man was created! That One came at last. I am the Son of man. Christ said, here let your questionings, your agonising doubts, your dreary scepticism, end. Human life is meant for what I make it; man in his real nature is what I show you. I am the Light of the world. By Me if any man walk, it shall not be in darkness. His universal precept to men—“Follow Me”—rightly understood, can mean nothing less than that every thing in His human life is possible to His followers.—S. Edger, B.A.

Jesus at Cæsarea Philippi.—In its original name of Panium, as in its modern equivalent Banias, has been preserved the memory of the great god Pan who, with the nymphs, had his shrine there and whose empty, shell-bound niche is still shown in the recess of the grotto. But now, face to face with that embodiment of all heathen religions, was brought the King of everlasting life; and as the mummy crumbles with its first exposure to the air, so must all the discrowned deities of Olympus go to dust before the incoming of the true Messiah. Here then of all places it was fittest that Christ should establish in the minds of His disciples the supremacy of His own character and claims—C. E. B. Reed, M.A.

Matthew 16:18. The church: its Builder and its safety.—

I. The church.—This is the first place in the New Testament in which we meet with this much used and much abused word. What did it mean when Christ used it? Remember that He was speaking to a few poor, plain men, and these men evidently understood it. The word which we have translated “church” means simply a number of people called together. Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, where we find it again, it is translated “assembly,” and the revisers have not attempted to change it. By common consent we have now enlarged the meaning and imported the idea of religion into it, and may regard it as a number of people united for the worship and service of God. We read of churches—churches in cities, churches in towns, and more than once we read of “the church that is in thy house”; and so with perfect correctness we speak of the Methodist church, the Baptist church, the Episcopal church. Let us, however, beware that we do not apply the definite article to any of our churches; the word belongs only to the church of which Christ speaks. A part is not the whole; the regiment is not the army. Christ speaks of His church. What is this? The glorious title belongs to no earthly organisation, but to all true believers on earth and in heaven. The church is Christ’s special property, the gift of His Father and the object of his tenderest love.

II. The Builder of the church.—“I will build My church.” The church is frequently referred to in the Scriptures as a building. Hence we read of stones, workmen, house, and temple. Of this glorious structure it had been foretold by Zechariah that Christ should be the Builder. He had said that the Messiah should “build the temple of the Lord and bear its glory.” Here Christ claims the prophecy as having been spoken of Him, and says, “I will build My church.”

1. It is His to prepare the material of which the building is composed.—The church is His workmanship.

(1) Look at the two corner-stones. See the first, Simon Peter by name; who but the Omnipotent could have made a cornerstone of him? A stone? By nature he was but a handful of sand, which a maiden’s breath can scatter to the winds; but Christ touched him and petrified him into a rock that neither earth nor hell could move. Here is the second, Saul of Tarsus, a human volcano, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against all that called on the name of Christ, but at a word from Christ he is changed into a whole burnt-offering, counting not his life dear unto him so that he may win Christ. And as we gaze upon them, we may hear them gratefully saying: “By the grace of God we are what we are.”

(2) Look next at the first course of stones in the building. You have them described in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

(3) Let us again glance at the building itself, as it rises before us. On this side I see a lot of Kingswood colliers, who could not open their mouths without blasphemy; but Christ touches them, and “blasphemies are changed to praise.” On that side I see a lot of Fijian cannibals, whose very name was a terror to those around them; but Christ touches them, and they “love one another with pure hearts fervently.” On the other side I see a lot of African Hottentots, who had sunk so low that our scientific men refused to own them as brethren; but Christ touches them, and they become sons of the living God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Yes, every stone in the building is a miracle of grace, and as we gaze upon it we can only say: “This is the Lord’s doing, and marvellous in our eyes.”
2. It is His to provide the labourers.—It has pleased God to save man by man, to make us co-workers with Himself, that the excellency of the power may be of God. There is a great variety of work to be done.

3. It is His to complete the erection.—It is strange that any of God’s servants should talk about Christianity being a failure and Christ being defeated. What, hath He spoken and shall He not do it? True, as with earthly structures, there will be hindrances to the progress of the building, but He knew His ability to overcome them all. Sometimes the storms of persecution howl around the church, and men have to die instead of work, and it hinders building. Sometimes the frost of unbelief sets in, and men’s hands get so cold that they cannot give, and their tongues so stiff that they cannot speak, and their knees so cramped that they cannot pray, and that hinders building. Sometimes the fog of error steals around, and everything gets disproportionate, and men imagine that because they don’t see what their fellow-workmen are doing, they are doing nothing, and those who are at work can’t see what they are doing, and this hinders building. Sometimes there is a strike—Judah vexes Ephraim, and Ephraim envies Judah—and the workmen quarrel with each other, and this hinders building. The great Master sees all this, and though for a while He may hide Himself, it will be but for a moment. Does the storm howl? He says, “Peace, be still,” and there is a great calm, and the church has rest, and is multiplied. Does the fog blind? At the breath of His mouth it is scattered, and men see clearly. Does the frost set in? He, the Sun of Righteousness, pours His warm rays upon them, and the winter is soon past and gone. Is there a strike? He takes the two sticks into His hand, and they become one.

III. The safety of the church.—“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Men talk about “the church being in danger.” A more foolish cry was never raised. The church is the most precious thing in the universe. It is “the bride—the Lamb’s wife.” His love is towards it, and His omnipotent arm is ever around it. The church on earth is as safe as the church in heaven.—Charles Garrett.

Christ’s commendation of Peter’s confession.—A writer quoted by Stier says, “The demonstrative (this rock) can just as little have the force of isolating the faith and the confession of Peter from his person, as it would be justifiable to refer the promise to the person of Peter apart from his faith;” or, as another puts it more succinctly, “The word of Peter is the heart of Peter; it is he himself.”

The character of Peter.—As the world counts rock, rock was no character-name for this favourite of Jesus, with whom He chose to live as His daily and nightly friend. Immovableness, solidity of character to the outward eye, Peter had none. But the outward eye judges falsely. Peter was clearly neither a great pioneer, nor a great theologian, nor a great scholar; but he was a great child, and for his fitness to express this one permanent power of the life of faith he was the foremost of the Twelve.—Mary Harrison.

“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”—The traveller on the Highland Railway can hardly fail to be struck, as he journeys north, with the unusual sight of a picturesque and well-kept flower-garden blooming in the angle of ground formed at the junction of two railway lines. The helpless flowers thrive there in spite of the terrible forces that come so near them on every side. If you were to put an untaught savage inside the garden hedge, and let him hear the screaming engines, and see the files of carriages, or the trucks laden with coal, timber, and iron, converging towards this fairy oasis, he would be ready to say, “these beautiful things will be torn to shreds in a moment.” But behind the garden fences, there are lines of strong, faithful steel, keeping each engine, and carriage, and truck in its appointed place; and though the air vibrates with destructive forces, the pansy, primrose, and geranium live in a world of tremors, not a silken filament is snapped, and not a petal falls untimely to the earth. In the very angle of these forces the frailest life is unharmed. To all these possibilities of destruction the steel puts its bound. So with the fine spiritual husbandries that foster faith in the souls around us. That faith sometimes seems a thing of hair-spun filaments, a bundle of frailties, a fairy fabric of soft-hued gossamers trembling at every breath. The arrogancies of sacerdotalism menace it. The avalanche of nineteenth century atheism is poised over it. The air hurtles with fiery hostilities. The mechanisms of diabolic temptation encroach on every side upon our work. Public-house, gaming club, ill-ordered home threaten disasters, of which we do not like to think. The air quivers with the anger of demons. Yet the work is God’s, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the very angle of these demoniac forces the work shall thrive, for the hidden lines of His protecting power are round about it. “I, the Lord, do keep it; I will water it every moment; lest any hurt it. I will keep it night and day.”—T. G. Selby.

Matthew 16:19. The keys.—

1. The kingdom of heaven does not mean heaven. Yet the failure to mark this obvious distinction has given prevalence to the foolish notion that St. Peter is porter at heaven’s gate, and admits souls to paradise.
2. The kingdom of heaven does not mean the church. Attention to this distinction would have made short work with the Papal claim to the power of the keys, and would have saved our Protestant divines a great deal of discussion regarding the power of the keys in the church and the hands in which that power is vested. But what is meant by the keys? The phrase is metaphorical, and the meaning is to be found by comparison of this and other Scriptures. It certainly indicates power.

I. Administrative.—The keys of a palace are entrusted to the major-domo. The key of the house of David is said in Isaiah to be laid on the shoulders of Eliakim, a trusty counsellor (Isaiah 22:20). The mention of keys suggests stewardship, not lordship. So a power of administration in the kingdom of heaven was assigned to Simon Peter, as the first of the Apostles. It is from this that divines have described the light to exercise church discipline as “the power of the keys,” distinguishing it from the jurisdiction of civil rulers, which is enforced by the power of the sword.

II. Didactic.—Jesus reproached the lawyers of the time for having “taken away the key of knowledge.” They hindered the enlightenment of their nation. On the other hand, a scribe well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven had been likened by Him to a householder with command of a treasury. We infer that the Lord promised to Simon Peter the keys by which he would have access to the treasure of wisdom and understanding in the kingdom of heaven, and so be able to teach with clearness and authority. This interpretation is confirmed by the words which follow: “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,” etc. Not “whomsoever,” but “whatsoever.” The saying refers to points of doctrine or practice which might come into dispute. Among the Jewish Rabbis to bind meant to forbid or declare forbidden; to loose meant to allow or declare allowed. We understand, therefore, that the Apostles were authorised to teach and guide their fellow-Christians, showing what things were forbidden and what allowed, indicating what rites and ordinances were superseded, and how debatable questions should be settled in the new community. In fact, the power to bind and loose was just the function of directing the judgment and practice of the new-born, inexperienced church, and ordering its beginnings of thought and life according to the mind of Christ. But while he shared the power to bind and loose with all his colleagues, there is, in the Acts of the Apostles, a very special ascription of the power of the keys to Simon Peter. The door of faith was opened first to the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts 2; Acts 3; Acts 4); next to the Samaritans, a kind of intermediate people (Acts 8); and finally to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So was the gospel given to the whole world, and in each instance it was the hand of Simon Peter that held and turned the key.—D. Fraser, D.D.

On earth and in heaven.—Go into an observatory and watch some astronomer as he is following the transit of a star. His telescope is so adjusted that an ingenious arrangement of clock-work is made to shift it with the transit of the star. His instrument is moving in obedience to the movement of the star in the heavens. But the clock-work does not move the star. The astronomer has made his faultless calculations; the mechanic has adjusted his cranks and pendulums and wheels and springs with unerring nicety, and every movement in the telescope answers to the movement of the star the far-off heavens. The correspondence rests on knowledge. And so when the things that are bound on earth are bound in heaven. Every legislative counsel and decree and movement in a truly Apostolic and inspired church answers to some counsel and decree and movement in the heavens. But then the power of discerning and forecasting the movements of the Divine will and government rests upon the power of interpreting the Divine character, and applying its principles of action, as that character is communicated to us by Jesus Christ.—T. G. Selby.

Binding and loosing.—“To bind up sins as in a bundle,” says Lange, “implies coming judgment, while sins forgiven are described as loosed.” It is, however, maintained strongly by other critics that the sense of the words is altogether different. Lightfoot has cited a triple decade “out of thousands” of instances of the Jewish use of this expression “binding and loosing.” To all manner of ceremonial regulations about leaven, festivals, starting on a voyage, or even so small an act as looking into a mirror, the formula is appended, “the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looses it,” in the sense of prohibition and permission; so that he paraphrases our Lord’s words thus: “If thou askest by what rule that church is to be governed, when the Mosaic rule may seem so improper for it, thou shalt be so guided by the Holy Spirit that whatsoever of the laws of Moses thou shalt forbid them shall be forbidden; whatsoever thou grantest them shall be granted, and that under a sanction made in heaven.”—C. E. B. Reed, M.A.