The Christ of History
The Christ of History
Although modern critics have raised several problems regarding the historicity of Peter's declaration and Jesus' self-identity, the view that the incident is historical and reliable has much more to commend it than does the view that the declaration scene is a piece of fiction. As such, it gives us insight to the apostles' understanding of who they understood Jesus to be and who Jesus understood Himself to be.
When countering the claims of modern critics, it is often helpful to use common methodologies to provide a level playing field from which we can dismantle their conclusions with their own tools. One such strategy is to employ “criteria of authenticity” that modern critics themselves use to deny the authenticity of events in Jesus' life. Contending for a comprehensive understanding of the historical Jesus within the historical context are two prominent Jesus scholars, John Meier, a Roman Catholic scholar, and Craig Evans, an evangelical scholar. Both have given primary or valid criteria a relative ranking in effectiveness in attempting to evaluate the authenticity of events and sayings of Jesus.
8
9
Primary Criteria
Valid Criteria
1. Embarrassment
1. Historical Coherence
2. Discontinuity
2. Multiple Attestation
3. Multiple Attestation
3. Embarrassment
4. Coherence
4. Dissimilarity
5. Rejection and execution
5. Semitisms and Palestinian Background
6. Coherence
Employing only briefly at least three of these criteria will lead to the conclusion that the Gospel writers recorded a historically authentic account of Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, and its authenticity affirms Jesus' self-identity as the Messiah of Israel, but a different kind of Messiah than even Peter expected.
1. Palestinian Background
In the first place the criterion that Evans titles “Semitisms and Palestinian background” is helpful. This criterion indicates that if the text describes events or concepts distinctive to early first-century Palestine, then one need not look to the later, more Hellenistic church for its origin.10
Mark tells us that Peter's declaration took place in Caesarea Philippi in “the villages of Caesarea Philippi.” This is an odd expression, for the reader might have expected “the region of Caesarea Philippi” after the pattern found earlier (cf. Mark 5:1,17; 7:24,31; 8:10).11 But Mark's expression strikes a strong note of reminiscence. Associating the declaration with this Gentile place strikes a chord of an actual memory of an event in an unexpected locale. There is little evidence for a tendency in Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles to add to the Gospel records a reference to a city outside Palestine.12
This geographical notation occurs unexpectedly in the narrative but demonstrates the evangelists' attention to historical detail. Jesus continued His outreach to Jews living in the villages of that region which was part of the former geographical northern tribes of Israel, a detail that lends plausibility to the evangelists' historical record. Jesus was drawing the ill attention of Herod Antipas in the region of Galilee; so moving away from Galilee provides a bit of a respite out of Herod's political jurisdiction. Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ, and in Matthew's wording, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16), is a striking messianic contrast to the stone, pagan god Pan that was worshiped in the region.
The awkwardness of the expression as a whole, the unexpectedness of the reference to Caesarea of Philippi, and moving in a northerly direction that is the opposite direction from Jerusalem, to which the following pericopes point, argue for the historicity of the topographical setting of the entire incident.13 James Dunn comments, “There are several indications that Mark has been able to draw on a well-rooted memory, with the variations between the Synoptists characteristic of performance flexibility.”14
2. Embarrassment
A second criterion may be even more helpful. It is called the criterion of “embarrassment,” which indicates that if a saying or event created embarrassment or theological difficulties for the church and for the evangelist himself, it is unlikely to have been invented by the early church.15 As Meier says, “The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened his position in arguments with opponents.”16
The criterion of embarrassment authenticates the declaration incident in a significant way. After Peter makes his declaration, Jesus responds by commanding Peter and the others to tell no one (Mark 8:30). Then in the sequel, which is firmly tied to the declaration by each of the Synoptics, Jesus gives His first Passion prediction (Mark 8:31); but Peter responds to the prediction by rebuking Jesus; and at this, Jesus turns and rebukes Peter, saying, in identical language in both Mark and Matthew, “Get behind me, Satan!” (Mark 8:33 NIV; Matt 16:23).
This has been recognized by many scholars as a classic case for the use of the criterion of embarrassment because if Mark or Matthew or the early church had created the declaration scene in order to elevate Peter, why would they disgrace Peter with a story about his opposition to Jesus' Passion prediction? Whatever had been gained by the declaration proper was lost in Jesus' calling him Satan.
The evangelists did not shrink from recording an incident that is embarrassing to Peter, the leader of the twelve apostles, which adds credibility to their intentions to record incidents the way they occurred. Although Peter is commended for his God-inspired declaration that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, and in Matthew is designated to play a primary leadership role in the establishment of the church, when Jesus reveals an aspect of His messianic ministry, suffering and dying, that is incongruent with Peter's still-developing conception, he is declared by Jesus to be a Satan-inspired hindrance to Jesus' fuller messianic mission. The historical credibility of the evangelists' record of this incident is heightened by their willingness to include material that is embarrassing to Peter.
3. Historical Coherence
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the evangelists' accounts of Peter's declaration demonstrate authenticity because the incident has coherence historically with both the developing messianic ministry of Jesus and the final events of Jesus' life that led to His crucifixion. Here we employ the criterion of “historical coherence,” which looks at the larger pattern of Jesus' historical circumstances and the principal features of His life. This criterion looks to one of the most striking things about Jesus' earthly life, His violent death, and attempts to understand the whole of His life in the light of that final event.17 As Meier states, “A Jesus whose words and activities did not threaten or alienate people, especially powerful people, is not the historical Jesus.”18
This is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence for establishing the authenticity of the incident surrounding Peter's declaration because virtually all scholars, including modern critics, acknowledge that Jesus was crucified at the hands of the Romans. If so, what led to His crucifixion, and specifically, what led to His crucifixion as the “King of the Jews” as all four of the Gospels record,19 is critical for understanding what Jesus' mission on earth was all about.
Here we look briefly at three incidents to see how the episode of Peter's declaration coheres historically with Jesus' earlier developing mission and with His later execution.
Relationship to John the Baptist
John the Baptist and Jesus were inextricably linked in their messages declaring that the kingdom of God was at hand (cf. Matt 3:2; 4:17). John pointed to Jesus as the one who would bring imminent eschatological judgment. From a religious perspective this was perceived as a spiritual revival of repentance. But from a political perspective it was perceived as a threat of sedition. Josephus tells us that Herod Antipas arrested and executed John because he feared that the enthusiasm of his followers would lead to sedition (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2 §116–19).
John expected imminent eschatological judgment, but this only led to his imprisonment. So prior to his execution, he questioned Jesus about His identity as the Coming One (Matt 11:2–3; Luke 7:18–20). Jesus responded that in His ministry of healing and preaching the good news John should draw an appropriate conclusion that He was indeed the Coming One (Matt 11:2–6; Luke 7:21–23). But Jesus deflected John's expectation that He would bring imminent eschatological judgment. Instead, Jesus' messianic ministry as the Coming One included being anointed with the Spirit to herald the kingdom of God and bring healing and preaching the good news (Matt 11:2–6; Luke 4:16–23; 7:21–23; cf. Isa 35:5–6). But the ruling authorities linked Jesus' mission with John's expectation of judgment and laid plans to execute Jesus as they did John.
Calling and Sending the Twelve
Jesus carried on and furthered John's prophetic announcement of the arrival of the kingdom of God, but in doing so He called and sent out the Twelve on a mission. This was a statement of hope of restoration or reunification to national Israel, but it was also a threat of condemnation to those who did not repent. In His preaching of the arrival of the kingdom of God, Jesus linked His anointing by the Spirit with His miraculous ministry as a demonstration that the kingdom had arrived in His ministry and that He was operating with divine authority (cf. Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20). The mission of the Twelve was to spread this message with the hope to gain the land and its people for the kingdom of God. With this calling and sending it implies a politically royal dimension because it is a vision for the nation.20 The Twelve represent the new leadership needed to replace the failing religious leadership of Israel. Later Jesus will declare that the kingdom will be taken away from the leadership of Israel and given to the nation producing the fruits of it (cf. Matt 21:43). This does not make Him into a primarily political Jesus, but the national dimension in the light of the announcement of the kingdom of God and the calling and sending of the Twelve is significant and could not be ignored by the leaders of Israel. The beginnings of accusations formed that Jesus was a threat to the national security with His vision of establishing the kingdom of God, however misguided those accusations may have been.
Acclaimed as Prophet and King
The nature of Jesus' messianic ministry was also demonstrated in the ways He rejected attempts by the crowds to acclaim Him as the militaristic and political king of Israel (John 6:13–14). Other popular persons of Jesus' day had indeed roused up crowds to confront Rome and attempt to bring back the glories of the days of King David, but Jesus had no such intention for His messianic ministry. He continues to focus on the realities of the arrival of the kingdom of God in the power of the Spirit. But the crowds will continue to misunderstand Jesus' messianic intentions, and their pent-up desire for a messianic deliverer will attract the attention of the Roman occupation.
In one scene Jesus' preaching and healing and working great miracles elicited responses from the crowd acclaiming Him as “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14 NIV). But Jesus rejects this acclaim because it included a frenzied desire to make Him king (John 6:15). Jesus is here connected with the tradition that regarded Moses as a king as well as a prophet.21 Jesus rejects this attempt to turn Him into the kind of leader that the crowd desires.22 Raymond Brown asserts:
We believe that in these verses John has given us an item of correct historical information. The ministry of miracles in Galilee culminating in the multiplication (which in John, as in Mark, is the last miracle of the Galilee ministry) aroused a popular fervor that created a danger of an uprising which would give authorities, lay and religious, a chance to arrest Jesus legally.23
In the whole context of Jesus' ministry, He was viewed as a threat to the authority of the religious establishment. After Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist, he had already taken notice of Jesus for His widespread ministry (Matt 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29; Luke 9:7–9). Jesus began to withdraw from Galilee because of Antipas's attention to Him.24
Josephus tells us that in first-century Palestine wilderness prophets who promised signs like Moses' usually gained large followings and hailed their leaders as a prophet or deliverer, and they were often interpreted as political insurrectionists.25 In that time of varied messianic expectations, it is not hard to imagine that the lines between prophetic and royal hope became blurred among some of the people. Many among the crowd understood Jesus in this potentially political light,26 especially when Jesus' own preaching and activity—focused on the kingdom of God—aroused pent-up hopes for the return of the Davidic glories. It is a matter of history, however, that Jesus rejects the popular, earthly kingship that the people desire.27 Nonetheless, even though Jesus rejects attempts to make Him into a political/militaristic king, misconceptions of His mission would lead to His execution by the Romans as the “King of the Jews.”
Accepting the title “Messiah”—with Qualification
Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah coheres remarkably with the broader historical portrait of Jesus' unique messianic ministry and His tragic, yet victorious messianic death in crucifixion. Peter rightly declares that Jesus' true identity is that of the Christ/Messiah because it coheres with what Peter had seen Jesus developing in His messianic ministry. Yet Jesus instructs Peter and the others not to broadcast that declaration (cf. Matt 16:20; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21). Jesus does not warn the disciples to be silent because He considered it incorrect. Jesus accepted the declaration, but He did so with two qualifications. In the first place, Jesus expressed caution in the public use of the title Messiah/Christ because the crowds, the religious establishment, and the Roman government will mistakenly assume that Jesus was establishing a militaristic kingship. But Jesus did not reject the title Messiah as declared by Peter.
In the second place, Jesus accepts Peter's declaration, but He will need to clarify to Peter and the Twelve that He was a different kind of Messiah than even they understood Him to be. So Jesus reveals that suffering and dying were included in His messianic ministry (Mark 8:31). This is a historical inevitability in the light of the religious and political opposition and also fulfilled the prophecies of Messiah who would be the Suffering Servant (e.g., Isaiah 53). Peter only partially understood Jesus' intent in His messianic ministry because when Jesus revealed this aspect of His messianic mission, Peter wanted to deter Him and force Jesus into his own conception of Messiah (Mark 8:32). But such deterrence was not from God, and Peter is declared to be a tool of Satan in that move (8:33). Jesus is Messiah, but He is to be a suffering and dying and raised Messiah, something that even His closest followers could not yet fully grasp.
The criterion of historical coherence establishes the authenticity of Peter's declaration of Jesus as Messiah within His overall historical mission and crucifixion. Peter has a growing recognition of Jesus' unique messianic ministry, which surpasses the crowds' understanding. Yet it was not fully developed. Jesus understands the swelling historical inevitability of His arrest and execution, which will be in accord with the divine prophetic inevitability of His sacrificial death.
Widely varied messianic expectations were found in Judaism at the time of Jesus' ministry. Jesus deflected any attempts by those around Him to conform to their expectations and instead carefully articulated and demonstrated the ways He was the Messiah. Although the arrival of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus was not one involving armies and weapons of war, it nonetheless was misunderstood by the common people, the religious authorities, and the political and military regime to the extent that it resulted in His execution. Larry Hurtado concludes, “Jesus' execution had to have been based on one or more charges of a very serious nature, perhaps involving a threat to public order, which would certainly correspond to a perceived royalmessianic claim, whether made by him or his followers.”28 Jesus' historical mission was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that God would send Messiah to bring liberation and peace to His people. But it was a different kind of liberation and peace than the majority of people hoped to see occur.