Mark 8:27-30

Surrendering Expectations

Mark 8:27-30 – Peter Professes His Faith

Jesus and the disciples moved further north away from the lake deeper into the territory of Herod Philip.

Jesus’ question may have reflected his worry whether his poor record in Galilee had been due to a lack of sufficient information on his part. More likely, however, it served as a gentle lead-up to what would follow.

The information offered by the disciples to Jesus echoed the same rumours that had been communicated to Herod Antipas when he had sought further details about the activities and import of Jesus in Galilee. Herod himself had thought that Jesus was John the Baptist somehow returned to life.

The question marked the turning point in Mark’s narrative. It was a question that Mark asked as well of his readers, inviting no doubt not an academic response but a personal engagement. The question had been introduced by Herod, and put on the lips of the disciples after Mark’s description of Jesus’ calming the storm at sea. It had surfaced again in the incident where Jesus had passed by the disciples while walking on the water after the feeding of the five thousand. On that occasion Jesus had said of himself: It is I, applying to himself the equivalent of the name “YHWH”.

In earlier incidents in the narrative, Mark had indicated how evil spirits had identified Jesus. Somehow it seemed that the inner power of Jesus associated with his utter integrity and inner truth had resonated and stirred unbearably the evil in the possessed persons. They had called him the Holy One of God, or Son of God, or Son of the Most High God. Mark commented that Jesus had ordered them to silence because they knew who he was. Their comments, of course, were not theological definitions that expressed the inner truth about Jesus and his obvious nearness to his Father. The phrases they had used were the phrases already current in their religious culture and referred generally to people specially chosen by God. 

As mentioned earlier, the Greek word Christ [or an Anointed One] was the Hebrew equivalent of Messiah  It was the title given to Jesus by Mark himself in his introduction to the Gospel.

In giving his answer, it is impossible to know whether Peter was aware of its deeper significance. It may perhaps have been his way of saying what he believed was the most wonderful thing he could say about Jesus, something as enthusiastic as, but no more theologically exact than: “You are the answer to all my dreams and longings, to all that I have hoped for”.

Peter’s answer did not focus on the inner truth of who Jesus was. It referred to Jesus’ stance towards the world, answering more the question: Who was he to others? Both questions had probably exercised the minds of Peter and the other disciples for some time. After Jesus had stilled the storm, the disciples had asked themselves: Who is this that the wind and the sea obey him (4:41)? Having freely chosen to continue in his company they must have come to some answers about the identity and the role of Jesus. They may never have clearly put words to their thoughts, but they must surely have considered the issue deeply, especially in the light of the aggressive rejection increasingly encountered by Jesus.

The word translated here as sternly warned would be translated a few verses later as reprimanded. The immediate meaning was indeed “reprimand” or “warn” or even “threaten”, and the word sternly gives some idea of displeasure on Jesus’ part.

Jesus did not reject the title, yet he was apparently not happy with the response of Peter. Why?

Jesus as Messiah

What was the reason for Jesus’ hesitation in accepting the title Messiah? That depended on what Peter intended by the word. Scholars discuss the degree to which the title of Messiah was current in the culture of Jesus’ day. Literally the word means “anointed”, and traditionally both kings and high priests were anointed. 

The Davidic dynasty had died out (or rather had been killed off by Nebuchadnezzar) by the time of the return of the exiles from Babylon. According to the Book of Kings, the fate of Zedekiah, the last of the kings of Judah, was clear.

Third Isaiah, writing in Judaea after the return of the exiles from Babylon (when the Persians were still totally in control), looked forward to a glorious Jerusalem and restoration of the people, but without any clear indication of its leadership. Nothing even approaching a glorious restoration happened, and the people generally seemed to have not been particularly concerned. Their previous experience of the Davidic dynasty had not been good. Both the northern and the southern kings generally had been unfaithful and led Israel and Judah into apostasy. 

Later prophets, Zechariah and Malachi, did not so much look forward to a gradual general restoration but to a more thorough intervention by God with the apocalyptic destruction of the wicked and the glorious reward of the faithful remnant.

Monarchy was re-established by the Hasmoneans in the second century before Christ, but their dynasty was not regarded universally as legitimate. At the same time that the Hasmoneans established themselves as kings, they also interfered with the appointment of the high priests, so that even the high priestly line at the time of Jesus was also regarded by many as not legitimate.

The family of Herod the Great, that replaced the Hasmonean kings, was certainly not seen as descended from David. While foreign rule was not ideal, it was perhaps no worse than what they had known before under their own Davidic kings.

During Jesus’ boyhood there had been a political uprising in Galilee against the Roman occupation. It was brutally crushed by the Romans, and the rebels were crucified publicly around the countryside. 

Probably at the time of Jesus the Essene community down by the Dead Sea awaited a future kingly and priestly Messiah. Their influence was not far-reaching.

Some time after Jesus’ death, political dissatisfaction with Roman occupation grew increasingly intense, and the sixties witnessed political leaders calling themselves Messiahs and instigating revolution.

There seemed to have been no universal expectation of any spiritual Messiah, of Davidic or other bloodline. What general talk there was regarding a Messiah inevitably supposed a political context.

So what did Peter mean in calling Jesus the Christ/Messiah? Given Mark’s insistent emphasis on the disciples’ failure to pick up and to understand the mission of Jesus, Peter may have had some idea of Jesus as a possible political liberator. Jesus was most certainly not interested in that, and understandably silenced that sort of talk about himself.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, people’s insight into the mystery of Jesus gave new meaning to the sense in which the title Christ/Messiah could be understood.

Next >> Mark 8:31-33