Mark 8:31-38 contains the first prophecy of the passion in Mark and a group of sayings around theme of loyalty in following Jesus.
Mark 8:31-33 is the first prophecy of the passion. Historically, most scholars agree that the saying is a summary by Mark of his understanding of the gospel message. Some scholars believe Jesus concluded that the Son of Man and Messiah must suffer. Thus, although Mark has framed the prophecy that reflects post-Easter faith, there is no reason to think Jesus could not have thought creatively about his own fate, considering the prophets, the death of John, and the hostility of Jewish leaders. Jesus may have surmised his fate, but the details may come from the early preaching of the church. We should note that he does not specifically say that this fulfills scripture. Paul will do so in his summary of the gospel message. Though Mark frames the text in the light of post-Easter events, it is likely that Jesus prepared the disciples with the concept of Messianic suffering and later exaltation. This would mean that Jesus made the unique combination of the Isaiah 53 passage with the apocalyptic hope regarding the Son of Man. In this view, the Son of Man, even as Isaiah 53 points to the later victory of the suffering servant, would find God exalting him. The marks of this Son of Man revealed by Jesus are shockingly different from those anticipated by a long expectant Israel. Jesus emphasizes his obedience to the divine will and ordinances of God by describing these experiences as things he must undergo. He shatters the image of a triumphant Messiah and replaces it with the less familiar suffering servant image of Isaiah.
31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering at the hands of the religious establishment, such as the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes rejecting him and killing him, and after three days rise again, an action performed by God. The focus is on the suffering, rejection, and death, with only a brief reference to resurrection. Easter is not a way to escape Lent and Good Friday! The cross is still a difficult message to accept. A popular preacher said that one could not succeed today preaching the cross because people already have enough problems. Such a statement is a summary of the preaching of the early church. Paul in I Corinthians 15:3-4 wrote a summary of the core beliefs he received, undoubtedly soon after his conversion, which would have been about three years after the death of Jesus. It contains a summary that relates the death of Christ for our sins “in accordance with the scripture,” and of God raising him to life “in accordance with the scripture.” Luke uses similar terms. In Acts 2:23-24, Jesus the Nazarene received death through the power of the Jewish leaders and the foreknowledge of God, crucifying him through Gentile powers, but God raising him to life, freeing him from Hades, for Hades did not have the power to hold him. In Acts 3:15, Peter again says that they killed the prince of life, but God raised him from the dead. In Acts 3:18, God said through the prophets that the Christ would suffer. In Acts 13:27-31, Paul relates that the people of Jerusalem and their rulers fulfilled the prophets. Jesus was innocent, but they condemned him and asked Pilate to have him put to death. They carried out scripture foretold. Then, they took him down from the tree and buried him in a tomb. However, God raised him from the dead. He appeared to his companions and they became witnesses. Mark summarizes his gospel presentation in the passion prediction. He knew the two steps of Paul. Therefore, Mark composed a gospel climaxing with the cross and the promise of resurrection. Such predictions are not in Q or in Thomas. Matthew and Luke agree with Mark that Jesus was destined to die and that the disciples did not understand this. The early tradition behind the passion story seems simply to have recognized the divine necessity of the innocent suffering and death of Jesus in fulfillment of the prophetic testimonies of scripture, a view we find here. This early tradition contrasts with later theological interpretations that give the death of Jesus an expiatory significance.[1] However, this view of the death of Jesus corresponds well with Galatians 5:2, which says that Christ loved us and gave himself up for us. Much of historical scholarship would not think of Jesus as making crucifixion the goal of his message and ministry.[2] 32 He said all this quite openly. Jesus recites the first of three passion predictions in Mark. In each of the three passion predictions, this pattern continues: After every reference to his approaching death, Jesus begins a new lesson on discipleship. Likewise, at the close of each of these discipleship lessons is a scene that testifies to the genuine authority of the messianic identity of Jesus. Given what they now know — that following this one will mean sacrifice, suffering and death — this will be the most challenging journey they will ever make. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, and immediately Jesus turns around and challenges his understanding of whom the Messiah is. This is not what Peter expects to hear. Not only is the prediction of the passion decidedly unwelcome news, but Jesus presents it in a new manner. When speaking about the rule of God, Jesus usually spoke in parables, told stories, or gave demonstrations to his disciples and the crowds following him. Now, however, Jesus speaks of the approaching suffering plainly and openly. Jesus presents the passion as a cold and difficult fact. This is a private revelation to the disciples. This lesson of Jesus is one that flies in the face of conventional concepts of success and gain, of winning and losing. Yet, Peter took him aside, doing what Jesus had done to reveal specific information to the disciples, and began to rebuke him. The reaction of Peter is life-like and patronizing. He acts as the leader of the disciples. Peter was trying to protect his friend from pain. Peter wanted to keep Jesus focused upon being a prophet, teacher, and healer. Confronting the leaders of the Jewish people in Jerusalem was not part of the plan in the mind of Peter. He is not the tenuous disciple, but rather, becomes active. He may even want to protect the other disciples from what Jesus has said. To do so, however, he challenges the authority of Jesus over the disciples and refuses to accept the harsh truth Jesus has stated. It seems hardly surprising that Peter takes exception to the scenario Jesus outlines. Peter had finally caught on: He had confessed Jesus to be the Messiah. Instead of congratulating him on his insight or rewarding Peter for his faith, Jesus instead silenced him. Now, just as Peter was bursting with the Good News of the Messiah, Jesus completely deflates Peter's expectations by foretelling this Messiah's demeaning death. 33 However, turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter, returning the “favor” Peter gave to Jesus and reasserting his authority, and said, “Get behind me, urging him to accept the proper role of the disciple and to get out of the way, Satan! This suggests that the same temptation he experienced in the wilderness at the beginning of his public ministry is coming back through Peter. Jesus orders him back to a proper discipleship position and differentiates between the all‑too‑human concerns of Peter and the infinitely more important, eternal matters that are at stake.
History is full of legends of people who made such a deal with the devil. Faust, the protagonist of the classic German legend made famous by Goethe, exchanged his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. The term "Faustian bargain" has ever since been a sophisticated way to question the meteoric rise of a person to fame and fortune who did not seem to pay his dues in diligence and arduous work. Musicians are especially associated with the Faustian bargain. Niccolo Paganini, the late 18th-early 19th century violinist who many still believe was the greatest who ever lived, played the violin with such force and velocity that one Vienna concertgoer swore that he saw the devil helping Paganini play. The violinist's fiercely difficult works led others to believe that he was the son of the devil himself. Two legendary, early-20th century, Mississippi-delta guitarists, Tommy Johnson and Robert Johnson (not related), are similarly associated with making a deal with the devil down at a crossroads, exchanging their souls for a wicked good ability to play the blues.
It is not just musicians and academics who have historically made deals, however. Clergy have historically been tempted to strike a bargain as well. Long before Faust, in the 6th century, a Christian named Eutychianus of Adana wrote of a cleric named Theophilus who, being disappointed in the advancement of his worldly career because of a meddling bishop, sold his soul to the devil so that he could become a bishop himself. Years later, fearful for his soul, he prayed to the Virgin Mary for forgiveness and got a reprieve.
Most famous of all, however, is the even older story of the one to whom the devil offered multiple deals which were all turned down. If anyone had reason to take a deal, it was Jesus, who knew he was facing a horrifyingly painful death if he kept doing and saying the things he had been doing and saying around Judea. If a deal with the devil is about skipping the hard parts, Jesus understood that his life was nothing but hard parts. He was not going to skip them.
This story occurs in Caesarea, the place where Romans built a temple to the god Pan. When we think of the devil, we most often picture him in the form of a horned creature, half-man, half-animal with cloven hooves, a bifurcated tail and a pitchfork. Exchange the pitchfork for a flute and lose the tail and you have got a perfect image of the god Pan right there at the gates of Hades. While the Bible does not try to physically describe the devil, there near the cave of Pan the devil certainly rears his ugly head - not from the rock of the cave, but from the Rock upon which Jesus' own church was being built. Jesus will not only be bumping up against the gates of death and the realm of evil, he will be walking through them. Peter aptly named him as the Messiah, but Jesus' understanding of messiah was not one of triumphant accolades, throngs of followers and political power. Instead, Jesus defined "Messiah" as one who would save his people through his own suffering and death.
The effortless way would have been to play on his popularity and avoid the pain, and the temptation to do so had been with Jesus all along. The devil had met him out there in the wilderness before all this began, and offered Jesus the chance to have it all, without any cost to himself (Matthew 4:1-11). All Jesus would have to do is give up his mission and buy into the devil's agenda. As Bono sang it in U2's song "Vertigo," the devil essentially offers the proposition this way: "All of this, all of this can be yours. Just give me what I want, and no one gets hurt." Peter, fresh off his anointing as Jesus' own Rock, cannot believe what he is hearing. Suffering? Killed? These are not words you are supposed to associate with a Messiah. You have an opportunity here, Jesus, and so do we. None of that works if you are dead. There is an easier way and we will help you find it. Like a man standing at the crossroads, Peter is ready to make a deal. Jesus, however, recognizes Old Scratch in Peter's rebuke. Jesus has a definite road to take and he will not make a deal with the devil to take the easier way out.
You are setting your mind not on divine things, the divine plan, but on human things,” an ill-informed earthbound view. Jesus emphasizes the contrast between the divine and the human. The point is that the passion is a divine destiny. Jesus insists that the time has come for Peter to move out of the chronos time that keeps track of "human things" and that he move into kairos time as the scheme of "divine things" begins to unfold before them. The disciples’ education is continuing. Jesus’ reaction suggests he was tempted in much the same way as in the wilderness, that is, to accept popular definition of the Messiah. Jesus rejects both Peter's message and his attempt to assume the role of teacher. Jesus reasserts his leadership position by rebuking Peter and contrasting Peter's ill‑informed, earthbound view of these events with the divine plan. One can already observe the double nature of the community of Jesus in Peter. Peter is like all persons who follow Jesus. We want to follow Jesus, but the way is often confusing. The temptation is always present to think in an ill-informed and earthly way, the way human beings usually think of things, rather than think from the perspective of eternity. God chooses the community, endowed with the gift of new knowledge, and under way toward the kingdom of heaven; at the same time, it continues to live in peril of temptations and even under threat of judgment. Just as Jesus calls Peter back to discipleship, where he must learn to think God’s thoughts, so too is the community. Peter represents every disciple. The gospel story already paves the way for a theology of the cross arising from experience, like Paul’s theology of suffering and defeat.
The private lesson in discipleship is now over. Yet, we must ponder this moment. One might think the identity of Jesus would become clearer. At the same time, they must willingly give up their ideas about the Messiah. From now on, the journey will become increasingly difficult. It is obvious they do not fully get it (9:10, 32; 10:24, 35-45). Even so, they also admit their lack of understanding and seek to learn more (13:4ff).
Mark 8:34-38 is a collection of sayings around the theme of following Christ. They have to do with loyalty and fidelity by the followers of Jesus when faced with circumstances that call for courage and sacrifice. We learn some hard lessons about discipleship here. Yes, salvation is free and a gift. Yet, discipleship will cost you your life.[3] At this point, it becomes quite clear that theology is necessary to make preaching as hard for the preacher as it must be.[4] I will not try to soften the blow. Instead, I will try to make the point as sharp as I can.
34 He called the crowd with his disciples, now wanting to teach that not only are their expectations of the Messiah in need of change, their expectations of faithful following of the Messiah must also change. The profession by Peter is important, but the hinge in Mark occurs with the prediction of the passion for the Messiah and the pattern of discipleship it suggests. Having spoken to the disciples about his identity, he will now share them their identity as disciples and the cost of following him. This instruction occurs while they are on the way to Jerusalem. They are on the way to the cross. This road is one that every group of disciples in every generation must walk.[5] Jesus then said the following to them. Let us remember that Jesus called the disciples, saying, “Follow me.” Jesus will now articulate some of the harsh realities that define a discipleship that has the cross in its sights.
First, Jesus says, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves, and their self-centered concerns. The saying provides the conditions for following Jesus. The first condition we need to meet to follow Jesus is to deny the self. Though denying oneself is language we find psychologically familiar today, this was an odd phrase for both the Hebraic and Aramaic ear to hear. The concept of a freestanding "self" was virtually unknown in that ancient Near Eastern culture. Thus, instead of using this text as evidence of an early martyr-complex, it would be more accurate to think along family lines and kinship ties. In that culture, any life of an individual did not define the self. Rather, relationship within the family group defined the self. This kinship group controlled the individual, gave identity and maintained the world within which the individual existed. Thus, the demand of Jesus is radical, something like saying, "Give up your world." Give up the human family that defines you, and instead make Jesus your only family, your only reference point for authority and guidance. The challenge here is that to follow Jesus, one simply must renounce, withdraw, and annul, any existing relationship of obedience and loyalty, namely, to oneself. Self-denial in the context of following Jesus involves a step into the open, into the freedom of a definite decision and act, in which it is with a real commitment that people take leave themselves, the person of yesterday, of the people they were. They give up their previous form of existence. What matters now is not the self, but to follow Jesus, regardless of the cost.[6] Further, disciples must take up their cross. The second condition to follow Jesus relates to the cross. This statement pulls the individual even farther away from the safety of the family unit. The cross was a familiar form of public execution by the Romans, designed to keep conquered people submissive. The insistence of Jesus that a potential disciple must not only deny all old familiar ties but must be prepared to suffer horribly because of their identity as a disciple is unprecedented. After two millennia of "cross" imagery, our senses are not as shocked by this reference, as listeners to Jesus must have been. The pain, brutality, and degradation of a death by crucifixion ‑‑ including the spirit‑stripping practice of making the condemned "take up his cross" on this final death march to the execution site ‑‑ was a torture reserved for only the most despised of state criminals. Yet this is the very image Jesus chooses to represent as the fate of his most devoted disciples. This means that each disciple has a cross to take up, rather than to fear, hate, avoid, evade, or escape the affliction that falls on the disciple. Discipleship becomes a matter of each Christian carrying one’s own cross, suffering one’s own affliction, bearing the definite limitation of death that in one form or another falls on one’s own existence.[7] Paul said he died self every day (I Corinthians 15:30). Jesus is already suggesting that to follow him means co-crucifixion, a theme we find in Paul as he refers to his own crucifixion so that his life is a matter of Christ living in and through him (Galatians 2:19-20). Thus, it pulls individuals even further away from the safety of a self that the kinship group defines. I find it difficult, then, that any preacher would say that you cannot succeed by preaching the cross. A popular preacher of his time said this. His argument was that people do not want to hear about the cross from the standpoint of discipleship because they have enough problems. In any case, following Jesus may well add to your problems. We need to find our cross, that for which we will spend our lives for the sake of the calling God has issued. Many people have discovered joy and happiness in life only when they chose to die to the selfish pursuit of happiness. They have found joy in discovering a mission that will require sacrifice for something grand and meaningful. Here is an analogy. Diamonds do not dazzle with beauty unless they are cut. When cut, the rays of the sun fall on them and make them shine with wonderful colors. So, when we are cut by the cross, we can shine as jewels as we participate in the mission of following Jesus in displaying the rule of God.[8]
Discipleship is a matter of forming a new identity in the destiny of Jesus. The bearing of your cross is the consequence of the special calling and sending we receive from God. The way of Jesus is the way of the cross, so the disciple follows in that destiny.[9] Just as following Jesus means denial, so also it means death. Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said in his Cost of Discipleship, that when Christ calls us, he bids us to come to him and die. Thomas à Kempis wrote,
In the Cross is salvation;
in the Cross is life;
in the Cross is protection against our enemies;
in the Cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness;
in the Cross is strength of mind;
in the Cross is joy of spirit;
in the Cross is excellence of virtue;
in the Cross is perfection of holiness.
There is no salvation of soul,
nor hope of eternal life,
save in the Cross. (The Inner Life)
"If you bear the cross gladly, it will bear you"
(The Imitation of Christ, 2.12.5).
Jesus then offers the invitation to follow me.[10] The third condition is to follow Jesus. In context, Peter must be the first to do this, of course. Yet, the way of the cross was for the multitudes and not just for the disciples. To follow Christ involves denial of self in the sense of yielding freely to this total service and therefore refusal to save their lives for themselves. For those who had not heard the private prediction of Jesus concerning his suffering, death and resurrection, these words must have shocked them to their shoes. Jesus lays out requirements for discipleship that go far beyond any usual conversion practices. Jewish proselytes had to decide to accept Jewish faith and law freely, willingly rejecting old pagan relationships and acquaintances. Following Jesus in this service means co-crucifixion with Jesus. Paul, in fact, suggests this in Galatians 2:19-20, where he says that he has been crucified with Christ so that now, his life is a matter of Christ living in and through him. The focus on discipleship is identification with the destiny of Jesus. This view is in keeping with the sayings of Jesus about the discipleship of the cross, in which Jesus required his disciples to bear his cross, but only as far as they were to bear their own. The bearing of their cross is the consequence of the special calling and sending they received from God. Mark makes clear that Christology and discipleship are inseparable, and that the way of Jesus to the cross is also the way the disciple must follow.[11]
C.S. Lewis wrote (The Four Loves) that if you would love you would suffer. We cannot even love a dog without at one point or another feeling the pain of loss, assuming we outlive the dog. The greatest of all things-love-is itself most intimately bound with suffering. It is a poignant irony, I think. In our attempt to avoid suffering, we cut ourselves off from the one thing that can mitigate it: each other. Anyone who really wanted to get rid of suffering would have to get rid of love before anything else, because there can be no love without suffering, because it always demands an element of self-sacrifice, because, given temperamental differences and the drama of situations, it will always bring with it renunciation and pain. When we know that the way of love, this exodus, this going out of oneself, is the true way by which man becomes human, then we also understand that suffering is the process through which we mature. Anyone who has inwardly accepted suffering becomes more mature and more understanding of others and becomes more human. People who have consistently avoided suffering do not understand other people. They become hard and selfish. We have no literary, psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy. We have only moral answers. Yes, in the face of suffering at the hands of other human beings we may despair. Yet, hope also comes from other human beings.[12]
Second, Jesus offers a secular proverb (Luke 17:33), 35 For those who want to save their life (psyche, life, soul, self) will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. Given the context of the taking up the cross, a physical reference is possible here. I hope we can see the paradoxical nature of saying that to find life we must lose it. We cannot have fullness of life by preserving a life defined by the past. We can see here the supreme value of the soul or the true self. We cannot put a price on it. Setting aside our definition of the self will lead to happiness and real living. Such a life is meaningful. As the Prayer of Saint Francis puts it, “For it is in dying to self, that we are born to eternal life.” When we choose the self, we lose what we seek.[13] We renounce the self in favor of Jesus.[14] If we concern ourselves with the self in our practice of discipleship, we will miss the very thing discipleship offers. You will achieve the desire of your heart as a follower of Jesus if you lose your focus upon the self.[15] The first person to live out this pattern was Jesus. Jesus saved his life at the cost of proclaiming his message of the rule of God. Had he saved his life, he would have made himself independent of God. He would not have been the Son by an unending finite existence. Jesus chose an earthly existence consumed in divine service. He did not cling to his life. He showed obedience to the mission, regardless of the consequences.[16] Yet, we might also ponder the matter of personal identity that animates every individual life. We have a natural desire for self-preservation. We recognize the hint of truth in the saying that to love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance.[17] How can one save one’s life by losing it? “Soul,” meaning even if death is the result, the disciples has preserved the true self. The saying expresses the supreme value of the true self. There is no greater gain and no price to one can put upon it. This saying is true first of Jesus. Had Jesus saved his life at the cost of his proclaiming the divine lordship, he would have made himself independent of God and put himself in equality with God. He could not be the Son of God by an unlimited enduring of his finite existence. No finite being can be one with God in infinite reality. Only as he let his earthly existence consume itself in service to his mission could Jesus as a creature be one with God. He did not cling to his life. He chose to accept the ambivalence that his mission meant for his person, with all its consequences. He showed himself to be obedient to his mission.[18] Such renunciation is in favor of the living Lord, Jesus Christ.[19]This claim is the form of the Gospel, of the promise of the free grace of God by which alone human beings can live, but by which one may live in the full sense of the term.[20] In a sense, by choosing oneself, one loses what one seeks, becoming supremely non-human. To do so is to give oneself to the pride that is the heart of human behavior.[21] A paraphrase might suggest that those concerned about themselves in discipleship will miss the very thing that Christ assigns to them in discipleship. However, they receive what Christ assigns to them in discipleship if they lose all concern for themselves in discipleship.[22]
Jesus offers those who would confess him to be Messiah a ringing challenge. True disciples must give up their "lives," their primary commitment to a kinship group, and instead willingly make God their final authority. Only this kind of transformation will bring them eternal life. That is the only deal that a disciple can take. Focus on saving your own life and making it easier, and you will lose in the end. Focus on giving away your life by going down this path with Jesus, and you will find real life and not the kind that is artificially and temporarily inflated by the attractiveness of a devilish deal.
Third, Jesus offers some proverbial or secular wisdom. We need to think of it as a rhetorical question. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? For both the disciples and the crowds that had been enjoying a journey of triumph and miracles, the new message of Jesus was both sobering and hard. Acquiring the entire world but losing the soul would be a bad exchange. Both are general statements and would find general acceptance. Jesus offers a pair of rhetorical questions that deepen the new understanding of "self" that his disciples must grasp. Clearly, Jesus does not consider the "self" to be a false, valueless identity that needs to be shrugged off. On the contrary, the "self" is beyond all value, and thus can only be freely given and freely received. The rhetorical question suggests that one can only offer one’s life in response to the gift of life. We cannot have fullness of life by preserving a life defined by the past. We can see here the supreme value of the soul or the true self. We cannot put a price on it. Setting aside our definition of the self will lead to happiness and real living. Such a life is meaningful. As the Prayer of Saint Francis puts it, “For it is in dying to self, that we are born to eternal life.” When we choose the self, we lose what we seek.[23] We renounce the self in favor of Jesus.[24] If we concern ourselves with the self in our practice of discipleship, we will miss the very thing discipleship offers. You will achieve the desire of your heart as a follower of Jesus if you lose your focus upon the self.[25] Adolf Harnack thought with good reason that he had found a Magna Carta of the message of the infinite value of every human soul.[26] We need to give up our citizenship in the world of “me.” Our devotion needs to be to the people and tasks of our lives in order to find life. Much of modern notions of self find their critique here. Many parts of psychology have faith in the pursuit of selfhood as we form our identity. Yet, excessive focusing on our identity is a deformation of the theme of a human life. The goods and tasks of our lives and our openness to God need to be primary and therefore the source of our identity. We can see a parallel in Plato as he suggested that the upright and good are happy, while the pursuit of happiness for its own sake is egocentric and leads us astray. Only those who seek the good for its own sake will find happiness and identity (Gorgias 491bff, especially 506c.7ff and 470e.9f).[27]
These discipleship statements stand at the center of the message of Mark, and they need to stand at the center of the proclamation of the church today. Following Jesus is difficult when our definitions of power and success get in the way. If we, as his followers, try to tell him what he should or should not do, as Peter was attempting, then we have not denied ourselves. If we do not continue with Jesus on the road to Jerusalem, anticipating the cross and its sufferings, with our own cross bar across our backs, then we are not following. It is only after we have turned in our understandings of power and success from a worldly perspective and exchanged them for a power that denies itself, and a success that manifests itself in sacrifice, that we see the role faith plays in this passage.
None of us wants to lose something precious. Our lives are precious to us, or at least, they should be. If it gives us a sense of security, and we lose it, we will become anxious. Security is important to us.
The notion of denying self is difficult for many people in the West today. I think the difficulty arises from at least two fronts. One is that we have learned how fascinating self is. Whether in spiritual formation or in psychology, we explore the richness and fullness of the self. Two is that studies in addictive and co-dependent behavior have taught us that too often we get ourselves in relationships in which we sacrifice ourselves for no redemptive purpose. Each of these insights makes us justly suspicious of any call to self-denial.
Yet, do you not agree that if we focus too much upon self, if we protect self too much, if we seek security in self, we open ourselves to the possibility of losing who we are? I understand it seems paradoxical. Yet, focusing on saving our lives may well derive from fear. Losing ourselves may well arise out of faith. A large part of learning what you really want in life is learning what you are willing to give up getting it.[28] We may find our purpose in life as we take up the symbol of punishment, the cross. We may find our true self as we lose ourselves in following Jesus.
Clearly, such reflections do not lead to safety and security in the traditional sense. We are not in as much control. Yet, I wonder if this type of insecurity may not lead to the greatest security of all – eternal life. It may well be that the greatest lesson one learns in life is that God alone is enough for true life. The lessons we learn in life may lead to nothing other than the crowning discovery of Christian life, that God is enough.[29]
Jesus is saying that we should not value anything more highly than discipleship — even our own lives. Following Jesus is supposed to be our Number One priority, higher than success, security, wealth, health, power, and prestige.
In reading the philosopher Spinoza, in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), I wrote down the following reaction to one criticism he had of the church of his day. As a Christian, I find it sad, but also true, that persons who profess their Christianity, and therefore commit themselves to love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all people, should also quarrel with such “rancorous animosity,” displaying toward each other “such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues they claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith.” Well, such were the accusations he made against the church of his day. Could it also be true of us?
Let us allow our lives do the talking. Michener, in The Source, has one character comment, “If that man had a different God, he would be a different man.” You know, I hope that statement is true of us.
Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr has a wonderful prayer with this theme.
O Lord, who has taught us that to gain the whole world and to lose our souls is great folly, grant us the grace so to lose ourselves that we may truly find ourselves anew in the life of grace, and so to forget ourselves that we may be remembered in your kingdom.
The section concludes with a sentence of holy law. The final eschatological scene offered here by Jesus reminds his listeners that whatever choice they make, for Jesus or against him, there will be consequences. 38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”[30] It is not easy to stand up for our beliefs, especially in a culture that is suspicious of all religion. Daniel 7:13-14 influences it. Jesus becomes the head of the elect community. This distinctly recognizable literary type promised definite eschatological ramifications to the fulfillment of earthly actions. In general, such statements of "holy law" offered strength and solace to early Christians, many of whom faced horrible persecutions and temptations. In this case, however, Jesus gives only the negative side of his "holy law." Here, Jesus attributes the judgment that the Son of Man will pronounce in correspondence to the message of Jesus and hence according to the criterion of confession or rejection of Jesus.[31] The passage draws a parallel between response of people to Jesus on earth and the reception they can expect from the Son of Man. Here, he is an apocalyptic figure. There is a parallel in Matthew 10:32-33 and Luke 12:8-9. If the disciple has shame of Jesus in this evil and adulterous generation, Christ will be ashamed of them when things turned out differently or they tried to escape the inevitable outcome.[32]Such a saying stands at the beginning of Christian confession. It refers to publicly taking sides in a conflict, in this case, the conflict relating to the message and person of Jesus.[33]
For Mark, faith is an elusive quality. It is necessary for the readers of Mark’s gospel, but faith is an attribute that does not appear in many characters in the text. In this passage, security for life in this world is not readily available, so one must turn to faith. If followers of Jesus really do deny themselves and take up their cross, they must have faith in Jesus that he really can give them more than “the whole world” (8:36). Amid the paradox about saving and losing their lives, Jesus exhorts the disciples and the crowd to understand the new option he presents. As Jesus asks, “what can they give in return for their life?” (8:37), he takes the emphasis off worldly gain (8:36) as the result of true success. Those who attempt to exchange their souls in order “to gain the entire world” are identified as the ones of whom the Son of Man will be ashamed “when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (8:36, 38). Using human logic rather than faith, the disciples and the crowd could have easily been ashamed of one who had suffered and been rejected by all. Nevertheless, Jesus seeks this kind of power reversal. Suffering and rejection now do lead to power in the future. This power, though, does not have its grounding in the perspective of the world, whose sands shift over time. The passage exhorts the follower of Jesus to this life of power and success, but power and success defined as faith in God through a life of rejection and sacrifice. These motifs will continue to surround Jesus as he makes his way to Jerusalem and actualizes his predictions of suffering and death, but they also surround the church who continues to try to follow Jesus today.
[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 416.
[2] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 438.
[3] Dietrich Bonhoeffer
[4] Gerhard Ebeling (Word and Faith, p. 424.)
[5] Paul Minear
[6] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [66.3] 539-40.
[7] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), IV.2 [64.3] 264.
[8] Inspired by Sadhu Sundar Singh.
[9] (Pannenberg, 1998, 1991) Volume 3, 282.
[10] This saying has parallels in the Gospel of Thomas and in the material common to Matthew and Luke. Many scholars suggest that since it implies a Christian understanding of the cross, it originates in the early church after the resurrection. The Jesus Seminar says this saying appeals to the fate of Jesus as the standard of commitment. It reflects a time when the Christian community was exposed to the pressures of persecution. They claim no evidence exists that the cross served as a symbol of radical self-denial outside the context of the crucifixion of Jesus or prior to that event. Further, instead of a soon return of Jesus, the saying seems to expect the cross to be a long-term proposition.
[11] (Pannenberg, 1998, 1991) Volume 3, 282.
[12] Elie Wiesel
[13] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), IV.2 [60.2] 421.
[14] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.1 [63.1] 744.
[15] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.3 [71.6] 652.
[16] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 2, 374-5.
[17] Oscar Wilde
[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 374-5.
[19] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.1 [63.1] 744.
[20] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.2 [64.3] 264.
[21] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), IV.2 [60.2] 421.
[22] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.3 [71.6] 652.
[23] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), IV.2 [60.2] 421.
[24] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.1 [63.1] 744.
[25] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) IV.3 [71.6] 652.
[26] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) III.4 [55.1] 387.
[27] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 249.
[28] Sidney Howard
[29] Hannah Whitall Smith, God Is Enough, 1.
[30] For some scholars, the identification of this figure with Jesus excludes the possibility of it going back to Jesus. The saying would find particular application to a setting in which external forces forced the followers of Jesus to acknowledge or deny Jesus. The possibility of the words of Jesus causing embarrassment implies the absence of Jesus. Of course, the Gospel of Mark arises out of a community undergoing persecution.
[31] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 614.
[32] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), IV.2 [64.4] 264.
[33] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 114.
Good thoughts. You are right in the west at least in the USA this is not a popular denying self is not popular. A challenge for us to take up that cross. .- Lynn Eastman
ReplyDelete