And he said to them, But *ye*, who do ye say that I am? And Peter answering said, The Christ of God.
Jesus is praying alone, with His disciples nearby, and He asks them what the crowds are saying about Him. Their answers are guesses about some prophet come back to life — then He turns the question on the disciples themselves.
The crowd was not hostile. It was only guessing, and who Jesus is has always been the test.
Notice, beloved friends, how the question of Christ's Person is always the touchstone. That is the point around which everything revolves: "Who do the crowds say that I am?" And now two very important things come out here. One is that all around is speculation... They answer, One says you are Elijah; another, that you are one of the prophets. That is to say, it was all a kind of speculative reasoning — curiosity, if you like — but nothing certain or divinely reached at all.
Peter's reply carries no hedging, and the source of that steadiness is not his own feelings.
Here is one of the most remarkable instances of the absolute certainty a soul has when taught from above. Peter says, "The Christ of God." Do you think he was afraid to say that? Was there any uncertainty? He knew it. How? Not because of the effect in his own heart; not because there was happiness in his own breast. It was a revelation to him.
"Christ" means Anointed. Peter is naming Him as the One the prophets had been pointing to all along.
To Peter He was the Anointed One of God, the Messiah, the theme of the old prophets (1 Sam. 2:10, 35; Psalm 2:2; Dan. 9:25-26), but therefore clearly not one of those prophets Himself. There was light for any simple soul to discern who He was. Peter had profited by it, and had answered correctly.
God had unveiled Christ's glory to these few. Peter does not just say "the Christ" — he says "the Christ of God."
In that little group around the Lord there were hearts to whom God had unveiled the glory of Christ. Christ loved to hear it said — not for His own sake, but for God's sake, and for theirs too. In divine love He listened to their confession of who He is... There is only the acknowledgment of Christ as the true Messiah, the anointed of God; not one anointed by human hands, but the Christ of God.
In Matthew, Peter says more: "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Luke leaves that out. Each title belongs to a different group.
It is remarkable how Luke here omits what Matthew records. In fact Peter acknowledged Him as the Son of God as well; but only Matthew records this... Israel will hail the Christ as the Son of David. The world, all mankind, will be blessed by Christ as the Son of man. But the Christian and the Church have their joy in Him as the Son of the living God. It is clearly the most elevated and properly divine of His titles.
Peter's answer is right, yet they are told to tell no one. The reason lies in how people had already treated Him.
Why withhold from people that He was the Christ of God? Why this reserve about His being the Messiah? It was useless to bring it forward. Some said one thing, and some another. No man had faith in Him except those who were born of God. Man, as man, rejected Him. The Jews rejected Him. The disciples confessed Him, Peter above all; but it was no use to go on preaching Him as the Christ or Messiah of Israel.
Jesus accepts the confession, then names Himself differently — and that name stays with Him.
Notice that at this turning point the Lord Jesus takes a new title, and it stays with Him ever after. Tell no one, He says, that I am the Christ of God, the Messiah; the time for that testimony is past. "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected... and be killed, and on the third day be raised." That is the new title He now takes: "the Son of Man." He takes it because they refused Him and rejected Him. He was going to be crucified where He should have been crowned.
The change of title is a widening, not a loss.
He was not to be acknowledged under any attractive title honoured only in that one nation. Instead, He would do a much larger and more important work through this very rejection.
- Question. The question of who Jesus is settles everything. The crowd only guessed — "nothing certain or divinely reached at all."
- Confession. "The Christ of God" means God's Anointed One, "not one anointed by human hands." He is the One the old prophets wrote about.
- Certainty. Peter's confidence did not come from happy feelings inside him. It was a revelation, and that is why he could speak without hesitating.
- Silence. Peter was right, yet told to say nothing. It was too late to keep offering Him to Israel as Messiah, because "man, as man, rejected Him."
- Widening. In place of the refused title He takes "Son of Man." He was crucified where He should have been crowned, and that rejection opened a far larger work.
But, earnestly charging them, he enjoined [them] to say this to no man,
Peter has just answered the Lord's question with the clearest confession he could give: "The Christ of God." The reply is not applause but a strict order of silence. Why would Jesus accept a true confession and then forbid the disciples to repeat it?
The command is startling, because what He told them to hide was true. One writer puts the difficulty plainly and then answers it from the state of the nation:
Why keep it from people that He was the Christ of God? It was useless to bring it forward. Some said one thing, and some another. No man had faith in Him except those who were born of God. Man, as man, rejected Him. The Jews rejected Him. The disciples confessed Him, Peter above all; but it was no use to go on preaching Him as the Christ or Messiah of Israel. He was the Anointed of God, but in truth He was going to suffer... Had the people received Him, He would have reigned as Messiah. But, morally speaking, that could not be. On the one hand man was unbelieving, wicked, and lost. On the other hand, God's counsel was that Jesus should be put to death on the cross, and rise into a new creation in which He would have men as His fellows.
The ban was not a correction of Peter. The Lord accepted what Peter said. He held back the title itself, because of what had to happen first.
To Peter He was the Anointed One of God, the Messiah, the theme of the old prophets... The Lord accepted the answer as correct. But He told them not to tell anyone that He was the Christ. His death must come first, before His day of exaltation as the Christ.
In the very next breath He calls Himself "the Son of Man." He lays one name aside and takes up another. The new name covers far more ground.
Men met Him with personal hatred. That hatred came to its peak when Jews and Gentiles joined forces to crucify Him. In view of this He took the title Son of man — a title of wider limits than Son of David... A great proportion of the passages in the Gospels containing this term refer to His approaching death. Most of the rest refer to His resurrection, ascension, and glorification. They also refer to the future showing of His kingdom in judgment and glory. That kingdom will be not only national but universal in its reach.
The order held only for a season. Another writer marks the point where the message could go out again:
His people had rejected Him as the promised Messiah. He is now to go on towards Jerusalem, to be handed over and then raised from the dead. Then He would be announced as Lord and Christ. So He told His disciples not to proclaim Him as the Christ.
The change of title changes the disciples' position too. The Lord had been praying alone when this conversation began, and what follows the charge is a new road — for Him first, and then for them.
In verse 18 we find Him again as the dependent Man, praying. He forbids them to announce Him as the Christ of God. He tells them the Son of man must suffer. This was the path He was now entering on. What comes before us now is a suffering Son of man in the One who could show Jehovah's power — not Israel's Christ. And this was to be the disciples' path, and blessing was in resurrection after death. This is clearly a great moral change in the whole position.
That path has a fixed order, and the passage presses it on every reader:
At the hands of men He was to "suffer many things," to be "rejected" and "killed." Then, on the Mount of Transfiguration, we have a passing vision of the glory and honour. It is God's purpose to crown the Son of Man with that glory... it clearly shows that if His disciples have the privilege to share in His glory, they are also first called to share in His sufferings.
- Confessed. Peter's answer was correct and the Lord accepted it — Jesus is the Anointed One of God, the promised King of Israel.
- Silenced. Israel had seen the proofs and refused them. Announcing Him under that title was now useless, and the nation's chance to crown Him had passed.
- Exchanged. In place of "Christ" He takes up "Son of Man." It is a name of wider reach than Son of David. It ties to His death and to a glory that is universal, not just national.
- Delayed. The silence had a term. He would go to Jerusalem, be handed over, and rise again. Then He would be announced as Lord and Christ.
- Shared. His road became the disciples' road. Suffering comes first, then blessing in resurrection, then glory.
saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.
Peter has just confessed Jesus as the Christ of God. Instead of moving on to a throne, the Lord silences that confession and speaks of suffering, rejection and death. Why forbid the announcement? And why does the cross come in as something that must happen?
The command to tell no one sounds strange. One writer ties the silence to two things: the nation's unbelief, and God's own purpose:
This is a remarkable word. Why withhold from people that He was the Christ of God? It was useless to bring it forward. No man had faith in Him except those who were born of God. Man, as man, rejected Him. The Jews rejected Him. The disciples confessed Him, Peter above all; but it was no use to go on preaching Him as the Christ or Messiah of Israel. He was the Anointed of God. But in truth He was going to suffer. So the Lord brings in another title, tied to His cross… Had the people received Him, He would have reigned as Messiah. But, morally speaking, that could not be. On the one hand man was unbelieving, wicked, and lost. On the other hand God's own purpose was that Jesus should be put to death on the cross, and rise into a new creation.
Refused as Messiah, He takes a different name for Himself — one that carries His cross with it:
Note the break at this point. The Lord Jesus takes a new title, and it stays with Him ever after. Tell no one, He says, that I am the Christ of God, the Messiah. The time for that testimony is past… "The Son of man" is the new title He takes now, because they refused Him, rejected Him. He was going to be crucified where He ought to have been crowned. And He shows us here not His atoning sufferings, but His sufferings as a martyr.
The men who reject Him are named one by one. Each group stands for something:
The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders (the most experienced) and chief priests (the most religious) and scribes (the most learned).
Why "must" He suffer? One writer answers with a question of his own:
The Lord, knowing all, said to His disciples over and over again, The Son of Man must suffer. How was a race of ruined sinners to be saved? How were we to be saved? The Son of Man came not only to set up the Kingdom in righteousness, but the Son of Man must suffer, and He suffered as no one else did. He was spat upon, scourged, shamefully treated, and put to death. His death was an absolute necessity. Without it God could not establish the Kingdom, and we could not be saved.
Death is not the last word. And what Luke sets beside it is not an account of the atonement but a call to self-denial:
Here our Saviour does not speak of putting away man's guilt. He speaks as the One rejected, suffering to the utmost because of man's — Israel's — unbelief. This is not a revelation of the effective sacrifice on God's part. The heads of earthly religion kill Him; but He is raised the third day. What comes next is not an unfolding of the blessed results of the atonement — however sure it is that God was about to do that very work at that very time. Luke, as his habit is, ties Christ's rejection and death to the great moral principle: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself."
Suffering is not the end of what He announces. The next scene, on the mountain, belongs with this one:
Luke 9:22-36 movingly presents the sufferings of the Son of Man and the glory that follows. At the hands of men He was to "suffer many things," to be "rejected" and "killed." Then, on the Mount of Transfiguration, we get a brief sight of the glory and honour with which God purposes to crown the Son of Man. The passage also challenges our hearts. It shows that if His disciples have the privilege of sharing in His glory, they are first called to share in His sufferings.
- Rejected — Man, as man, refused Him. So it was no use preaching Him as Israel's Messiah, and He silenced Peter's confession.
- Renamed — Refused as the Christ, He takes up "Son of Man," the title that stays with Him. He is crucified where He should have been crowned.
- Required — The "must" is no accident. Without His death God could not establish the Kingdom or save sinners.
- Raised — The heads of earthly religion kill Him. The third day answers them, and He rises into a new creation.
- Retraced — His road becomes the disciple's own. Those who will share His glory are first called to share His sufferings.