Category: confession

Peter’s Confession (And Ours)

Neal Pollard

Caesarea Philippi makes such a dramatic backdrop for the discussion that occurs in Matthew 16. Even today, as ruins 2,000 years later, the place is imposing. Caesarea Philippi, also known in Christ’s day as Paneas because of the mythological god Pan and known today as Banias, had the cave of Pan carved out of the towering rock. It was associated with multiple cultures for multiplied centuries as a center of idolatry. How dramatic it must have been for the disciples to walk among the temples, sanctuary, grottos, and courtyards erected by Herod the Great with the natural, bedrock setting, discussing matters of such importance with their amazing teacher. On this occasion, Jesus initiates the discussion with a profound question. It was a question of identity. He asks them, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (13).

The phrase, “Son of Man,” found 29 times in the gospel of Matthew and used every time by Jesus to refer to Himself, identifies Him in a very significant way. With this phrase, Jesus references His humanity—His implicit need of sleep (8:20), His eating and drinking (11:19), His physical death (12:40), His physical suffering (17:12), His bodily deliverance to the Jews (17:22; 20:18), and His humble service (20:28). However, it implies His Deity, because with as many references Jesus speaks of His miraculous power, His reign, His atonement, His judgment, and His second coming. For the discerning disciple, Jesus had already given them the answer. Peter, who this gospel has already demonstrated to be quick to answer (14:28; 15:15) and who would continue to be so (17:4;18:21; 19:27; 26:33,35), is the one who answers Jesus’ query. The answer is the most important confession a person could make in this life. It is the confession in yielding obedience to the Lordship of Jesus many men and women have made since the first century. 

Let us examine the confession made by Peter in Matthew 16:13-19 and observe its significance to us today. 

It was a relevant confession (13-14). The identity of Jesus was a topic of discussion at the time. People were obviously pondering the identity of Jesus. The disciples tell Jesus that public opinion held Him to either be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What is especially interesting about this is that all of those men would have been dead by this time (cf. 14:1ff), and that means the people believed Him to be a man resurrected from the dead. That would be incredible, but would also seem to imply He was endorsed and even sent by God. In their puzzlement, Jesus was still the focal point of apparently significant debate at this time.

Two millennia of time have done nothing to diminish the relevance of Jesus. He is misunderstood, misrepresented, misinterpreted, and certainly misidentified, but He is still pertinent to the lives of mankind all over the globe. The fact that most miss Who He really is, as they did when He walked the earth, does not negate His relevancy. Skeptics and agnostics try to dismiss Him, yet still discuss Him. The wicked may blaspheme and profane Him, in anger and jest, yet still discuss Him. Those in religious error, with spiritual blinders on, discuss Him. Faithful disciples build their lives completely around Him.  To ascertain His identity marks the height of relevancy.

It was a personal confession (15). Despite the common misperception of Him, Jesus gives His disciples the chance to get it right. Notice that He does so by asking, ““But who do you say that I am?” (15). Regardless of what the Jews said, the pagans said, or the multitude said, Jesus wants these men to answer this. The “you” is plural, but it seems restricted to only His disciples walking with and listening to Him. From Peter’s answer, we can see that the answer is even more specific. Peter, the individual disciple, had to give an answer to the question. 

Jesus wants the world to be won over to Him. But, His Word reveals the individual accountability each of us has to Him as we live our lives on the earth. Earlier in the gospel, He says, ““Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (10:32-33). The “everyone” and the “whoever” suggests the personal nature of the confession each one must have to be eternally accepted by the Father. The church is made up of individuals who wrestled with and came to a proper conclusion about who Jesus is.

It was an accurate confession (16).  When Peter gives his answer, it is the right one. Peter confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Satan knew that this is who Jesus is (4:3,6). The demons knew it, too (8:29). The high priest at His arrest and the passers by at His crucifixion demonstrated their unbelief in this fact (26:63; 27:40), while the Gentile soldiers confessed it (27:54). This confession was a confession of the complete Deity of Jesus. It also contained the idea that Jesus is the Messiah, as He is called in Matthew’s genealogical record (1:1,16-17) . Messiah is the Hebrew designation (Daniel 9:25-26) for Christ, from a Greek word meaning, generally, “one who has been anointed” (Louw-Nida 542), and, specifically, “Fulfiller of Israelite expectation of a deliverer, the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ” (BDAG  1091).  In this sense, other Old Testament passages foretold of His coming (see Psalm 2:2). Peter is saying, in essence, “I believe You are the One prophesied of in the Old Testament as the Divine Deliverer.” While He and the others did not fully grasp the truth Peter spoke, it could not have been more accurate. 

It was a blessed confession (17-19). After Peter’s confession, Jesus responds. He says that Peter is “blessed,” a word Matthew records Jesus using 16 times in this gospel. Each time, the word seems to be used in the sense of something more than mere happiness or joy, though those no doubt are the result of being deemed blessed by God. In fact, everywhere in this gospel that someone is called blessed, there is some blessing or privilege that follows.

  • Receiving the kingdom of heaven (5:3).
  • Being comforted (5:4).
  • Inheriting the earth (5:5).
  • Being filled (5:6).
  • Obtaining mercy (5:7).
  • Seeing God (5:8).
  • Being called sons of God (5:9).
  • Being healed (11:7). 
  • Seeing and hearing (13:16).
  • Being rewarded (24:46; 25:34). 

What are the blessings for Peter?  First, there is heavenly knowledge (17). He understands a truth that did not originate with men, but with God. Second, there was delightful revelation (18). He learns that because Jesus is the anointed One and the Son of God, Jesus would build the church on the foundation of His identity. Third, there is tremendous responsibility (19). Peter is told he will have the task of using the keys—the fact of Jesus’ identity and authority—to unlock the door to let Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10) into the church of Christ. 

   Whenever anyone follows the instructions first preached by Peter on how to get into the church, they benefit from the same blessings. They accept this heavenly knowledge of who Jesus is. They get to be a part of the unique church that belongs to Jesus. Then, they accept the responsibility to share with others the things Jesus has already bound and loosed in heaven. A life of confessing Christ is the cornerstone to a life with God’s approval, a blessedness unmatched by anything else. 

That even Peter did not grasp the profundity of his confession is clear from His rebuke of the Christ, the Son of the living God shortly after his confession (16:22). Yet, eventually, Peter comes to understand the powerful implications of the confession he makes in Matthew 16:18. He spreads it to thousands of others, who helped to populate and grow that church. As we read his confession today, Peter continues to influence us to imitate his great faith and make the good confession with our lives. May we never be ashamed to own our Lord or defend His cause!

Works Cited

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, et al. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature 2000 : 1091. Print.

 Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains 1996 : 542. Print.

Biggest Misunderstandings About Public Responses

Neal Pollard

There are a couple of examples of public responses to the gospel message in the Bible, both in Acts.  One is positive and the other is negative.  As Peter was preaching that God has made Jesus Lord, the Pentecost crowd interrupted him with the question, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).  As Stephen was delivering a similar message, his audience stopped listening and they cried out with a loud voice before putting the preacher to death (Acts 7:54ff).  Mention is made of a one another response that could apply to the corporate assembly, confessing sins (Jas. 5:16; 1 Jn. 1:9).  How public the setting was when Peter called for Simon to repent we do not know for certain (Acts 8:18-24).  So, why do we end our sermons with a call to publicly respond?  Is this simply borrowed from the denominations or is it just a rote tradition devoid of deeper purpose?

Often, we have explained the invitation as being an “expedient,” which I think it is.  When we speak of an “expedient,” we refer to a practice that is thought convenient, practical, suitable or appropriate but neutral (neither right nor wrong) and a-biblical (not found in the Bible but not unbiblical).  It is a sensible activity.  Hopefully, the sermon contains a call to change and is persuasive in nature.  Maybe, the person comes in the door that day convicted of his or her need to become a Christian or repent of public sin.  Affording a moment that makes it easy for one needing to obey Christ in one of these ways to do so is appropriate.

I have been in assemblies in this country and overseas that do not have such a time set aside or that do so at other times during the gathering—some do so at the beginning of the service so that a person can worship without being alienated from God (cf. Mat. 5:24), some invite anyone who needs to publicly respond to remain standing after the lesson and a song, some encourage people who need to respond to write their need on a card or piece of paper and hand it to an usher, the preacher, the elders, or someone designated to collect such communication.

While I think it is good for us to consider that there is more than one way to do this and that we are not mandated to do it at all in the assembly, I believe our current arrangement is a fine way to try and help people who need to make spiritual changes and improvements.   Yet, someone who feels the need to make such a response often hesitates or decides against it.  Certainly, the problem on such an occasion might be fear or delay, but is it ever due to some misunderstanding such a one has?  Here are a few of the biggest misunderstandings people have about responding to the invitation:

  •  Nobody but me is struggling with sin in their lives.  Truth: Romans 3:23.
  •  It is a sign of weakness to respond publicly.  Truth: Luke 15:10, 17
  •  Everybody will look down on me, judge me, or gossip about me if I respond.  Truth: Luke 15:28-32
  •  People will distance themselves from me if I respond.  Truth: 1 Corinthians 12:26-27.

Maybe you are thinking this or something similar.  May I assure you that every righteous person on earth and all the inhabitants of heaven would like nothing better than to help you be right with God.  Death and the Judgment loom, and we cannot let anything keep us from making proper preparation for them.  So, if you need to respond today or any day, won’t you come?

14-church-carpet

Why Has There Been A Decline In Public Responses?

Neal Pollard

While I am certain that there are those who will say that they are still seeing as many public responses in their assemblies as ever, most will observe what I have observed.  As I think back to my childhood, public responses to the invitation were commonplace—nearly every service.  When I first began preaching, public responses requesting baptism or public repentance by members very regularly occurred.  Steadily, particularly in the last five to 10 years, such responses have declined. The burning question is, “Why?”

One might point to the growing influence of the world and its impact on the heart of hearers.  One may point to weaker, less distinct preaching.  One could talk about how potential responders will feel judged or condemned by the others present.  One could speak of the philosophies and world views of the age, whether secularism, naturalism, postmodernism, or emergent theology.

Though these are no doubt factors, I am not fully satisfied with them.  Weren’t these stumbling blocks in place in previous generations.  The names of the philosophies may have changed, but they were there. Consider another theory.  Are we losing the traditional, real social connection and fellowship of days gone by as we lose ourselves in the virtual world of social media (some of the same desensitizing factors could apply to TV and movies, too)?  Before you dismiss this theory, consider some reasons why I promulgate it.

  • Some use social media as their “confessional” or front pew, where they confess their failings in marriage, attitude, speech, or actions.
  • On the other hand, social media outlets—particularly those having photos as part of their makeup—create an artificiality.  We don’t post unflattering pictures (and may plead with those that tag us in them to delete them), don’t generally admit to weaknesses of character or anything that may make us seem inferior to others (financially, socially, intellectually, etc.).  Image replaces integrity.
  • Increased time on social media, cultivating that virtual world and its relationships, may be robbing us of real-time, real-life relationships.  We often neglect those in front of us for those we’re “visiting” by phone or tablet.

How might this impact public responses?  Are we meeting the needs of James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9 via the virtual world? Are we afraid to show vulnerability, need, or weakness, lest we be deemed “inferior”?  Have we desensitized ourselves, losing the ability to be “real”?  There may be huge holes in my theory, but I suspect there is at least some truth to it.

What can we do to reverse the trend? Hopefully, giving it some serious thought is a start.  We cannot reduce ourselves to mindless minions who are consumed with the superficial while disconnecting from the authentic.  We must renew a dedication to fellowship and relationship, now more than ever!  The people on Pentecost were disturbed enough by clear, divine teaching to make that known in the clearest terms (Acts 2:37).  Let’s help the church be a place of real connections and relationships so we can help each other when spiritual needs exist.