Peter's Confession
Matthew 16:15-16
He said to them, "But who do you say that
I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"
(Matt. 16:15-16).
Context of the Confession
Before we look at the confession itself, let's take a minute to better
understand the context that surrounds Peter's confession.
Prior to Peter's confession, the Pharisees had demanded a sign of Jesus, a
demand that He found distressing-He sighed deeply in his spirit (Mark 8:12)-and
refused. Instead, he retreats to a boat and travels to the other side of the
lake (Mark 8:11-13). And it wasn't the first time that He had retreated from his
enemies. What do you suppose the disciples were thinking at this point? Surely,
if He just showed them who He was, they'd have to believe! Or, if He won't show
them, why doesn't He just wipe them all out? Why does he keep retreating?
After the trip to the other side of the lake, Jesus warns the disciples of the
leaven of the Pharisees (Matt 16:5-6). It seems as if they'd sailed in silence
from one side of the lake to the other-a silence that must have been deafening.
The Lord had retreated from the Pharisees and not uttered a word since, leaving
the apostles to replay the scene over and over in their minds, trying to
understand what their master was doing.
The silence is broken by this warning. Then, Jesus returns to silence, leaving
the disciples to interpret the warning. Their interpretation, however, is
superficial, self-absorbed, and far off the mark. They supposed that their
forgetfulness-they'd failed to bring bread-was the cause of this warning (Matt
16:7). And so Jesus issues to them a stern rebuke for their lack of
understanding. He says, essentially, How is it that you don't get this? (Matt
16:11), and alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah 6 (Mark 8:18), which He had
already used as a rebuke of the Jewish leaders. You can hear the undertone in
His words: Do I need to apply these words to even you?
Upon reaching the other side of the lake, Jesus heals a blind man. Then, He
seeks to make sure that the blind man doesn't tell anyone about it (Mark
8:22-26). Don't even go into the village, Jesus says. And this wasn't the first
time that Jesus had done this. Not long ago, he had done the same thing after
healing a dumb man (Mark 7:35-36).
This is the context of Peter's confession: Jesus is trying to get people not to
tell others about His miracles. He is refusing to offer signs to the religious
leaders and instead retreating from them, crossing the lake to get away. He
scathingly rebukes the disciples for their lack of understanding, applying to
them the harsh prophecy of Isaiah. This is the context of Peter's confession:
retreat, rebuke, and repression. If the disciples weren't frustrated and
perplexed-perhaps even despondent-at this point, it may have been an additional
miracle.
But it is at this very time-maybe one of the lowest valleys of faith the
disciples ever entered-that Jesus looks at them and says: Who do you say the Son
of Man is?
Peter's Confession
Peter's confession was obviously an incredible confession of faith, but aside
from that, there are four things stand out to me about his confession that can
help us better understand the confessions that we make.
First, Peter's confession was a confession made in ignorance-or, at least, in
some ignorance. Immediately after making this confession, he falls flat on his
faith (pun intended) by standing in the way of God's plan (Matt 16:21-23).
Later, he will try to stop Jesus from washing his feet (John 13:5-10) and
declare the faith to do something which he won't do (John 13:36-38). Finally, he
shows his lack of understanding when, at Jesus' arrest, he pulls out his sword
and take a hack at Malchus (John 18.10-11). It's quite clear that all of the
facts weren't in-at least, not in Peter's mind-when he made this confession.
But though it was a confession made in ignorance, it was also a confession made
in understanding, as is made clear by Jesus next words to him: Flesh and blood
has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Matt 16:17). This
doesn't, however, necessarily mean miraculous insight. This was not the first
time that Jesus had been confessed (cf. Matt. 14:32-33; John 1:47-49) and there
is no mention of miraculous insight at any previous confession. It seems better
to understand his meaning as it being revealed by God through Jesus: cultivated
through the months and years of Jesus' instructions; declared by Jesus himself
(cf. John 5:19-27); confirmed by the miracles done (cf. John 20:30-31) through
the father (cf. Acts 2:22). Although it was a confession made in ignorance, it
was also a confession that was made in knowledge-a knowledge revealed by God
through Jesus' teaching and miracles.
Third, it was a confession made in contradiction. Anyone reading the gospel
narratives will at once see that Peter's confession stood in direct conflict
with what others were saying. The religious leaders called Jesus demon-possessed
and said that he was a Samaritan (John 8:48). Clearly, Peter's confession stands
in contrast with those labels. But Peter's confession also stood in contrast
with the more favorable epithets given (John the Baptist, Elijah or Jeremiah,
one of the prophets; Matt 16:14). To call someone a prophet is one thing; to
call him God's Messiah and son is quite different.
Finally, it was a confession with implications. Those aren't all clearly spelled
out in this chapter, but they are clearly implied by the titles given: Christ
(anointed one) and Son of God. If you acknowledge someone as your king (Christ),
that means that you're acknowledging yourself to be his subject, that you will
follow his lead, offering him full loyalty and devotion. Could it mean any less,
then, to acknowledge someone as God's son? And this is precisely how we see the
disciples living after the resurrection: full devotion to their king and God,
regardless of what men say (cf. Acts 4:18-20).
So what, then, do we learn about our confessions from Peter's confession? First,
confession must be based in knowledge, but it doesn't require full knowledge or
direct revelation. Even without full insight, Peter fully confessed; there was
no need to revise or amend the confession once he learned more. A confession
that Jesus is the Christ is sufficient, even if it isn't fully understood.
Second, confession that Jesus is the Christ will be in direct conflict with what
the world believes and teaches about Jesus-whether they deny him outright or
seek to call him a "great teacher." Third, confession implicitly requires
submission to Jesus as king and God, a point that should tell us that confession
is more than a one-time act, done in front of the church. Confession is daily
spoken by one's life and choices. Finally, from the context of the chapter,
confession requires faith even in the valleys of the spiritual journey.
By Nathan Ward
From Expository Files 13.10; October 2006
