X. Discipleship (9:18–27)
X. Discipleship (9:18–27)
At this point Luke omits the entire section Mark 6:45 – 8:26.19 Whatever his reason it yields an interesting sequence, as Leaney points out. Herod has asked, ‘Who is this?’ (9). Some answers are suggested by the feeding of the multitude (cf. John 6:14f.), three more are given by the people (19), and Peter adds one of his own (20). The climax comes with an awe-inspiring answer from God (35). We should notice also another sequence: the disciples’ recognition that Jesus is the Messiah is followed immediately by the teaching that this means a cross for him, and a cross, too, for them.
1. Peter’s confession (9:18–20)
Matthew and Mark locate this incident in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, near the foot of Mount Hermon. This was heathen territory, the worship of the great god Pan being especially prominent. Jesus had withdrawn from Herod’s dominions and from the crowds that had been thronging him. Here he could talk quietly with the disciples and have opportunity for undistracted thinking. Luke characteristically tells us that Jesus was praying alone. Then he started a conversation by asking the disciples, Who do the people say that I am? Their answer is much the same as the reports that reached Herod (7ff.). The Greek appears to mean that the answer generally given was John the Baptist, though some people had other ideas (so Goodspeed). Elijah or another old-time prophet was suggested. Jesus goes on, But who do you say that I am? In all three Synoptists his you is emphatic. In distinction from others, he is asking, what do you think? The knowledge of Christ is always a personal discovery, not the passing on of a report learnt from other people. As often, Peter is the spokesman. He speaks for them all when he says, The Christ of God (for Christ see the note on 2:11). Peter is saying that Jesus is the Deliverer for whom the people of God had been looking for so long. That he and his companions had come to see this was not a human discovery, but a revelation (Matt. 16:17). But what ‘Messiah’ really meant they did not know. So Jesus went on to explain that it involved suffering and death. It was a lesson they found hard to learn. Indeed, they had still not learnt it when Jesus was crucified.
2. A prophecy of the passion (9:21–22)
21. Jesus’ response to Peter’s words is a very firm injunction to silence. He charged and commanded them, or ‘gave them strict orders’ (NEB). The reason is surely the near certainty of misunderstanding if it were spread abroad. The Jews detested their state of subjection to the Romans and longed for deliverance. They were ready to follow almost anyone who claimed to be Messiah and in fact there were many petty revolts. Had Jesus been widely hailed as Messiah, people would have understood it as a political and military claim. They would have completely missed what he was teaching them.
22. Matthew and Mark speak of Peter’s rebuke of Jesus, but Luke concentrates on his Lord’s suffering. He reports that Jesus said that he must suffer. That is what being Messiah meant. Suffering, for him, was no accident, but a compelling divine necessity. And of the many things he would suffer Jesus speaks only of the final rejection. The word rejected seems to be a technical term for rejection after a careful legal scrutiny to see whether a candidate for office was qualified (see LSJ). It implies here that the hierarchy would consider Jesus’ claims but decide against him. The one article in the expression the elders and chief priests and scribes points to the fact that the three formed a single group in the Sanhedrin. There was, of course, only one high priest; the plural signifies all the members of the highpriestly families. It was the nation’s leaders who would be foremost in rejecting him. Nor would this be only a matter of words. He would be killed. Jesus left them in no doubt but that being Messiah meant a cross. But the cross is not the whole story. On the third day the Son of man will be raised. The resurrection was as certain as the crucifixion.
3. Taking up the cross (9:23–27)
Jesus immediately followed his announcement of his cross with a reference to another cross, this one to be carried by his followers. There is, of course, a difference. Their cross was not literal and their sufferings not atoning. But it was (and is) real.
23. The follower of Jesus must deny himself (not just his sins, himself; he cannot be self-centred). There is nothing self-indulgent about being a Christian. The disciples had probably seen a man take up his cross, and they knew what it meant. When a man from one of their villages took up a cross and went off with a little band of Roman soldiers, he was on a one-way journey. He would not be back. Taking up the cross meant the utmost in self-denial. This is Luke’s first use of the word cross and it comes with striking effect. Christ’s follower has died to a whole way of life (cf. 14:27). Luke tells us that this is not something that can be finished and got out of the way: it must be done daily (cf. 1 Cor. 15:31). So, says Jesus, will he follow me.
24–25. Paradoxically one can lose one’s life trying to save it (cf. 17:33; Matt. 10:39; John 12:25). Would save is rather ‘wills to save’. It points to the attitude of one who puts his emphasis on getting the best out of life for himself. That way means certain loss. It is the one who loses (not ‘wills to lose’ but actually loses) his life for Christ’s sake who saves it. When he gives up all for Christ he finds that he has entered that life which is life indeed. Barclay finely says, ‘The Christian must realize that he is given life, not to keep it for himself, but to spend it for others; not to husband its flame, but to burn himself out for Christ and for men.’ Life cannot be measured in terms of material things. In a magnificent hyperbole Jesus asks what is the profit if a man gains the whole world, but loses or forfeits himself. Nothing material can compensate for the loss of the self.
26. Jesus reinforces this with a reference to eternal issues. He now speaks of a time when he will come in glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. This clearly refers to the end of this worldorder and the breaking in of something quite new, the final state of things. To be ashamed of Jesus and his teaching now, he says, is to ensure that he will be ashamed of us in that glorious day.
27. The paragraph is rounded off with a mysterious saying. Some of those present will not taste of death before they see the kingdom of God. Taste of death surely means ‘die’, but it is not clear what the coming of the kingdom of God means in this context. Some maintain that Jesus is referring to the parousia and that he was mistaken. But this does not fit the language used. If some will not die before (or ‘until’, as GNB heōs an) the event in question, the implication seems to be that they will die after it, which is impossible of the parousia. But in any case this line is too simple. Plummer notes seven possible interpretations of the words: the transfiguration, the resurrection and ascension, Pentecost, the spread of Christianity, the internal development of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem and the second advent. He holds that the reference to some standing here means that some (viz. those present on that particular occasion) have special privilege as opposed to people in general. This rules out all of the seven except the transfiguration and the destruction of Jerusalem, of which Plummer prefers the latter. He may be right, for that coming in judgment suits the words as well as any. But there are many ways in which the kingdom comes and there is much also to be said for the view that Jesus is referring to the critical time of the crucifixion, resurrection and the coming of the Spirit. The saying is complex, and without further information it is impossible to be sure of the precise meaning intended.