‘And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answers and said to him, “You are the Messiah.” And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.'
Jesus then became more direct and challenged them as to how they saw Him. At the challenge of Jesus (the ‘you' is emphatic) Peter made clear that, in spite of all their bafflement, they did recognise that He was the Messiah, God's unique, long promised Deliverer. And it was a title which He accepted as is shown by the fact that He charged them not to let anyone else know. But the title was dangerous for the wrong reasons. It gave the wrong impression of why He had come and would have made Him appear to the Romans and to Herod as bent on violent political success. So while pleased at His disciples' recognition (Matthew 16:17) He wanted the title left well alone. And in Mark Jesus immediately goes on to reinterpret the Messianic idea in terms of the suffering Son of Man. This is the emphasis that Mark is getting over. Jesus is the Messiah (Mark 1:1), but His Messiahship expresses itself through suffering first, and then through final triumph in resurrection and glory. Jesus thus did not want His Messiahship made known at this stage because it would turn men's minds in the wrong direction. For that was not how men saw the Messiah.
In Matthew the confession is described more emphatically, and there it is clearly a turning point in Jesus' ministry as is witnessed by ‘from that time ---', but in Mark the main turning point lies in the changing direction of His teaching about Himself, not in the actual confession itself. This is especially significant as Mark has previously tended to stress appellations given to Jesus. Had we not had Matthew we would not have laid such an emphasis on this confession. One reason for extracting it from the disciples as far as Mark was concerned, was precisely so that He could correct the wrong impression it gave. For at this stage the disciples only saw dimly, like the partly healed blind man in Mark 8:22-26.
One prominent ancient manuscript (aleph) adds here ‘the Son of God'. A few add ‘the Son of the living God.' But the majority of the most ancient manuscripts add nothing. The latter phrase would seem to have been introduced from Matthew 16:16, to make the confession here more prominent. But that is not Mark's intention. He passes quickly on to Jesus reinterpretation. He is not concerned with the title but what it signifies in the purpose and plan of God.
‘The Christ' (Messiah - anointed One). In the Old Testament those who were set apart for God as either king, priest or prophet were anointed with oil as an indication of their setting apart (Exodus 29:7; Exodus 29:21; 1Sa 10:1; 1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Kings 19:16). They were looked on as ‘the anointed of God' and therefore not to be harmed (1 Samuel 24:6; 1Sa 24:10; 2 Samuel 23:1; Psalms 105:15 compare Acts 23:5). Thus the coming great prophet would be anointed by God (Isaiah 61:1). It was a term applied in Daniel to a coming ‘prince' (nagid) who would be cut off and have nothing (Daniel 9:25-26). The term came to be applied par excellence to the Coming One who was expected to deliver Israel, as king or ruling priest, or both, who would thus be ‘the Anointed One', the Messiah. In popular thought he would come and rouse the people by force of arms to bring political freedom to Israel, and the term was probably applied by them to a number of political troublemakers who in the end failed their expectations. Thus the Roman authorities were wary of ‘Messiahs'. But the essence of the idea was that he would come as the Deliverer and Restorer (John 4:25-26).
‘He charged them.' The Greek word is that same as that translated ‘rebuke' in Mark 8:32-33. It was a stern charge which contained an implied equally stern rebuke on any who disobeyed. Jesus did not want to be linked with Messianic speculations (once He was dead, of course, the situation changed. There was no danger then of misinterpretation, which was why He was then spoken of as the Christ).