Matthew 15 - Introduction

CHARACTERISTICS OF DEITY WE SEE IN JESUS IN Matthew 15

1.

Law-Giver and Judge: Ye hypocrites! The Law-Giver can set aside Moses-' Law, (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:19)

2.

Conqueror of Evil: He cast out a demon without even a verbal order! (Matthew 15:21-28)

3.

Creator: Healer of His maimed creation. (Matthew 15:29-31)

4.

Sustainer: fed 4000 on practically nothing (Matthew 15:32-38)

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

Explain the vital need for this trip that Jesus takes with the Twelve. Refer to any facts of significance drawn from earlier periods that give clues.

2.

Show on a map, or indicate the travel plan that Matthew and Mark describe, Into the area of what two famous cities did Jesus lead His men? According to Mark, through which one of the two did they travel?

3.

Is there any record of Jesus ever making another trip out into Gentile territory? When? Under what circumstances?

4.

Name the major area where the events of this section occurred. On what other occasion(s) had Jesus been in this area? What had He done there previously? What had been the reaction of the populace to His earlier ministry there?

5.

What changes are obvious in the response of the people of this area to the ministry described in this section?

6.

Matthew describes this ministry in general terms, while Mark gives a specific incident. Describe this incident, explaining any problems arising in connection with Jesus-' method.

7.

What psychological preparation had been made for Jesus-' service in this area, between His first visit here and the ministry recorded in this text?

8.

Describe the religio-political makeup of this crowd now gathered around Jesus. List the reasons you conclude that the group was of this nature.

9.

List any significant differences between the two miraculous multiplications of food to feed large multitudes. Some unbelieving theologians feel that the Gospel writers confused two separate legends that centered around one fundamental incident. Give, therefore, the evidence that proves the Gospel writers saw a clear distinction between the two miracles.

10.

List the facts or statements within this section that lend insight into the personal character or supernatural identity of Jesus.

11.

Quote the two separate statements that describe the crowds-' reaction to Jesus-' ministry in this section.

THE SECTS OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES CONTRASTED

by Lynn Gardner

A political or religious movement in time usually results in two groups, a liberal and a conservative party. Judaism followed this pattern as a study of Jewish sects and denominations reveals. The Pharisees formed the right wing and the Sadducees the left wing of Judaism. We can see the contrast in these terms: the Pharisees were separatists and the Sadducees were collaborators; one nationalistic, the other internationalistic;·one orthodox and fundamental, the other modernist and liberal; one supernaturalistic and the other humanistic. Neither party was free from error, as both, at times, felt the censure of Jesus.

Origin and Early History

The Babylonian captivity taught the Jews to be monotheistic [i.e. true to their God-given ideals to which they had been unfaithful before the captivity and brought on this punishment. HEF], gave them the synagogue and increased interest in the Scripture and the religious practice enjoined therein. The reformers, Ezra and Nehemiah, possibly were forerunners of the Pharisees. It is also possible that the priestly court party under Zerubbabel foreshadowed the Sadducees. When Jerusalem came under the power of Alexander the Great, the pressure toward Hellenization became strong, After Alexander's death his kingdom was divided into four segments, Palestine was a political football, first ruled by the Ptolemies of Egypt, then the Syrian rulers of Antioch, The rise of a Hellenistic party among the Jewish priestly aristocrats threatened the utter destruction of the Old Testament religion. Hellenistic culture, customs, and idolatry along with the use of the Greek language threatened to inundate the nation, Countering this infidel and pagan movement among the priesthood, there arose a group of pious Jews full of devotion to the law, and fierce in their opposition to the corrupting Greek influences.[1] When the Syrians were attempting to force the Jews to accept Hellenization, in 167 B.C., Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, headed a rebellion. The Pharisees supported the Maccabeans in their campaigns, but John Hyrcanus, when in power, formed an alliance with the Sadducees, who remained the party supporting the government so long as the Maccabeans were in power. In 37 B.C. when Herod began to reign, he promptly executed forty-five of the most powerful Sadducees, thus bringing the Pharisees back into power. In the days of Christ the Pharisees had more religious influence and the Sadducees had more political power, as we shall see.

[1]

R. C. Foster, An Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 62.

Significance of Their Names

The term Pharisees means the separated ones. It is not known whether this title was self-assumed or was given them by enemies. Earlier they had been called the Hasidim, then came to be called Pharisees because of their separatism. They were an exclusive group, while the Sadducees were inclusive in their fellowship. They even separated from those of their own race who did not accept or follow their interpretations of the law. We can see the intense prejudice against publicans and sinners in Luke 15:1-2; Luke 18:9-13.[2]

[2] Edersheim believes that the name Pharisees was given to them by their opponents. He states that they called themselves Chasidim, or the pious. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. I, p. 323.

The Sadducees either derived their name from Zadok, who was high priest in the days of David and Solomon and whose sons were the priestly hierarchy in the time of the captivity,[3] or from the word meaning righteous. Edersheim asks, Is it likely that a party would have gone back so many centuries for a name, which had no connection with their distinctive principles? He further argues that the name is a derivation from the word for righteous:

[3] These scriptures give historical Biblical background for Zadok and his sons: 2 Chronicles 31:10; Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:11. This hypothesis for the origin of the name is a Jewish legend of about the seventh century A.D. It receives no support from Josephus or early Jewish writings. [Other rabbinic works, however, identify the Sadducees-' forefather as Zadok, disciple of Antigonus of Socho (Aboth de Rab. Nathan, cap. 5; cf. Bowker, 162; 6:1-2) who was himself a disciple of Simeon the Just, one of the remnants of the Great Synagogue. (Mishnah: Aboth. i, 1-4; cf. Bowker, 109; 2:26) This Antigonus lived about 250 B.C. (ISBE, 2659), which would date the above-named Zadok after that date. HEF]

While the Pharisees would arrogate to themselves the Scriptural name of Chasidim, or the pious, their opponents would retort that they were satisfied to be Tsaddiqim, or righteous. Thus the name of Tsaddiqim would become that of the party opposing the Pharisees, that is, of the Sadducees. There is, indeed, an admitted linguistic difficulty in the change of the sound i into u (Tsaddiqim into Tsadduqim), but may it not have been that this was accomplished, not grammatically, but by popular witticism? Such mode of giving a by-name to a party or government is, at least, not irrational, nor is it uncommon. Some wit might have suggested: Read not Tsaddiqim, the righteous, but Tsadduqim (from Tsadu) desolation, destruction. Whether or not this suggestion approve itself to critics, the derivation of Sadducees from Tsaddiqim is certainly that which offers most probability.[4]

[4] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. I, 323, 324.

Their Power and Influence

In the New Testament the Pharisees are the most prominent, as they were in the entire first century. They were the unrivaled teachers of the people because the common people recognized the Pharisees as the true and loyal standardbearers of traditional Israel. Josephus said of the Sadducees, They only gain the well-to-do; they have not the people on their side.[5] This doctrine has reached few individuals, but these are of the first consideration.[6] Levison says concerning the Sadducees:

[5] Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, 10, 6.

[6] Ibid., XVIII, 1, 4.

That they did not find followers among the working classes is not to be wondered at. The Pharisees had politically a Utopia to promise. The Messiah was their offer to the people. And if not the Messiah, a resurrection after death which would bring with it material bliss. In these matters the Sadducees-' platform was poor; all they could afford was a satisfaction that comes from a consciousness of having done one's duty, and the rest must be left to God.[7]

[7] Levison. Jewish Background of Christianity, p. 162.

Josephus says of the Pharisees: Whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers and sacrifice, they (the people) perform them according to their direction.[8]

[8] Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 1.3, 4.

The Sadducees did not make the strict profession of religion current among the Pharisees unless they found it profitable in securing and retaining a place of power among the people. They were moved by policy continually, and usually adopted the principles of the Pharisees when they secured an official position.[9] This could be illustrated by this story: according to the teaching of the Sadducees the incense was to be lighted outside the Holy Place and carried burning within; according to the Pharisees, on the contrary, it must be lighted inside. Once a young priesta Sadduceeperformed this function in the manner approved by the Sadducees. Later his father admonished him, Though we are Sadducees, we must do as the Pharisees teach, for they have the people behind them.[10]

[9] Foster, op. cit., p. 76.

[10] Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings,p. 113.

In the days of Jesus and during the rise of the church they [the Pharisees] constituted the backbone of Judaism. Firmly entrenched in their religious leadership, revered by the masses, with synagogues virtually in their control, they alone of the groups known to us survived the dreadful years of revolt against Rome.[11]

[11] Ibid.

The Pharisees excelled in popularity with the people and religious influence in general. But in the area of political power and influence the Sadducees are in the forefront. Foster shows this distinction:

They (the Pharisees) believed in a theocratic democracy; God was their sole king. But they bowed to the Roman rule as a punishment for the sins of the nation. They were a religious rather than a political party. Nevertheless, they looked for a Messiah to lead against Rome, and when they thought the proper time had come, they revolted with the rest. Josephus says there were more than six thousand Pharisees, but not all the Pharisees were scribes, and had supplanted the priests as instructors of the people when the Pharisees gradually won the favor of the masses. The scribes rule in the synagogue, as the Sadducees in the temple.[12]

[12]

Foster, op. cit., p. 75f.

Actually the Pharisees took little interest in politics as long as the government did not interfere with their religious pursuits. But the Sadducees were more concerned with political affairs than with religious.

Since Jerusalem functioned as the political capital of Judaism, and the Temple the headquarters of Jewish government, the interests there became dominantly political. These worldly and political interests controlled the Sadducees.[13]

[13] H.E. Dana, New Testament Times, p. 57.

They possessed the political power and were the governing group in the civil life of Judaism during the days of Christ. The New Testament (Acts 5:17) and Josephus (Ant. xx, 9, 1) testify that the high-priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party. The Sadducees were the dominant group in the Sanhedrin, which was the supreme court of Judaism.

Doctrines

There was disagreement concerning the law and traditions. Josephus says, The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. Their theory of tradition was that these additions to the written law and interpretations of it had been given by Moses to the elders and by them transmitted orally down through the years. They taught these traditions as binding upon Jews and having equal and sometimes greater authority than the law, It must be recognized that the Sadducees were not opposed to traditions as such but they were opposed to the principle and practice of traditionalism of the Pharisees.

And that there was sufficient ground for Sadducean opposition to Pharisaic traditionalism, alike in principle and in practice, will appear from the following quotation, to which we add, by way of explanation, that the meaning of phylacteries was deemed by that party of Scriptural obligation, and that the phylactery for the head was to consist (according to tradition) of four compartments. Against the words of the Scribes is more punishable than against the words of Scripture. He who says, No phylacteries, so as to transgress the words of Scripture, is not guilty (free); five compartments, to add to the words of the Scribes, he is guilty.[14]

[14]

Edersheim, op. cit.,1, 315.

The Sadducees recognized only the written law as binding and rejected the entire traditional interpretation by the Scribes. Josephus said, The Sadducees say, -Only what is written is to be esteemed as legal. what has come down from tradition of the fathers need not be observed.-'[15]Scholars differ on whether they accepted all the Old Testament or only the Pentateuch. They were liberal in their attitude toward, and interpretation of, the law, but they were literal and conservative in its application.

[15]

Josephus, Ant., XIII, 10, 6.

Another doctrinal difference concerned the period after death. The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Acts 23:8) The Pharisees believed that there was to be a final judgment with its consequent eternal rewards and punishments.

There was disagreement upon the doctrines of predestination and free will. Josephus called the Pharisean view fatalism.

But, properly understood, the real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees seems to have amounted to this: that the former accentuated God's preordination; the latter, man's free will; and that, while the Pharisees admitted only a partial influence of the human element on what happened, or the co-operation of the human with the Divine, the Sadducees denied all absolute preordination, and made man's choice of evil or good, with its consequent misery or happiness, to depend entirely on the exercise of free will and self-determination.[16]

[16]

Edersheim, op. cit., I, pp. 316, 317.

Yet at times the Pharisees carried the idea of Providence to the verge of fatalism, as Edersheim admits. The absolute and unalterable predestination of every detail of every event is insisted upon. Some affirmed that every incident in the history of Israel was foreordained, and the actors in itfor good or for evilwere only instruments for carrying out the Divine Will. Yet their insistence upon man's freedom of choice and his personal responsibility and obligation modified their view of fate. Akiba stated it this way, Everything is foreseen; free determination is accorded to man; and the world is judged in goodness.[17]

[17]

Ibid., I, p, 319.

The Pharisees preached and looked for the Messiah, while the Sadducees did not. The Pharisees expected Him to be a political Messiah. (Cf. Luke 17:20; Luke 19:11; John 12:32-34) They expected Him to glorify them and bring all nations to their point of view. The Sadducees were too well off and trusted themselves too much. They felt that the order of things which they had made was good enough for them and they neither wanted or needed a Messiah.

They also had some distinct differences concerning ceremonial and ritual and juridical questions.[18]

[18] Edersheim, I, pp. 319-322. [Cf. also Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, esp. pp. 53-76.]

Characteristics

Because of their scrupulous obedience to the letter of the law the Pharisees became fussily self-righteous. Often in highest hypocrisy they considered themselves the only pious and righteous souls. Levison makes this comment concerning the self-righteousness of Sadducees.

They believed in themselves, and did not see the need for any change in the affairs of men. Their view of their own importance led them to take a very strong view of the freedom of the will; they believed themselves to be capable of acting rightly without being helped or coerced by God into doing so. We usually think of the Pharisees as the self-righteous. Their self-righteousness was based upon the belief that they were doing the will of God; but the Sadducees were far more self-righteous, for they believed that they do and will rightly by personal effort, The Temple was not so much the dwelling-place of God as a place in which they allowed God a share with them in their special domain. As priests they saw to it that they shared with God in their sacrifices that were offered and in the glory of the offering.[19]

[19]

Levison, op. cit., p. 164.

The Pharisees were over-zealous in legalism. They would restrict liberty for the sake of security and protection. This was called the hedge about the law. The principle is the same which provides play pens for children and safety zones on city streets. They would build a fence about the Law to prevent one from transgression. Deuteronomy 25:3 set the limit of punishment at forty lashes. The Pharisees reduced it to thirty-nine, lest it be accidentally exceeded. The elaborate fences about the commandments made the law a tedious and burdensome task. They seemed to think that the more difficult the commandments, the more merit they would receive for observing them.

Relationship of These Sects to Jesus
Attitude and Action of the Pharisees toward Jesus:

1.

They disliked His claim to forgive sins and considered it blasphemy. Matthew 9:3 f; Mark 2:6 f; Luke 5:21

2.

They objected to His social freedom with publicans and sinners. Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Luke 15:1

3.

They complained that the disciples of Jesus did not observe stated fasts. Luke 5:33

4.

They accused Him of being in league with Satan. Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:24 ff; Mark 3:22 ff; Luke 11:14 ff.

5.

They attacked Him for violating their rules of sabbath observance. Matthew 12:2; Matthew 12:10; Mark 2:23 f; Mark 3:2; Luke 6:2; Luke 6:7; Luke 13:14 ff; John 5:10; John 5:18; John 9:13 ff.

6.

They joined with the Herodians to kill Him. Mark 3:6.

7.

They joined with the Sadducees to test Him. Matthew 16:1; see Matthew 22.

8.

To entrap Him Pharisees and Sadducees plotted His death. Matthew 27:62; John 18:3.

9.

They charged Him with planning the destruction of the Temple. John 2:19; Matthew 26:59-61; Matthew 27:39-40.

10.

They accused Him of being a deceiver. John 7:12; Matthew 27:62-64.

11.

They ridiculed Him. John 7:48.

12.

They accused Jesus of being a Samaritan and having a demon. John 7:20; John 8:48; cf. John 10:20.

13.

They charged Jesus with treason against Caesar. Luke 23:1 f.

14.

They mocked Christ on the cross. Matthew 27:41 ff.

(There were some honest and [some relatively] friendly Pharisees. Luke 7:36-50; Luke 14:1 ff; John 3:1-2; John 7:50-52; John 19:39.)

Jesus denounced the Pharisees as:

1.

Hypocrites. Matthew 15:7; Matthew 23:13.

2.

Offspring of vipers. Matthew 12:34; Matthew 23:33.

3.

Inwardly wicked. Luke 11:39-41.

4.

Adulterous generation. Mt.-' Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4.

5.

Blind guides. Matthew 15:14; Matthew 23:16; Matthew 23:19; Matthew 23:24; Matthew 23:26.

6.

Whited sepulchres. Matthew 23:27.

7.

More careless of the kingdom than publicans and harlots. Matthew 21:31 f.

8.

Unworthy of Moses-' seat, which they held. Matthew 23:2 ff.

9.

Loving praise. Matthew 23:6 ff.

10.

Making proselytes worse than they were themselves. Matthew 23:15.

11.

Unworthy of the kingdom which shall be taken away from them. Matthew 21:43 ff.

12.

Being tradition-bound. Mark 7:3-13.

13.

Self-righteous. Luke 18:9.

14.

Being prejudiced against Him. John 5:39-40.

15.

Blasphemers. Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:19.

16.

Rejecters of God. Luke 7:29-30; Luke 10:16; John 12:48-50.

Rejection of Christ by the Sadducees:

(They are mentioned by name only on three occasions in the Gospels, but they are referred to by the term chief priests.)

1.

They tempted Jesus by demanding a sign from heaven. Matthew 16:1.

2.

They tried to arrest Jesus at the feast of Tabernacles. John 7:32; John 7:45.

3.

The raising of Lazarus angered them very much. John 11:47.

4.

Caiaphas (a Sadducee) called for the death of Jesus for a personal and political reason. John 11:48-50.

5.

They were enraged by the triumphal entry and entrance into the Temple itself, Matthew 21:15.

6.

The cleansing of the Temple caused them to challenge the authority of Christ. Matthew 21:23; Mark 11:27 ff; Luke 20:1 ff.

7.

They sought to entrap Jesus in a question about the resurrection. Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27.

8.

They took a leading part in the condemnation of Jesus. Annas. John 18:13; John 18:19.

Caiaphas, chief persecutor. Matthew 26:57; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 26:65.

Brought charges before Pilate. Matthew 27:12; Mark 15:3.

Stirred people to ask for Barabbas instead of Jesus. Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11.

9.

They mocked Jesus on the cross. Matthew 27:41; Mark 15:31; Luke 23:35.

Jesus condemned the Sadducees:

1.

He warned the kingdom of God would be taken away from them. Matthew 21:43 ff.

2.

He told them they were wrong about the resurrection and did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29.

3.

He called them an evil and adulterous generation, Matthew 16:1-4.

4.

Jesus warned the disciples to beware of their bad influence. Matthew 16:5-12.

Both conservatism and liberalism tend to pride and prejudice. One trusts himself concerning his interpretation of religion and the other trusts himself to determine his religion. The religious climate of Jesus-' day is strangely familiar, Today we can see in religious thinking the same attitudes and tendencies only in different garb. We must not allow the Devil to push us off on the one side into exclusive sectarianism nor off the other side into inclusive latitudinarianism.

For Further Study

Bowker, John. Jesus and the Pharisees. (Cambridge University Press) 1973. Bowker collects together in one volume translations of the relative literature and discusses the problems involved in identifying the Pharisees, the emergence and development of the Hakamic movement and its divisions, Jesus and the Pharisaioi, and their charges against Him.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Vol. I, pp. 308ff. See also his opening Chapter s VII and VIII in which he discusses the Jewish attitudes about separation from Gentiles, traditionalism: its origin, character and literature.

DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Give the context, problems, meaning and application of these phrases:

1.

Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

2.

It is not lawful for thee to have her.

3.

It is I; be not afraid.

4.

This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore do these powers work in him.

5.

But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

6.

... and they glorified the God of Israel.

7.

Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.

8.

Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father.

9.

Let them alone: they are blind guides.

10.

It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

11.

... but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

12.

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?. Ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.

13.

... but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man.

14.

And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
PREVIEWING IN OUTLINE FORM

Section 39. Jesus refuses to give additional signs from heaven to religious leaders (Matthew 15:39 bMatthew 16:4)

Section 40. Jesus warns disciples against the influence of popular leaders and parties (Matthew 16:5-12)

Section 41. Near Caesarea Philippi Jesus tests and teaches His disciples (Matthew 16:13-28)

CONTENT OUTLINE

I.

RELIGIOUS LEADERS DEMAND ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OF HIS AUTHORITY: JESUS REFUSES (Matthew 15:39 b - Matthew 16:4; Mark 8:10 b - Mark 8:12)

A.

Situation: As if Jesus had given no previous supernatural credentials, the religious leaders demand them.

B.

Response: The critics are criticized.

1.

Although naturally capable of reading relatively dependable weather signs, you are morally unqualified to demand signs when these times are full of them, signs either unread or deliberately misunderstood!

2.

Reminder of sign already given: Jonah!

II.

JESUS WARNS DISCIPLES AGAINST INFLUENCE OF POPULAR LEADERS AND PARTIES (Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:13-21)

A.

Situation: Jesus and disciples sailed from Magadan-Dalmanutha, leaving the hyper-critical theologians behind. Having sailed without purchasing bread, they had only one loaf aboard.

B.

Jesus-' cryptic warning: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod.

C.

The disciples-' gross literalism: He means the leaven of bread.

D.

Jesus-' rebuke (Matthew 16:8-11; Mark 8:17-21)

1.

Accusation of inadequate faith.

2.

Reproach for limited spiritual insight.

3.

Reminder of two stupendous miracles in the same area of their doubts.

4.

Repeated statement: Not bread, but leaven!

E.

The Apostles finally understand. (Matthew 16:12)

III.

JESUS TESTS HIS DISCIPLES ON HIS IDENTITY, SHOCKS THEM WITH NEWS OF HIS FUTURE SUFFERING AND DEMANDS SUPREME LOYALTY (Matthew 16:13-28; Mark 8:27 to Mark 9:1; Luke 9:18-27)

A.

The Good Confession (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21)

1.

The disciples are questioned about public opinion.

2.

Popular answers reviewed.

3.

The disciples-' answer given by Peter.

4.

Jesus-' joy and promise to Peter.

5.

Secrecy required because of timing.

B.

The Way of the Cross (Matthew 16:21-28; Mark 8:31 to Mark 9:1; Luke 9:22-27)

1.

Revelation of Jesus-' Approaching Death.

2.

Peter's rebuke of Jesus

3.

Jesus-' rebuke of Peter.

4.

Jesus demands absolute loyalty and unflinching self-sacrifice as the cost of discipleship in the Kingdom.

THE LITERARY UNITY OF THIS CHAPTER

Beyond the fairly tight chronological connections evident in Matthew's narration of the events in this chapter, there are deeper, theological ties that bind the internal sections together in a marvelous unity. Although there are many interesting side-trails to follow, there is but one major problem in focus throughout the entire chapter: THE IMPLICATIONS OF DIVINE CREDENTIALS. This is clear from a consideration of the part each section plays to bring this major theme to the fore:

1.

Popular leaders and parties demand divine credentials, as if all previous signs Jesus had given were either non-existent or unworthy. Jesus repulsed their demand because of the adequacy of previously given evidences. The resurrection-sign was repeated as a credential to be waited for. (Matthew 16:1-4)

2.

Jesus then warned against the doctrinal influence of popular leaders and parties who had rejected the evidential value of divine credentials, and reminded His men of the divine credentials exhibited in the feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000. The Apostles themselves were in danger of forgetting the implications of His divine credentials. He rebuked them as men of little faith and limited understanding, since they had as yet failed to comprehend the grand significance of His stupendous miracles of creation. (Matthew 16:5-12)

3.

Jesus then tested the Twelve about His identity, as if to say, What have the divine credentials proven to you about me? (Matthew 16:13-20)

a.

Various popular answers were given, because people in general were unwilling to admit the implications of divine identity evidenced by Jesus-' credentials, That is, if Peter is especially blessed because he accepted what God revealed through Jesus-' divine credentials, then the people who thought Jesus to be Elijah, John the Baptist or Jeremiah, must have done so because of their unwillingness to discern that the signs given them pointed to Jesus as God's Messiah. Despite opinions that accepted Him as a prophet, Jesus is not satisfied with being taken for anything less than what His credentials revealed Him to be.

b.

Jesus blessed Peter for following the leading of the divine credentials.

c.

He then provided further prophetic credentials: He would build His Church, and Peter would have the keys of the Kingdom. This too would prove His identity, for what if He should fail to fulfil either of these promises?

4.

Jesus then tested the disciples-' real grasp of the implications of the divine credentials by giving them unwelcome, but essential, revelations. Peter's discipleship was immediately thrown into crisis because of his refusal to accept unpleasant truth, however valid for him Jesus-' credentials might have been. (Matthew 16:21-26) Any man's discipleship, in fact, is valid only to the extent that he accepts the cross-revelations, and thus implicitly embraces the implications of the divine credentials of Jesus who requires that he so believe.

5.

Concluding signs to warn and comfort His disciples (Matthew 16:27-28)

a.

A future sign that would undoubtedly establish Jesus-' identity beyond all doubt for everyone, which, however, would come too late for anyone to be able to make any changes on the basis of it: the Second Coming of Christ in glory to judge every man. (Matthew 16:27)

b.

A future sign that would also establish Jesus-' identity and could help to convince the ones who were slow to believe: the glorious beginning of Christ's Kingdom on earth, a fact which would occur in the lifetime of Jesus-' followers. (Matthew 16:28)

Although Matthew has been gently leading his readers to some critically examined conclusions about Jesus, as we have seen in earlier Chapter s, he cannot have been unaware of the potential effect this chapter would produce in the heart of his readers, if they have followed him this far. Some of his material is absolutely unique, being omitted by either Mark or Luke. Although there are substantial, theological lessons implicit in the progression of events in this chapter, we must not accuse the Publican-Apostle of being an innovative theologian, because he does not superimpose a theology about Jesus onto the facts. Rather, by means of his narration of the facts he permits his theology to shine through. This is the way that he too learned the majestic identity of Jesus of Nazareth, and now he offers his readers the same privilege. As the Holy Spirit leads him to include each section with his own variations (i.e. differences from Mark and Luke), the Apostle pushes his reader to ask himself: what do I think about Jesus? What do His divine credentials say to we? Am I willing to stake everything I have on Him? Dare I too believe that He alone will judge me in the end? As in Chapter s 8 and 9, Matthew again leaves Jesus-' magnificent challenge ringing in the ears of his hearers, without telling us what each chose to do about it. After all, what they did is not so important. What counts is, what must I do about these same divine credentials historically recorded and presented to me in this way?