The Confession of Peter as a study of Revelation

As promised, I am going to write up how I understand the Confession of Peter as a study of Revelation. Theologians try to explain what revelation is. What does it mean to say that God communicates Himself to us? It is a question of what and not how. Cardinal Avery Dulles had summarized the efforts of many theologians into 5 models. One group treats revelation as doctrines handed down from heaven. The second group takes revelation as the historical deeds God performed to save us. The third group goes into our inner experience. The fourth emphasizes the dialectical presence of Christ and the last one looks at the consequence of revelation: a new and heightened awareness. All these models have something to say about the confession of Peter.

The doctrinal model digs up the doctrines found in this story. There are several. First of all, God the Father is the source of revelation. Peter did not come up with the answer himself. Nor did he learn the truth from some other sagas. Jesus affirmed that it was God the Father who revealed the true identity of Jesus to Peter (Matthew 16:17). Secondly, the story affirms once more that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:16). But nowadays, scholars would challenge the dating of this event. Many Bible scholars hold the view that the story is anachronistic. Matthew put the post-Easter experience into the mouth of Peter. Lastly, the story provides evidences to prove the primacy of  Peter etc.

The historical model would encounter great difficulty here because there is no independent extra-biblical evidence to support this story. Did it actually happen? Even if it did, did it happen as Matthew wrote? In fact, miracles would be better candidates to prove the identity. However, if the motive of this story is to prove the primacy of Peter, the historicity of the story has to be established first. Unfortunately, confession is confession. The historical model is not adequate here.

The inner experience model puts into relief the peculiarity of Christianity. Modern Christians do not have the first hand experience of Jesus. The apostles did. The second-generation Christians and those who came after them, like us, do not.  Except for some saints whom Jesus had appeared to them, very few people actually experience Jesus. Through prayers and sacraments, modern Christians encounter the Lord. But this is indirect and relies on the intervention of symbols. So, Christianity relies on the credibility of the witnesses borne by outsiders. Now, an event took place in Caesarea Philippi. Peter had an indescribable experience. Matthew put the event in record. Now, we accept that Peter was the first Pope. Will you accept this even when we cannot prove this event to be historical?

The Presence/Encounter model seems to be the most suitable model to explain the Confession of Peter. Revelation is an encounter with Christ. The Samaritan woman by the well (John 4) and the adulterous woman (John 8) are prime examples of such a model of revelation. Similarly, those fishermen met Jesus and they gave up everything to follow him. After staying with Jesus for two and a half years, it was now time to pledge their allegiance. In the gospel, we find records of these encounters in which we find revelations. Even if such a series of event did not happen, even if they are hypothetical, they are logical and consistent. We can still take their face values and accept their message.

Lastly, all evidences for the transformational model lie outside the gospel. Why do I make such a bold claim. The death and resurrection of Jesus was the climax of God's revelation. Yet, the apostles still thought of the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6). Their transformation took place after the coming of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in their writing of the gospel, they were writing in hind-sight. They recalled events in the light of the resurrection of Jesus. Before the resurrection, the meanings of some events were obscure. After the resurrection, the meanings still remained obscure. The Apostles needed to wait for the Holy Spirit to illuminate their mind to discern the meanings. For example, I speculate that Simon was not too happy to be called Peter because in Greek, the word "rock" is feminine. Perhaps Simon felt offended because Jesus made fun of him, giving him a feminine name! If anybody knows Aramaic, I would be most grateful if he would tell me whether the gender of "rock" in Aramaic is feminine or neuter. Surely there is a new, heightened awareness. But that would be after Pentecost.

What is my understanding of the Confession of Peter?
For me, Jesus himself is the revelation. In order to reveal Himself to the apostles and to us, Jesus engaged in a dialogue with the apostles. He began with something within reach, something they were able to know --- an opinion poll. But doing social research will not yield the mysteries and the truth of God. Jesus is not John the Baptist, not Jeremiah and not one of the prophets. These public opinions do not come any closer to the truth. To obtain the truth, we need to dive deep into our innermost self, our soul. He confronted them with the "basic option" --- Who do you say I am? Will you choose Jesus, or some other principalities or powers?
But at the end of the day, we do not obtain the revelation with our efforts. It is God the Father who reveals. 
A question remains. Besides Peter, who else knew the answer? Did Peter speak on behalf of all the apostles? Then all the apostles knew that Jesus is the Son of God. However, why then was only Peter being blessed and not the rest? Why then did Judas betray Jesus? The conclusion is obvious. Not everyone is able to obtain the revelation. If we fail to enter into a genuine dialogue with God, God remains inaccessible.

Dear Lord, am I speaking to myself? Do we dialogue? Amen.