Michael Schellman

P.O. Box 7211

NT200 (Matthew)
Jeannine Brown

“Who am I?”
Peter’s Confession as a Significant Turning Point in Matthew’s Narrative.
13
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the
Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter
answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man,
but by my Father in heaven.
(Matt 16:13-17
NIV)
 Matthew presents Jesus ministry in two distinct stages, the proclamation of the

Kingdom to Israel 4:17-16:20, and the preparation of the disciples for his death 16:21-28:20.

These markers were borrowed from Kingsbury’s work,1 but as you will see, my

understanding of their significance differs. This paper will examine the narrative section

contained in 13:53-16:20; which, I believe, functions as a climax and a turning point within

the narrative. In this section, the author presents a showcase of opinions regarding Jesus’

identity that reaches its height with Peter’s confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the

living God." Immediately after Peter’s confession, the nature of Jesus’ ministry changes

inciting events which will lead to Jesus death, burial, resurrection, and ultimately to the

Great Commission. We therefore, find ourselves forced by the narrative to conclude that

Peter’s confession is instrumental in the ultimate fulfillment of Jesus’ ministry; indeed

that the whole Easter scenario and the Great Commission of the Church could not have

happened without something like Peter’s confession. By this, I believe Matthew is trying

to highlight the kind of faith exhibited in the Petrian confession, as the basis upon which

Remnant-Israel is established, that is, faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Remnant-Israel in

turn becomes the foundation of the Church. Only after establishing Remnant-Israel as the

foundation of the church2 does Jesus’ ministry proceed.

Much is made of the disciples and Peter’s shortcomings and continued failures

even after his confession. The significance of Peter’s confession should not be diminished

because of these shortcomings. I am aware of these arguments; they will be answered in

the course of this paper.

1
Kingsbury, Matthew As Story p. 78
2
Matthew 16:18.
 A Two-Stage Mission

It would be helpful to begin with a description of the two stages of Jesus’

ministry.

I contend that this two-stage ministry allows God’s great plan of human restoration to

proceed, while also fulfilling the promises He made to Israel; namely, the promise that

they are part of an everlasting covenant,3 and the promises that they would be a blessing

and a light to all nations.4 By limiting his ministry to the Jews Jesus is exhibiting God’s

covenantal faithfulness to Israel. Remnant-Israel then becomes the foundation of the

Church.5 In this way, God insures the fundamentally Jewish nature of the New-

Covenant, and thereby proceeds with the work of redemption for all humanity without

breaking his covenant to Israel. This explains the seeming contrast between powerful

theme of Gentile inclusion6, and Jesus often expressed reluctance to spread his ministry

to the gentiles7.

Stage 1 Proclamation of the Kingdom to Israel.

During the first stage of his mission, Jesus goes about proclaiming the Kingdom,

teaching about it, and performing acts that demonstrate its power. Implicit in his message,

3
Gen 17:7
4
Gen 12:3, Isa 60:3
5
Eph. 2:20
6
10:18, 12:18-21,
7
10:5, 15:22-28,
is the claim that he is the messiah, (the one sent by God to usher in the Kingdom). The

Kingdom of God is not for everybody. Only those who receive God’s Messiah can

receive His Kingdom. As Jesus’ ministry progresses, people begin to divide themselves

in response to him. His ministry lives out the winnowing fork imagery used by John the

Baptist.8 This message is also reflected in many of Jesus’ parables.9 Those who receive

Jesus as the Messiah become the Remnant, those who reject Him and his mission for any

reason10 cannot see the Kingdom and subsequently miss its blessings and promises.

It is not important that we go into as much detail, regarding the second stage of

Jesus mission as it falls outside our area of immediate interest. However, a brief

summary of the elements that characterize this second stage will help in the

understanding of the narrative text under consideration.

Stage 2 Preparation for His Death.

The purpose of this stage in Jesus’ ministry is obviously the act of the Atonement

and the Great Commission of the Church. Beginning in 16:21, the second stage of Jesus

ministry is clearly characterized by a change in the content of the teaching to his

disciples11, and his direct confrontation with the religious authorities. These occur during

two visits to the temple.12 Prior to this, Jesus was subject to the attacks of religious

leaders, but never initiated conflict with them.13 Jesus growing antagonism with the

religious authorities provides the necessary impetus for their collaboration in his death.
8
3:12
9
7:24-27, 9:16, 9:17, 13:3-8, 13:24-30, 13:47-50, 20:1-16, 21:28-32, 22:2-14, 24:45-51, 25:1-46
10
Matt. 10:37
11
16:21, 17:11, 17:22, 20:18-19, 21:33-40
12
21:1-17 and 21:18-24:2
13
9:1-8, 9:9-13, 9:14-17, 12:1-8, 12:9-14, 12:22-37, 12:38-45, 15:1-11, 16:1-4
 A Showcase of Speculations

Matthew 13:53 marks the beginning of showcase of speculations regarding Jesus

ministry that is practically absent earlier in the narrative. The climax of this exhibition is

Jesus question to his disciples. Who do people say that the Son of Man is? The very

question that Jesus asks is the same one that they author has been baiting the reader to

ask.

One sign of this is how the author also seems to have gone to great lengths to save most

of the speculations about Jesus identity until just before Peter’s confession. All but a few

the reactions to Jesus’ ministry are absent until nearly halfway through the Gospel. The

first time the question is even raised about Jesus identity is in 11:2-3, when John asks

“Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect another?” People’s reactions

prior to this show practically no interest in Jesus’ identity. From 11:2 until 13:53 there is

some speculation about who Jesus is.14 However, When we get to 13:53, we have a

whole variety of responses presented in rapid succession, as if put on display for our

comparison.

Another sign that this is the case is the manner in which the author injects Herod

into the narrative at this point.15 At this point in our narrative, it says that Herod’s

speculation about Jesus’ identity happened around the same time Jesus left his hometown.

Making it fit neatly within the showcase sequence I just described. Yet, the story of

John’s execution, which happens before the account of Herod’s speculation, is presented

as the reason for Jesus withdrawal to a lonely place, which occurs right after Jesus hears

the news of John’s death. Unless we propose that news of John the Baptist traveled very

14
12:23
15
14:1-13
slowly to Jesus ears, we can only assume that the author had some purpose for putting the

story in just this place. It is likely that the author wanted to introduce Herod at this point

in order to place his speculations about Jesus identity along side those of others.

Furthermore, no conflict with the Scribes and Pharisees is described by the author

until chapter 9, even though Jesus speech reveals that such conflict did exist16. It just so

happens that the people who have the strongest opinions about Jesus identity are silenced

by intentional authorial neglect until such time as their opinion becomes covenant. When

the author finally allows the intended reader to see the showcase of responses to Jesus

ministry, the impression it leaves is sense that the winnowing fork has done its work,

albeit imperceptibly.

In the text under consideration, there are a variety of responses to Jesus’ ministry;

both positive and negative, and from various sources. Matthew has gone to great lengths

to store up these reactions until just this point. By creating this Showcase of Opinions,

the author heightens the narrative tension and highlights Peter’s confession. Among

those of negative reaction are Jesus’ hometown, King Herod, and The Pharisees. They

each reject the messiah in various ways. The people of Jesus’ hometown believed they

already knew him, and took offense at the implications of what he said and did.17 King

Herod, plagued by a guilty conscience assumed Jesus must be John the Baptist returned

from the dead.18 The Pharisees, (who perceived themselves as the authority on the things

of God,) accused Jesus and his disciples of breaking the Law. Jesus showed them that he

kept the law by understanding the heart of it; while it was actually they broke the law by

the observance of their traditions.19 On the positive side, the crowds do not reject Jesus.
16
5:17
17
13:53-58
18
14:1-12
19
15:1-20
They follow him, listen to his teaching, and receive the outpouring of the Kingdom’s

blessing.20 A Canaanite woman, representing the gentile nations in this passage, exhibits

great faith in the power of Jesus to heal her daughter, Jesus grants her request despite the

prescribed parameters of His ministry.21 The Disciples are present for all of Jesus teaching

and miracles. They follow him everywhere and are privileged to insider information. 22

The nature of the division, which is taking place, is between pistoj and apistia.

More specifically between those who exhibit faith, by accepting Jesus as the Messiah and

those who do not. This is clearly displayed in Matthew’s miracle accounts. Miraculous

signs are only granted to the faithful (the disciples and the believing crowds,) as the

reward for, or perhaps as a confirmation of their faith. The outpouring of the Kingdom

only happens in conjunction with faith in the Messiah. We never see Jesus perform

miracles in such a way as to elicit faith from those who do not believe. For instance, the

Pharisees requests for a sign are repeatedly denied.23 Motive is clearly not the deciding

factor, for even Peter’s frivolous request is granted.24 This understanding is confirmed by

the narrator, when Jesus visits his hometown, for he states that Jesus did not do many

miracles there, because of their lack of faith apistian 13:53-58. The purpose of

miraculous is not then to lend weight to a kind of Messianic argument; rather, it confirms

the faith of those who have already made the right decision and embraced the Messiah. If

faith in God’s messiah is the determining factor of who belongs to Remnant-Israel and

20
14:13-21
21
15:21-38
22
13:11, 16:21,
23
Matt. 12:38, 16:1. (One could argue that Matthew 9:1-8 and 12:10-14 are signs performed for Jesus’
opponents; however, in the first case the Teachers of the Law are merely in the right place at the right time.
In the latter case the miracle is performed in direct response to the Pharisees challenge regarding healing on
the Sabbath. It is from what follows that in both cases witnessing the miracles did not produce faith in
Jesus opponents but resulted in a further hardening of their hearts against him.)
24
14:28-29
who does not, this becomes the first point in proving my thesis regarding the significance

of Peter’s confession.

If my thesis about the two-stage ministry is correct and the proclamation stage is

serving to winnow out the wheat from the chaff as it were; then, as we reach the

beginning of stage two in Jesus ministry we must assume that something significant has

occurred. Something must have occurred in order to establish the remnant of Israel

allowing Jesus to get on with the rest of his mission. Moreover, as we have seen, it must

have something to do with faith in the Messiah. The only thing that could possibly fit

this category would be Peter’s confession. Peter, as representative of the disciples in

general, displays the kind of faith necessary to establish Remnant-Israel. As a result, the

mission can progress to stage two.

Arguments have been raised that question the significance of Peter’s confession.

This is due in large part to the static nature of Mathew’s portrayal of the disciples.

Verseput argues that the disciples do not progress to a new stage of discovery regarding

the identity of Jesus.25 If this is the case, Peter’s confession cannot have the significance,

which I attribute to it. Verseput has a number of arguments defending his claim. I will

examine some of these.

Verseput argues that the statement is anticipated in 14:33. And, that this means

that the beliefs expressed in Peter’s confession are nothing new.26 He further argues that

no progress is to be made between the enticing parallel of 8:27 and 14:33. No progress is

implied between the two.

25
Verseput, The Faith of the Reader and the Narrative of Matthew 13:53-16:20; JSOT 46 (1992) p. 11
26
ibid.
 Verseput also argues that the disciples are just as prone to oligopistia after

Peter’s confession as they were before, further implying that no new level of

understanding has been reached. In light of the miracles of the feeding of the five

thousand, and their witnessing of Jesus walking on the water their lack of faith is totally

unwarranted.27 The disciples do not exhibit the kind of faith the author wants the reader

to have. They characters of the disciples are only a foil for the reader 28.

In response I would say that the bible never portrays its human characters in any

other way but flawed. It is entirely possible for the disciples to arrive at a new level of

awareness and still have moments of doubt and error, as it is for us. The disciples do not

go on to live unflawed lives even after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.29 Their

continued failure is a fact, true of all believers, which the bible chooses to portray

realistically.30

Secondly, Jesus occasional disappointment with the disciples should not to be

stressed when they are clearly, leaps and bounds ahead of others in the Gospel. The

disciples have responded to the call of the Messiah. That was their choice. Not everyone

who was called responded in faith.31 In the episode where Peter sees Jesus walking on

the water, he has the faith to say "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the

water."32 The Lord’s granting Peter’s request, frivolous as it seems, is an expression of

sheer joy at Peter’s act of total faith. Jesus disappointment in him, at this point must be

27
ibid. p. 15
28
ibid. p. 25
29
Gal. 2:12
30
Rom. 7:25
31
Matt. 19:16-30
32
Matt 14:28
understood in light of the high expectations that he would have had for Peter when he

heard this request.

Finally, we must never equate oligopistoj, little faith, with apistia, no faith.

Likewise we must not allow the word oligopistoj, to imply that faith is somehow

insufficient and therefore just as good as no faith. People are often blamed for having

insufficient faith to see miracles and we do not want to give this belief any ground in

scripture. The disciples realized that they had little faith, if they did not come to this

conclusion on their own, Jesus reminded them of it frequently enough to insure that they

were aware of it. Yet Jesus told his disciples, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you

shall say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it shall move; and nothing shall

be impossible to you” 17:20. If such small faith is sufficient then their little faith surely is

sufficient.

If my thesis is correct Peter’s confession has great significance for the Church,

because it shows that, the early church saw itself as a continuation of Israel, because of its

foundation upon the Remnant of Faith. It answers questions about Matthew’s theme of

Gentile inclusion, which exists in spite of the entirely Jewish focus of Jesus earthly

ministry. Moreover, explains many of the peculiarities of Matthews’s narrative such as

his late introduction of Pharisaic opposition to Jesus ministry. I have attempted to answer

objections, which may pose a problem to this thesis, and to tie it into the larger narrative

picture of Matthew’s Gospel. In doing this I believe I have presented a unified and

consistent interpretation of this passage, which should shed further light on this Gospel.
 Bibliography

Anderson, Janice Capel,

Matthew’s Narrative Web, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1996

Berge, Paul S.,

“Exposition of Matthew 16:13-20” Interpretation 29, July (1975): 283-288

Brown, Jeannine K.,

The Disciples in Narrative Perspective, Atlanta, SBL. 2002

Cope, Lamar,
“Death of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew, or, the Case of the Confusing Conjunction.”

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38, Oct. (1976): 515-519

Garland, David E.
Reading Matthew, Georgia, Smyth Helwys. 2001

Hagner, Donald A.,

Matthew, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 33a&b, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1993.

Keener, Craig S.,

Matthew, Downers Grove, I.V.P.,1997

Kingsbury, Jack Dean,

Matthew as Story, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1986

Sparks, H.F.D., D.D., F.B.A.,

A Synopsis of the Gospels, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1964.

Suggs, M. Jack,
“Matthew 16:13-20” Interpretation 39, July (1985): 291-295

Verseput, Donald. J.,

“The Faith of the Reader and the Narrative of Matthew 13:53-16:20,” JSOT 46, June (1992): 3-24