This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A, most recently Aug 23, 2026.
Summary: This passage presents many powerful preaching angles that I try to amplify with the Greek.
- Confessing Christ is the work of the individual and the church
- Confessing Christ is on-going
- Confessing Christ must happen on the road of life, even in places of moral rot
- Confessing Christ happens over and against other co-religionists and their confession of who Jesus is (I include here some research by NT Wright on the various 1st century understandings of what "Messiah" meant).
For 2026, I wondered what might be worth preaching on within Matthew's version because this story comes up in both Matthew and Mark's Gospel. I am pondering how Peter is given his identity after his confession of Christ and the way in which identifying who Christ is allows us finally to hear and be identified as who we are. In the 21st century, we obsess over identity and an identity that is self-constructed. But here we discover that our identity cannot be found by our own analysis, but comes from Christ. I don't have Greek analysis for this, just simply a point I am pondering!
Idea for a children's sermon: the whole fish, Ι-Χ-Θ-Υ-Σ, i-ch-th-u-s, thing (Jesus Christ God's Son Savior) as the most basic confession.
λέγετε (saying, 16:15) When we hear this translated in English, we hear this a personal question: "Who do you say that I am?" Given that Peter individually responds, it is correct in acknowledging this is a question that we must each answer individually. However, it is worth pointing out that this is a plural question. The whole community is asked to confess Christ, one might even argue, together!
ἠρώτα (imperfect of ἐρωτάω, asking, 16:13) This verb here is in the imperfect tense. Jesus is repeatedly asking them. This adds movement and emotion to the scene, but also points to the way in which our whole lives again and again, we will need to confess Christ.
καισαρειας φιλιππι (Caesarea Philippi, 16:13): This town is not a coincidental mention. It was a trading hub, located along some major land routes. It had been associated in the past with Baal (OT Canaanite god) and Pan (Greek god). In Jesus day, it was one of the Roman capitals in the area, with immense building projects undertaken by Herod, including the construction of a temple in honor of Augustus. In fact, city's temple to Pan was believed to be located at the gates of Hades, a direct connection to the underworld. Philippi epitomized the Greco-Roman religious milieu of the day: a pantheistic cult that continued to give more space to emperor worship; above all, a worship of beauty, sex, power and money.
One can go even further though and think about the extent to which these are all not simply dead gods, but gods of death. At the main temple in Caesarea Philippi, which was a temple believed to be the gates of Hades, people would offer dead animal sacrifices (http://www.generationword.com/Israel/caesarea_philippi.htm good pictures!). Hence the importance in Peter's confession that God is a living God!
If you want to go even further, you can study more about what worship of Pan actually entailed, but now we would have an adult only sermon.
υιος του ανθροπος (Son of Man 16:13). As Christians we likely recognize this title as a reference to Jesus. In fact, we often look at this title as one that uplifts Jesus as the pinnacle of humanity. But what exactly does this title mean?
On the one hand, this term is associated with the Messiah and his coming in glory in the book of Daniel:
- “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (7:13-14)
Yet, on the other hand, this particular title for an individual or humanity seems to suggest humanity's weakness:
- What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:4; See also Psalm 144:3)
- If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot-- a son of man, who is only a worm!" (Job 25:5-6)
- God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)
χριστος (Christos, Messiah, 16:16) Christos is Greek for anointed. In Hebrew, the word for anointed is Messiah. Peter is calling Jesus the Messiah. The Old Testament strongly associates Messiah with a king, in the line of David, one who leads and protects the people.
- The idea seems to be that a Messiah is a divine talisman, in that he has special protection (1 Sam 26:23; Psalm 20:6).
- Interestingly, in Leviticus (4:6 eg) the High Priest is also referred to as the "anointed" or "Messiah."
- Furthermore, Isaiah in chapter 61, declares himself anointed for his vision, hence prophet could also be understood as the role of the anointed (Psalm 105:15 connects this as well).
As Messiah then could be understood to capture three offices: king, priest and prophet, which matches up with Calvin's understanding of Christ and his offices.
While Calvin and other theologians have tried to clarify what "Messiah" means, it is helpful to remember that various first century Jewish groups had their own understanding of the word. Different factions within that society had different senses of what a Messiah would be like and what the Messianic age would entail. It can helpful to avoid statements like: "All of the Jews expected X out of a Messiah." Consider Christians today -- do we all have a common vision for what the return of Christ will look like? While I will try to summarize some thoughts on what this term meant, I do so aware that this term had a variety of meanings.
If there is any common theme for first century understandings of Messiah, it would be a theme of conquering. While Kings, priests and especially prophets may suffer, there seems a much stronger note of victory, even theology of glory, surrounding this term. As NT Wright puts it: "Everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah." (p. 230, The New Testament and Its World.) This would explain why Peter so soon afterwards does not want Jesus to suffer! (In short, Peter knew his Old Testament!). It also shows a great contrast with the ideas laid out in Daniel for what to expect from the son of man.
I would also add that NT Wright does a great job of unpacking the Jewish understanding of "son of man" and "messiah." In his mind they work together, in that the Son of Man refers to Daniel 7 and comes with hopes of Israel's redemption over the foreign and invading empires. While even Wright admits the Daniel 7 is bit more ambiguous of a connection, he helpfully demonstrates the Jewish people of the 1st century had very earthly hopes. They all wanted an end to their situation as a puppet regime of Rome; they may have understood this happening in different ways, but ultimately, it was for the same reason. In short, no first century Jew would have said: "I want the Messiah to come, die in a humiliating fashion, be resurrected and then promise us that if we follow him, we will die and then enter into a non-earthly eternity with God that will include lots of non-Jews." The Messiah was to bring about the new reign of God on earth, which included the vindication of Israel (p. 234, The New Testament and Its World).
πετρος /πετρα Petros Petra: We've all heard that Peter's name means Rock, because he was the Rock on which the church would be built. Both words clearly have a the same first few letters (Petr), but I am not sure if we must necessarily infer that Peter the person is what the church will be built on. Beyond some linguistic oddities (Petra is a feminine noun and ends in an a, nothing like Peter's name's ending), the far more logical thing is that the church will be built on the confession, which comes from heaven. I think the Bible really underscores this by showing Peter's misunderstanding just a few sentences later. Luther writes a sermon delving into why this passage is about the confession of Christ and not Peter's person.
αδης hades: See my blog post on words for hell in the Bible. http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2012/09/mark-938-50.html
Grammar note: In the infinitive phrase "Who do you say that I am" the word "I" is in the accusative (me). Why? Because in the subject of an infinitive clause is in the accusative, not the nominative.
