I love to focus on the context of every gospel passage. I’m a broken record about this one. Mostly because I think it is deeply important. And because I never hear other people doing it.
Context for every passage is my bread and butter with the gospel. It is what I look forward to each week. Asking: What has brought Jesus, the disciples, the crowds, and the religious leaders to this moment? Motivation seems to me to be a really important part of it.
There are times when the motivation is obvious or straightforward. And we usually can just go ahead regardless. And there are times when the motivation is not anywhere near as potent as what happens in the text.
And then there’s the kind of thing we get this week. Where the context has a lot to say, the passage has a lot to say, and tradition itself has a lot to say. And in these moments, I feel like tradition and the power of the passage leave the context swinging in the breeze.
And that is a problem.
Recapping the Context
If you follow along daily, you will have read up on the context for this week’s gospel and why I think it matters. But here’s a basic recap.
Jesus just expanded the mission.
When Jesus named his disciples apostles and sent them out into the world to do his work, deputizing them to essentially be Christ in the world (Pauline language)—in other words, being the messiah themselves!—he did so with the expressed limitation that it was for the Jewish people only!
Then, when Jesus is confronted by the Canaanite woman, he notably expands the circle from Jews to anybody that recognizes God as Lord.
This isn’t a little thing. And it has huge implications for the concept of the Messiah. Because messiahs come to save the Hebrew people. Now he’s saying it’s about more people than that.
Jesus expects people to interpret the signs.
In their confrontation with Jesus, the religious leaders suggest that Jesus should give them a sign, to prove he’s the real deal. We know from Jesus’s confrontation with Satan in the wilderness, that the expressing of signs on command isn’t what God’s mission is about.
What Jesus does in response, however, is push back. Not on the demand itself, but on what that demand implies about them. That they haven’t paid attention to the signs that have already occurred. This has a two-fold insult to them. It means they are being selfish and ignorant.
What Jesus does is highlight for them that, if we can expect people to predict the weather with modest accuracy by learning about the signs in the weather, we should be able to expect the same when it comes to life.
This has big implications for the reader, too.
We just read about these signs! We saw the apostles go out and do stuff. We saw him feed and heal multitudes. And then, what happens in the immediate aftermath of the encounter with the Canaanite woman? He heals and feeds multitudes in the borderlands.
We see a change in the mission with Jesus. Then we see him tell the religious leaders to interpret the signs of the times.
These are signs.
So when we get to the moment when Jesus asks what the disciples have been hearing, we have the teacher asking his disciples to interpret the signs. What have you collected? OK then. What do you think it means?
Why this is bigger than tradition
Tradition holds this moment as a twin-affirmation.
- Peter affirms Jesus as Messiah.
- Jesus affirms Peter as first pope.
I’ll admit that this is a simplification of the story (and of tradition). Simplification that intends to highlight precisely how much tradition is built upon, not just this moment, but in Matthew’s specific telling.
But let’s not fool ourselves by how tradition uses this passage. We don’t just take it out of its context. We use it as the affirmation of creedal conviction and of church structure far more than it objectively leads us to it.
So what happens to us when we allow ourselves to focus on the context?
We see our place in the story.
What is remarkable about this moment is not that Peter is a brainiac, that he is particularly devoted, or that he displays uncommon wisdom: all things which become associated with the See of Peter.
In a sense, he just gets lucky.
This is more clearly the case in Mark’s telling, where he goes from calling Jesus the Messiah to telling him he’s not allowed to die.
Peter’s role throughout the gospels is not as star pupil, but as the “everyman”. Jesus asks a question and he responds, whether he’s right or not.
And what we see is not a reflection of brilliance. But of doing what Jesus asked. Jesus asked them to interpret the signs and Peter did.
We need to celebrate that act rather than honor the person who acted. Because this was a teaching for everyone, not just him.
The sign Peter couldn’t interpret
That’s easy: what the Messiah actually means. That role which expanded to all of humanity. And that the messiah would die in the end.
Peter and all of the disciples struggle to recognize the signs—not of Jesus being the messiah—but of what a messiah would need to do to change the world. That he couldn’t be a commander with an army. Or overthrow the empire with might. That the main instrument would be love.
They didn’t see the signs as they happened. They understood them afterward.
The trick for us is to interpret the signs now
The messiah has come, yes. And transformed the world. And we may be saved by his grace. Our tradition has been deeply committed to the establishment of Kin-dom values and commitment to these teachings.
What we’ve struggled with is maintaining this connection to interpretation. Mostly leaving the idea of interpreting signs as the stuff of kooks trying to predict the end of the world rather than Jesus’s own reference: as forecasters of spiritual weather patterns.
I think we get this idea, for the most part. Like when things are going wrong, we want someone to interpret the signs for us. Tell us what is going to happen. Help us understand.
And yet, when the world seems ordered, it is hard to notice when our tradition pushes back at the Messianic gifts of some in our midst. Particularly those who are healing and performing miraculous things with underprivileged groups. We want to control these ministries and focus our attention, not on material needs but spiritual salvation.
Or perhaps we use these moments to solidify our institutions. Say that it was about saying the right thing at the right time. Naming it right. Getting the keys. Being the man!
It is easy to miss the bigger point.
That the Messiah changed his game. And therefore, changed the game. And it put everyone on notice. Everyone. Not just the person we’ve put in charge.