Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 8:27

And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?

27 9:1. Csarea Philippi. The Confession of St Peter

27. And Jesus went out ] The Redeemer and His Apostles now set out in a northerly direction, and travelled some 25 or 30 miles along the eastern banks of the Jordan and beyond the waters of Merom, seeking the deepest solitude among the mountains, for an important crisis in His Life was at hand. The solitude of the beautiful district, whither the Saviour now journeyed, is illustrated by the fact that it is the only district of Palestine where a recent traveller found the pelican of the wilderness (Psa 102:6). See Thomson’s Land and the Book, pp. 260, 261; Caspari’s Introduction, p. 163, n.

into the towns ] The little company at length reached the “ villages,” as it is literally, or the “ parts ” or “ regions ” (Mat 16:13) of the remote city of Csarea Philippi, near which it is possible He may have passed in His circuit from Sidon a very few weeks before. See above, Mar 7:24, n., Bishop Ellicott’s Lectures, p. 225.

Csarea Philippi ] “Sezarie of Philip” (Wyclif) lay on the north-east of the reedy and marshy plain of El Huleh, close to Dan, the extreme north of the boundaries of ancient Israel, (i) Its earliest name according to some was Baal-Gad (Jos 11:17; Jos 12:7; Jos 13:5) or Baal-Hermon (Jdg 3:3; 1Ch 5:23), when it was a Phnician or Canaanite sanctuary of Baal under the aspect of “Gad,” or the god of good fortune, (ii) In later times it was known as Panium or Paneas, a name which it derived from a cavern near the town, “abrupt, prodigiously deep, and full of still water,” adopted by the Greeks of the Macedonian kingdom of Antioch, as the nearest likeness that Syria afforded of the beautiful limestone grottoes, which in their own country were inseparably associated with the worship of the sylvan Pan, and dedicated to that deity. Hence its modern appellation Baneas. (iii) The town retained this name under Herod the Great, who built here a splendid temple, of the whitest marble, which he dedicated to Augustus Csar, (iv) It afterwards became part of the territory of Herod Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, who enlarged and embellished it, and called it Csarea Philippi, partly after his own name, and partly after that of the Emperor Tiberius. Jos. Ant. xv. 10. 3; Bel. Jud. i 21. 3. It was called Csarea Philippi to distinguish it from Csarea Palestin, or Csarea “ on the sea.” Dean Stanley calls it a Syrian Tivoli, and “certainly there is much in the rocks, caverns, cascades, and the natural beauty of the scenery to recall the Roman Tibur. Behind the village, in front of a great natural cavern, a river bursts forth from the earth, the ‘upper source’ of the Jordan. Inscriptions and niches in the face of the cliffs tell of the old idol worship of Baal and of Pan.” Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 581.

he asked his disciples ] It was in this desert region that the Apostles on one occasion found Him engaged in solitary prayer (Luk 9:18), a significant action which had preceded several important events in His life, as ( a) the Baptism, ( b) the election of the Twelve, and ( c) the discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum. It was now the precursor of a solemn and momentous question. Hitherto He is not recorded to have asked the Twelve any question respecting Himself, and He would seem to have forborne to press His Apostles for an explicit avowal of faith in His full Divinity. But on this occasion He wished to ascertain from them, the special witnesses as they had been of His life and daily words, the results of those labours, which were now drawing in one sense to a close, before He went on to communicate to them other and more painful truths.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See this passage illustrated in the notes at Mat. 16:13-28.

Mar 8:32

He spake that saying openly – With boldness or confidence, or without parables or figures, so that there could be no possibility of misunderstanding him.

Mar 8:38

Ashamed of me – Ashamed to own attachment to me on account of my lowly appearance and my poverty.

And of my words – My doctrines, my instructions.

This adulterous and sinful generation – This age given to wickedness, particularly to adultery.

In the glory of his Father – In the day of judgment. See the notes at Mat 26:64. The meaning of this verse is, Whosoever shall refuse, through pride or wickedness, to acknowledge and serve Christ here, shall be excluded from his kingdom hereafter. He was lowly, meek, and despised; yet there was an inimitable beauty in his character even then. But he will come again in awful grandeur; not as the babe of Bethlehem, not as the man of Nazareth, but as the Son of God, in majesty and glory. They that would not acknowledge him here must be rejected by him there; they that would not serve him on earth will not enjoy his favor in heaven; they that would cast Him out and despise him must be cast out by him, and consigned to eternal, hopeless sorrow.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mar 8:27-30

Whom do men say that I am?

This conversation may be taken in three points of view

I. Jesus Christ the subject of universal inquiry. He appeals to all men.

1. By the variety of His works.

2. By the vitality of His teaching.

3. As the Son of Man.

II. Jesus Christ demanding special testimony. His followers are called-

1. To knowledge.

2. To profession.

3. To individuality of testimony.

III. Jesus Christ is revealed by His works rather than by verbal profession. (Dr. Parker.)

Personal religion

I. Christ put to the disciples themselves the question, Whom say ye that I am?

1. Christ would turn their thoughts from others to themselves.

2. He does not take for granted that because they externally follow Him, they know Him.

3. He examines them on the most important of all points.

4. He examines them through themselves.

5. He leads them to make a confession of their faith.

6. He puts them in a different class from the multitude.

II. To this question, Peter replied for all the disciples. Their answer was-

1. Prompt. They had been convinced of His Messiahship.

2. Unanimous. The creed was very short-of one article, all held it.

3. Correct.

4. The result of Divine teaching.

5. On this answer the Church was to be built.

III. Christ prohibits them from publishing what they knew of Him, in present circumstances.

1. He would deal with them Himself.

2. The proof of His Messiahship was not complete.

3. The Jews were not prepared.

4. The apostles were not qualified. (Expository Discourses.)

Whom do men say that I am

I. The opinions that men entertained respecting Christ were of the utmost importance.

1. According to these, they would act, and be dealt with, in this the day of their visitation.

2. Without a knowledge of Christ they could not rely on Him for their own personal salvation.

3. Their opinions respecting Christ indicated their own true state and character. What think ye of Christ?

II. Christ was concerned for the opinions of men respecting Himself.

1. Having sown, He now looks for the fruit.

2. If He has not been a savour of life unto life, He has been a savour of death unto death.

3. He has shown us that we should Hot be indifferent as to human opinion respecting ourselves.

III. Christ held men responsible for their opinions respecting Him. As mans judge, He deals with their belief.

IV. Christ applies to His disciples for an account of the opinions which men had of Him.

1. Not because He was ignorant, etc.

2. But He taught the apostles that it was part of their duty to mark the state of their fellow men.

3. We ought to look on the things of others, and especially their eternal interests. (Expository Discourses.)

The knowledge of Christ revealed by God

The claim of Jesus to be the Messiah should be examined.

I. Such knowledge of Christ as the true Messiah cannot be communicated by man to man. We may have an acquaintance with ancient records of kingdoms and states that have passed away; we may acquire an intimate acquaintance with warriors, and heroes, and statesmen, and early monarchs, and yet be utterly uninfluenced and unaffected by what we learn; we may read of much that is heroic, and noble, and heart-stirring, in the achievements of many masterminds of days that are gone by, and only have our minds influenced, as by a bright and glowing dream. And so may it be with the Scripture records. We may be delighted, not only with the detail of ancient history, as recorded in the Bible, but we may be touched with the poetry and the pathos with which the Bible abounds, and we may acquire such an appetite for the Bible, in that sense, as shall induce us to come to it, as affording the most pleasant, and delightful, and intellectual study, and yet be unacquainted with Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and the one Mediator between our sinful souls and God; and instances are to be found, and ever have been, in which the mind has been stored with the truth, and the heart untouched by it. It is because we have reason to fear that this is too common, that we press upon you the fact that a merely intellectual acquaintance with the Bible is not such an acquaintance with Christ as will meet the necessity of your case. A speculative knowledge of Christ may be acquired by the exercise of the natural faculties; systems of theology may be conceived, magnificent and striking views may be obtained; and yet the heart of a man, as a sinner, may be altogether unmoved. He may contemplate the wondrous plan of redemption, as centred in Christ, and as achieved by Christ, in the fulness of time: but he may never feel the want of redemption. He may read, and be assured of the fact, that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life, and yet never be in fear of perishing for want of Christ. He may read, and be well assured of the fact, that God hath given to us eternal life, and that this life is in His Son; he may go on, and read the next verse, in which it is affirmed, He that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not the Son hath not life, and set remain destitute of the life, which God has given in Christ, because he as yet knows not that he is dead in trespasses and sins. He may know, and be ready to declare, without fearing contradiction, that Christ hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light by the gospel; but he may not know (or if he does, he is not influenced by the knowledge) that he is still subject to all the consequences of sin which Jesus came to remove. He may read in another place, that the gift of God is eternal life, and yet be ignorant that all his life he has been earning the wages of sin, which is death.

II. That revelation then, must be first general; and secondly, particular. Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, which is in heaven. It is the prerogative of the Father in heaven to reveal His Son. Angels cannot tell what Jesus is; the highest intellect in heaven would fail to reveal it. But the Father does reveal it. But as we have seen that multitudes remain ignorant, though God has opened the page of revelation, we need a particular revelation. The Bible is a revelation from God the Father to us; but we need a revelation of Christ in us. During all lives, God has revealed Christ to us; but has He revealed Christ in us. It must be the result o! an express revelation from God the Father, through His own blessed Spirit, to our inward souls; it must be the everlasting Spirit taking of the things of Christ, and showing them to us.

III. That blessed are they who have such a knowledge of Christ, as a revelation from God. Blessed art thou, Simon, etc. There is no true state that can be deemed blessed, but that which results from a saving knowledge of Christ. He who has this revelation is blessed.

1. In the certainty of his knowledge. He hath the witness in himself.

2. In the reality of the effects of the truth. The truth has made him free. He is an heir of God, and a joint heir with Christ.

3. In the final and eternal results which follow. Eye hath not seen, etc. (G. Fisk, LL. B.)

Who am I

I. The popular impression concerning Jesus.

II. The apostolic confession regarding Jesus.

III. The acceptance by Jesus of this confession.

1. The immense importance of the answer given to this question.

2. The utter inadequacy of any answer to this question save one.

3. The complete satisfaction which the true answer affords. (J. R. Thomson, M. A.)

Whom say ye that I am?

I. It is evident, from the history, that our Lord desired to awaken some sort of anxiety in the minds of His followers, and to excite their feelings of loyalty to truth and to Himself, so that they might be upon their guard against disaffection under any popular pressure, or any wild popular perversions of His character or mission.

II. This, then, was the great confession of faith, which has come down to us through the ages.

1. First, it will follow from a story like this, that it is of vast consequence what a man believes, and all the more if he be sincere in his creed.

2. We learn also that it is not enough to admit the bare record, and so simply consent to an historic Christ.

3. Again, to a human soul, struggling for its immortal life, Jesus the Saviour is everything at once, or He is nothing forever. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 27. And Jesus went out, &c.] See on Mt 16:13-20.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Herod, and those that followed him, judged Christ to be John the Baptist raised from the dead, or to have the soul of John the Baptist clothed with other flesh. Others conceived him to be Elias, of whom they were in expectation that he should come before the Messias. Others thought he was Jeremias, as Matthew saith, or one of the old prophets; they could not tell what to determine of one who appeared to them in the shape of a man, but did such things as none could do, but the Divine power either immediately, or mediately, putting forth itself in a human body.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And Jesus went out, and his disciples,…. From Bethsaida and even from Galilee

into the towns Caesarea Philippi; in the jurisdiction of Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis; for this Caesarea was rebuilt by him and called so in honour of Tiberius Caesar; and the towns and villages adjacent to it are here intended: [See comments on Mt 16:13];

and by the way he asked his disciples; as they were going from Galilee to those parts:

saying unto them; whom do men say that I am? not that he needed any information of this; for he knew not only what was said by men but What was in them; but he put this question, in order to bring out their sense of, and faith in him, and to impart something to them which was necessary they should be acquainted with;

[See comments on Mt 16:13], where it is read, “whom do men say that I, the son of man am?”

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Peter’s Enlightened Testimony; Peter Rebuked.

      27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Csarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?   28 And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.   29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.   30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.   31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.   32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.   33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.   34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.   35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.   36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?   37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?   38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

      We have read a great deal of the doctrine Christ preached, and the miracles he wrought, which were many, and strange, and well-attested, of various kinds, and wrought in several places, to the astonishment of the multitudes that were eye-witnesses of them. It is now time for us to pause a little, and to consider what these things mean; the wondrous works which Christ then forbade the publishing of, being recorded in these sacred writings, are thereby published to all the world, to us, to all ages; now what shall we think of them? Is the record of those things designed only for an amusement, or to furnish us with matter for discourse? No, certainly these things are written, that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (John xx. 31); and this discourse which Christ had with his disciples, will assist us in making the necessary reflections upon the miracles of Christ, and a right use of them. Three things we are here taught to infer from the miracles Christ wrought.

      I. They prove that he is the true Messiah, the Son of God, and Saviour of the world: this the works he did witnessed concerning him; and this his disciples, who were the eye-witnesses of those works, here profess their belief of; which cannot but be a satisfaction to us in making the same inference from them.

      1. Christ enquired of them what the sentiments of the people were concerning him; Who did men say that I am? v. 27. Note, Though it is a small thing for us to be judged of men, yet it may sometimes do us good to know what people say of us, not that we may seek our own glory, but that we may hear our faults. Christ asked them, not that he might be informed, but that they might observe it themselves, and inform one another.

      2. The account they gave him, was such as plainly intimated the high opinion the people had of him. Though they came short of the truth, yet they were convinced by his miracles that he was an extraordinary person, sent from the invisible world with a divine commission. It is probable that they would have acknowledged him to be the Messiah, if they had not been possessed by their teachers with a notion that the Messiah must be a temporal Prince, appearing in external pomp and power, which the figure Christ made, would not comport with; yet (whatever the Pharisees said, whose copyhold was touched by the strictness and spirituality of his doctrine) none of the people said that he was a Deceiver, but some said that he was John Baptist, others Elias, others one of the prophets, v. 28. All agreed that he was one risen from the dead.

      3. The account they gave him of their own sentiments concerning him, intimated their abundant satisfaction in him, and in their having left all to follow him, which now, after some time of trial, they see no reason to repent; But whom say ye that I am? To this they have an answer ready, Thou art the Christ, the Messiah often promised, and long expected, v. 29. To be a Christian indeed, is, sincerely to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to act accordingly; and that he is so, plainly appears by his wondrous works. This they knew, and must shortly publish and maintain; but for the present they must keep it secret (v. 30), till the proof of it was completed, and they were completely qualified to maintain it, by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost; and then let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ, Acts ii. 36.

      II. These miracles of Christ take off the offence of the cross, and assure us that Christ was, in it, not conquered, but a Conqueror. Now that the disciples are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, they may bear to hear of his sufferings, which Christ now begins to give them notice of, v. 31.

      1. Christ taught his disciples that he must suffer many things, Though they had got over the vulgar error of the Messiah’s being a temporal Prince, so far as to believe their Master to be the Messiah, notwithstanding his present meanness, yet still they retained it, so far as to expect that he would shortly appear in outward pomp and grandeur, and restore the kingdom to Israel; and therefore, to rectify that mistake, Christ here gives them a prospect of the contrary, that he must be rejected of the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, who, they expected, should be brought to own and prefer him; that, instead of being crowned, he must be killed, he must be crucified, and after three days he must rise again to a heavenly life, and to be no more in this world. This he spoke openly (v. 32), parresia. He said it freely and plainly, and did not wrap it up in ambiguous expressions. The disciples might easily understand it, if they had not been very much under the power of prejudice: or, it intimates that he spoke it cheerfully and without any terror, and would have them to hear it so: he spoke that saying boldly, as one that not only knew he must suffer and die, but was resolved he would, and made it his own act and deed.

      2. Peter opposed it; He took him, and began to rebuke him. Here Peter showed more love than discretion, a zeal for Christ and his safety, but not according to knowledge. He took him—proslabomenos auton. He took hold of him, as it were to stop and hinder him, took him in his arms, and embraced him (so some understand it); he fell on his neck, as impatient to hear that his dear Master should suffer such hard things; or he took him aside privately, and began to rebuke him. This was not the language of the least authority, but of the greatest affection, of that jealousy for the welfare of those we love, which is strong as death. Our Lord Jesus allowed his disciples to be free with him, but Peter here took too great a liberty.

      3. Christ checked him for his opposition (v. 33); He turned about, as one offended, and looked on his disciples, to see if the rest of them were of the same mind, and concurred with Peter in this, that, if they did, they might take the reproof to themselves, which he was now about to give to Peter; and he said, Get thee behind me, Satan. Peter little thought to have had such a sharp rebuke for such a kind dissuasive, but perhaps expected as much commendation now for his love as he had lately for his faith. Note, Christ sees that amiss in what we say and do, which we ourselves are not aware of, and knows what manner of spirit we are of, when we ourselves do not. (1.) Peter spoke as one that did not rightly understand, nor had duly considered, the purposes and counsels of God. When he saw such proofs as he every day saw of the power of Christ, he might conclude that he could not be compelled to suffer; the most potent enemies could not overpower him whom diseases and deaths, whom winds and waves and devils themselves, were forced to obey and yield to: and when he saw so much of the wisdom of Christ every day, he might conclude that he would not choose to suffer but for some very great and glorious purposes; and therefore he ought not thus to have contradicted him, but to have acquiesced. He looked upon his death only as a martyrdom, like that of the prophets, which he thought might be prevented, if either he would take a little care not to provoke the chief priests, or to keep out of the way; but he knew not that the thing was necessary for the glory of God, the destruction of Satan, and the salvation of man, that the Captain of our salvation must be made perfect through sufferings, and so must bring many sons to glory. Note, The wisdom of man is perfect folly, when it pretends to give measures to the divine counsels. The cross of Christ, the great instance of God’s power and wisdom, was to some a stumbling-block, and to others foolishness. (2.) Peter spoke as one that did not rightly understand, nor had duly considered, the nature of Christ’s kingdom; he took it to be temporal and human, whereas it is spiritual and divine. Thou savourest not the things that are of God, but those that are of men; ou phroneis—thou mindest not; so the word is rendered, Rom. viii. 5. Peter seemed to mind more the things that relate to the lower world, and the life that now is, than those which relate to the upper world, and the life to come. Minding the things of men more than the things of God, our own credit, ease, and safety, more than the things of God, and his glory and kingdom, is a very great sin, and the root of much sin, and very common among Christ’s disciples; and it will appear in suffering times, those times of temptation, when those in whom the things of men have the ascendant, are in danger of falling off. Non sapis–Thou art not wise (so it may be read) in the things of God, but in the things of men. It is important to consider what generation we appear wise in, Luke xvi. 8. It seems policy to shun trouble, but if with that we shun duty, it is fleshly wisdom (2 Cor. i. 12), and it will be folly in the end.

      III. These miracles of Christ should engage us all to follow him, whatever it cost us, not only as they were confirmations of his mission, but as they were explications of his design, and the tendency of that grace which he came to bring; plainly intimating that by his Spirit he would do that for our blind, deaf, lame, leprous, diseased, possessed souls, which he did for the bodies of those many who in those distresses applied themselves to him. Frequent notice had been taken of the great flocking that there was to him for help in various cases: now this is written, that we may believe that he is the great Physician of souls, and may become his patients, and submit to his regimen; and here he tells us upon what terms we may be admitted; and he called all the people to him, to hear this, who modestly stood at some distance when he was in private conversation with his disciples. This is that which all are concerned to know, and consider, if they expect Christ should heal their souls.

      1. They must not be indulgent of the ease of the body; for (v. 34), “Whosoever will come after me for spiritual cures, as these people do for bodily cures, let him deny himself, and live a life of self-denial, mortification, and contempt of the world; let him not pretend to be his own physician, but renounce all confidence in himself and his own righteousness and strength, and let him take up his cross, conforming himself to the pattern of a crucified Jesus, and accommodating himself to the will of God in all the afflictions he lies under; and thus let him continue to follow me;” as many of those did, whom Christ healed. Those that will be Christ’s patients must attend on him, converse with him, receive instruction and reproof from him, as those did that followed him, and must resolve they will never forsake him.

      2. They must not be solicitous, no, not for the life of the body, when they cannot keep it without quitting Christ, v. 35. Are we invited by the words and works of Christ to follow him? Let us sit down, and count the cost, whether we can prefer our advantages by Christ before life itself, whether we can bear to think of losing our life for Christ’s sake and the gospel’s. When the devil is drawing away disciples and servants after him, he conceals the worst of it, tells them only of the pleasure, but nothing of the peril, of his service; Ye shall not surely die; but what there is of trouble and danger in the service of Christ, he tells us of it before, tells us we shall suffer, perhaps we shall die, in the cause; and represents the discouragements not less, but greater, than commonly they prove, that it may appear he deals fairly with us, and is not afraid that we should know the worst; because the advantages of his service abundantly suffice to balance the discouragements, if we will but impartially set the one over against the other. In short,

      (1.) We must not dread the loss of our lives, provided it be in the cause of Christ (v. 35); Whosoever will save his life, by declining Christ, and refusing to come to him, or by disowning and denying him after he has in profession come to Christ, he shall lose it, shall lose the comfort of his natural life, the root and fountain of his spiritual life, and all his hopes of eternal life; such a bad bargain will he make for himself. But whosoever shall lose his life, shall be truly willing to lose it, shall venture it, shall lay it down when he cannot keep it without denying Christ, he shall save it, he shall be an unspeakable gainer; for the loss of his life shall be made up to him in a better life. It is looked upon to be some kind of recompence to those who lose their lives in the service of their prince and country, to have their memories honoured and their families provided for; but what is that to the recompence which Christ makes in eternal life to all that die for him?

      (2.) We must dread the loss of our souls, yea, though we should gain the whole world by it (Mar 8:36; Mar 8:37); For what shall it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world, and all the wealth, honour, and pleasure, in it, by denying Christ, and lose his own soul? “True it is,” said Bishop Hooper, the night before he suffered martyrdom, “that life is sweet, and death is bitter, but eternal death is more bitter, and eternal life is more sweet.” As the happiness of heaven with Christ, is enough to countervail the loss of life itself for Christ, so the gain of all the world in sin, is not sufficient to countervail the ruin of the soul by sin.

      What that is that men do, to save their lives, and gain the world, he tells us (v. 38), and of what fatal consequence it will be to them; Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed. Something like this we had, Matt. x. 33. But it is here expressed more fully. Note, [1.] The disadvantage that the cause of Christ labours under this world, is, that it is to be owned and professed in an adulterous and sinful generation; such the generation of mankind is, gone a whoring from God, in the impure embraces of the world and the flesh, lying in wickedness; some ages, some places, are more especially adulterous and sinful, as that was in which Christ lived; in such a generation the cause of Christ is opposed and run down, and those that own it, are exposed to reproach and contempt, and every where ridiculed and spoken against. [2.] There are many, who, though they cannot but own that the cause of Christ is a righteous cause, are ashamed of it, because of the reproach that attends the professing of it; they are ashamed of their relation to Christ, and ashamed of the credit they cannot but give to his words; they cannot bear to be frowned upon and despised, and therefore throw off their profession, and go down the stream of a prevailing apostasy. [3.] There is a day coming, when the cause of Christ will appear as bright and illustrious as now it appears mean and contemptible; when the Son of man comes in the glory of his Father with his holy angels, as the true Shechinah, the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the Lord of angels. [4.] Those that are ashamed of Christ in this world where he is despised, he will be ashamed of in that world where he is eternally adored. They shall not share with him in his glory then, that were not willing to share with him in his disgrace now.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Into the villages of Caesarea Philippi ( ). Parts () Mt 16:13 has, the Caesarea of Philippi in contrast to the one down on the Mediterranean Sea. Mark means the villages belonging to the district around Caesarea Philippi. This region is on a spur of Mount Hermon in Iturea ruled by Herod Philip so that Jesus is safe from annoyance by Herod Antipas or the Pharisees and Sadducees. Up here on this mountain slope Jesus will have his best opportunity to give the disciples special teaching concerning the crucifixion just a little over six months ahead. So Jesus asked (, descriptive imperfect)

Who do men say that I am? ( ;). Mt 16:13 has “the Son of Man” in place of “I” here in Mark and in Lu 9:18. He often described himself as “the Son of Man.” Certainly here the phrase could not mean merely “a man.” They knew the various popular opinions about Jesus of which Herod Antipas had heard (Mark 3:21; Mark 3:31). It was time that the disciples reveal how much they had been influenced by their environment as well as by the direct instruction of Jesus.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

PETER’S CONFESSION OF FAITH, V. 27-33

1) “And Jesus went out and His disciples,” (kai ekselthen ho iesous kai hoi mathetai autou) “And Jesus and His disciples went out,” out from Bethsaida, traveling Northward, up the Jordan River Valley, for a distance of twenty-five or thirty miles.

2) “Into the towns of Caesarea Philippi; (eis tas komas Kaisareias tes Philippou) “Into the villages of the area of Caesarea of Philippi,” not into the city of Caesarea Philippi itself, Mat 16:13.

3) “And by the way He asked His disciples,” (kai en te hodo eperota tous mathetas autou) ”And in the way (the journey) He quizzed His disciples,” inquired of His disciples who were traveling with Him, Jesus avoided the towns where a passion for Herodian architecture was displayed.

4) “Saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?” (legon autois tina me legousin hoi anthropoi emai) “Inquiring, first of one and then another, Whom do men (the masses, people in general) say that I am?” This is the first time the Lord asked the twelve any question regarding Himself, His own person, relating to His Divinity. They had a personal need to express and confirm their faith in Him, as the Son of God, to strengthen them for trials ahead, Mat 22:42-46; Luk 9:18-22.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Mar. 8:27. Csarea Philippi.This picturesquely situated town, originally called Paneas, after a cavern dedicated to Pan in its neighbourhood, was enlarged and fortified by Herod Philip, who also renamed it in honour of the emperor. Then, to distinguish it from the Csarea on the Mediterranean coastthe seat of the Roman government, where Cornelius lived and Paul suffered imprisonmentit was styled Csarea Philippi. The name was again changed to Neronias by Agrippa II., as a compliment to his imperial patron; but the original appellation still survives in the modern Banias.

Mar. 8:31. After three days.Only another form for on the third dayone complete day, with a portion of another day (no matter how small a portion) on either side. Cf. Gen. 42:17-18, LXX.; also Mat. 27:63-64.

Mar. 8:32. Openly.Explicitly, and not by dark hints as heretofore (Joh. 2:19; Joh. 3:14; Mar. 2:20; Joh. 6:51).

Mar. 8:34. Whosoever will come.If any one wishes to come.

Mar. 8:35. Will save.May wish to save.

Mar. 8:36-37. Soul.Life: same word as in Mar. 8:35.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mar. 8:27-38, and Chap. Mar. 9:1

(PARALLELS: Mat. 16:13-28; Luk. 9:18-27.)

Christs catechism.

I. Christ is such as to cause the world to think of Him.

1.

Because He professes to be the Saviour whom the world had long expected.

2.

Because His appearance did not correspond with the worlds expectations.

3.

Because the advent of a Saviour was the worlds great need.

II. Christ is interested in what the world thinks of Him.

1. He recognised the worlds ability to form an idea of Him.
2. He had laboured to impart to the world a correct idea of Him.
3. He was conscious that the world had formed an idea of Him.
4. He seeks information of the result of His own teaching and the worlds learning from the most reliable source.

III. Christ is differently thought of by the world.

1. He had imparted to the world an impression of superiority. A great prophet.
2. The world had failed to perceive the unique character of His greatness. Only a great man.
3. This failure had its source in the union of Godhead with manhood.

IV. Christ is wishful that right ideas of Himself should exist in the world.

1. He had been qualifying His followers to teach them.
2. He opportunely tests their mastery of them.
3. He ascertains the successful implantation of them.B. D. Johns.

Mar. 8:34. The necessity of self-denial.We ought to attach more than ordinary importance to this saving of our Lord, because it is evident that He Himself laid great stress on it. He had been conversing apart with His disciples, and particularly with Peter; and something that Peter said gave Him occasion to insist on this truth. He would not, however, address it privately to him or to the small band of His immediate followers, but He summoned the multitude to attend to Him, marking by this circumstance as strongly as possible the importance of what He was about to say: Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. He enforced the same truth again and again (Mat. 10:38; Luk. 14:27). And is not the declaration in itself calculated to arouse our attention? If we know that there is anything without which we cannot be true followers of Christ, it surely ought to be well considered by us, because the very life and salvation of our souls must depend on it. Let us then take earnest heed to what Christ here says to us: let us consider well what that is which He declares to be necessary in order to prove our claim to be His disciples; nor let us rest till we have this evidence that we belong to Himtill this seal, as it were, is visibly set upon us to mark us out as His disciples indeed. The text requires but few words by way of explanation. To deny oneself is to refuse indulgence to our desires, not to do what we would naturally, wish to doto put a restraint upon ourselves, to withhold from any of our appetites that which would gratify them, and to act differently in any case to what nature would incline us.

I. Self-denial is necessary in order that we may prove our love and fidelity to Christ.

1. A service which costs us nothing affords no very certain evidence of our attachment to any one. Now Christ would have us give proof of our loyalty and attachment to Him. He requires it of us as a positive duty to give up something, to make some sacrifice for Him, to oppose our inclinations in some way or other, in order that we may ascertain whether indeed love to His name is a strong and ruling principle within us.
2. There are many who are well enough disposed to the religion of Christ till it prescribes this duty. They appear willingly to hear the Scripture, to join in prayer, and to observe holy ordinances; and they will do many things which would seem to indicate an earnestness and zeal in the cause of Christ; but they draw back when called to the difficult exercise of self-denial. But what is the value of a service which cautiously avoids all toil and difficulty? Where is the proof of our being sincere in the love of an object if we will encounter no hardship to attain it? We see men ready to practise much self-denial and to think little of it in any matter in which their hearts are engaged. Look, for example, at the man whose ambition it is to prosper in business. What a life of self-denial is his! He labours even to weariness, rises early, late takes rest, eats the bread of carefulness, denies his nature the rest that it needs, and refuses many enjoyments which he would be glad to partake but that they would hinder him in the object that he has in view. Even the man of pleasure must in the pursuit of his object often use self-denial: he must put a restraint on himself at times, and refuse a less pleasure for the present, however strongly his wishes may incline to it, in order to obtain a greater one in prospect. Nay, even the customary civilities of society impose on us frequent self-denial. A man will often deny himself, will often refrain from doing what he would otherwise wish to do, in order to observe the rules of good breeding and courtesy. If then we are content in the pursuit of business or of pleasure to deny ourselves, if we are willing and able to practise it in order that we may observe the decent courtesies of life and be esteemed well mannered in society, what must be said of us if we refuse to practise it for Christs sake, if we can use self-denial on other occasions and for other purposes readily, and only feel it too irksome when called on to use it for the purpose of pleasing Him? What must be said of us but that the love of God is not in us?

II. Self-denial is necessary to the due discharge of our duties.For many of these we cannot perform except at the expense of denying ourselves.

1. How can the rich relieve the poor as they ought, or how can the poor as they ought befriend each other, except they deny themselves for each others sake? We must in part sacrifice our own ease, we must give up our own way, we must abridge our own enjoyments, if we would do good to others according to the will of Christ. Bear ye one anothers burdens. This is His law; and it is evident that we cannot pretend to fulfil it except we deny ourselves. Look not, saith the apostle, every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others; and then he adds, let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, inasmuch as His Divine conduct furnishes the best example of self-denying charity. Not a single day passes which will not furnish many occasions for this: nay, not an hours intercourse with our fellow-men but will afford us opportunities of denying ourselves,by giving up, for instance, our own wishes, and yielding to the wishes of another; by taking the lowest room, or choosing the least desirable lot; by securing the comfort or ease or honour of those about us at some sacrifice on our own part; by putting a restraint upon our feelings; by imposing silence on our tongue, refusing it the licence which it loves, not allowing it to utter words that may do hurt, not answering again, nor resenting wrong, nor resisting evil. In a thousand ways which only a watchful conscience can discover, and which no one may be privy to but God Himself, we may do what our Lord here commands us. Our daily course, under the most ordinary circumstances, may become a course of virtuous self-renunciationa course of habitual obedience to the injunction in the text, Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
2. There are at the present day great efforts made by the Church for the extension of the Lords kingdom among men, for propagating both at home and abroad the gospel of the grace of God. These efforts cannot be sustained except by the free-will offerings of Christiansthey must be given up unless the members of the Church liberally give of their substance for their support. These multiplying demands on Christians cannot possibly be answered unless they contrive in some way to lessen their personal expenses, to spend less on self-indulgence, to save somewhat more by self-denial. Then, and not till then, will the resources of the Church be adequately replenished, and means be supplied her sufficient for carrying on her great designs of training her own children in the service and worship of God, and of preaching among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.

III. Self-denial is necessary for the purification of our minds.

1. As we were born in sin, and our nature is consequently corrupt, it must be watched over, restrained, and subdued. Our innate propensities are all on the side of evil, and if any of them gain the mastery over us we are thereby brought into bondage to sin. Now the only way to prevent this is to mortify these propensities, to deny them indulgence, to oppose them at their first rising, however earnest and importunate they may be, and by an act of self-denial to put a restraint upon them. The will grows unruly if it be not crossed; the soul is weakened by self-indulgence; faith languishes when the senses are unceasingly gratified; the affections will not rise to things above if we grant them unrestricted enjoyment of things on earth. Therefore it is that a Christian should be watchful for opportunities of exercising self-control, and not wait till his desires point to something absolutely unlawful. He should, for instance, make his ordinary meals occasions for doing so, learning to keep in check the lower appetites of his nature in the common matter of meat and drink. He should observe the same in reference to dress, refusing indulgence to himself in things which might awaken vanity and stimulate strongly the lust of the eye. In many ways, from which he will not receive the least taint of asceticism, nor do any rude violence to nature, or obscure to himself the blessed truth that God giveth us all things richly to enjoy, he may deny himself and bring his desires under control.
2. Whenever the exercise of self-denial is spoken of, there naturally arises in the mind a repugnance to it, on account of the difficulty of it and the pain which attends it. But let us not give way to this repugnance, seeing the necessity of self-denial is so absolute.
(1) The exercise is difficult doubtlessvery difficult; but think not that we are left to encounter the difficulty alone, to meet it in the feebleness of our own nature. No, God will give us His Holy Spirit if we ask Him, and with His Divine co-operation we shall be able to do what otherwise would not only be difficult but impossible.

(2) With regard to the pain of it, it is granted that it must be painful, more or less so, always. The very word implies it. But is not pain suffered for Christ and in His service better than ease secured by deserting Him? Is not pain met with in the performance of duty more to be prized than the ease which is sought in the neglect of it? Is not pain endured in seeking the purification of our nature better a thousandfold than the indulgence which must complete its debasement? Besides, the pain is but momentary, the advantage that flows from it lasting. See Rom. 8:13. The faithful soldier and servant of Christ who manfully engages in this warfare shall hereafter share his Lords triumph and enter into His rest (Rev. 3:21).G. Bellett.

Mar. 8:27-30. Christs Gross, and ours.This section has the announcement of the Cross as its centre, prepared for on the one hand by a question, and followed on the other by a warning that His followers must travel the same road.

I. The preparation for the announcement of the Cross (Mar. 8:27-30).

1. Why did Christ begin by asking about the popular judgment of His personality? Apparently in order to bring clearly home to the disciples that, as far as the masses were concerned, His work and theirs had failed, and had for net result total misconception. Who that had the faintest glimmer of what He was could suppose that the stern, fiery spirits of Elijah or John had come to life again in Him?
2. The second question, But whom say ye that I am? with its sharp transition, is meant to force home the conviction of the gulf between His disciples and the whole nation. Mark, too, that this is the all-important question for every man. Our own individual thought of Him determines our whole worth and fate.
3. How did these questions and their answers serve as introduction to the announcement of the Cross?
(1) They brought clearly before the disciples the hard fact of Christs rejection by the popular voice, and defined their position as sharply antagonistic. A rejected Messiah could not fail to be, sooner or later, a slain Messiah.
(2) Then clear, firm faith in His Messiahship was needed to enable them to stand the ordeal to which the announcement, and still more its fulfilment, would subject them.
(3) Again, the significance and worth of the Cross could only be understood when seen in the light of that great confession.
4. The charge of silence contrasts singularly with the former employment of the apostles as heralds of Jesus. The silence was partly punitive and partly prudential.
(1) It was punitive, inasmuch as the people had already had abundantly the proclamation of His gospel, and had cast it away.
(2) It was prudential, in order to avoid hastening on the inevitable collision; not because Christ desired escape, but because He would first fulfil His day.

II. The announcement of the Cross (Mar. 8:31-33).There had been many hints before this; for Christ saw the end from the beginning. His death was before Him, all through His days, as the great purpose for which He had come. How much more gracious and wonderful His quick sympathy, His patient self-forgetfulness, His unwearied toil, shew against that dark background!

1. Mark here the solemn necessity. Why must He suffer? The cords which bind this sacrifice to the horns of the altar were not spun by mens hands. The great must which ruled His life was a cable of two strandsobedience to the Father, and love to men. He would save; therefore He must die. The same must stretches beyond death. Christ that died is no gospel until you go on to say, Yea, rather, that is risen again.
2. Peters rash rebuke, like most of his appearances in the Gospel, is strangely compounded of warm-hearted, impulsive love and presumptuous self-confidence. He found fault with Christ. For what? Probably for not trusting to His followers arms, or for letting Himself become a victim to the must which Peter thought of as depending only on the power of the ecclesiastics in Jerusalem. He blames Christ for not hoisting the flag of a revolt. This blind love was the nearest approach to sympathy which Christ received; and it was repugnant to Him, so as to draw the sharpest words from Him that He ever spoke to a loving heart. Not thus was He wont to repel ignorant love, nor to tell out faults in public; but the act witnessed to the recoil of His fixed spirit from the temptation which addressed His natural human shrinking from death, as well as to His desire that, once for all, every dream of resistance by force should be shattered. Note that it may be the work of Satan to appeal to the things that be of men, however innocent, if by so doing obedience to Gods will is hindered. Note, too, that Simon may be Peter at one moment and Satan at the next.

III. The announcement of the Cross as the law for the disciples too (Mar. 8:34-38).Christs followers must follow, but men can choose whether they will be His followers or not. So the must is changed into let him, and the if any man will is put in the forefront. The conditions are fixed, but the choice of accepting the position is free.

1. The law for every disciple is self-denial and taking up his cross. This does not merely mean accepting meekly God-sent or men-inflicted sorrows, but persistently carrying on the special form of self-denial which my special type of character requires. It will include these other meanings, but it goes deeper than they.

2. The first of the reasons for the law in Mar. 8:35 is a paradox, and a truth with two sides. To wish to save is to lose life; to lose it for Christs sake is to save it. Flagrant vice is not needed to kill the real life. Clean, respectable selfishness does the work effectually. The deadly gas is invisible and has no smell. But while all selfishness is fatal, it is self-surrender and sacrifice, for My sake and the gospels, which is life-giving.

3. The for of Mar. 8:36 seems to refer back to the law in Mar. 8:34, and the verse enforces the command by an appeal to self-interest, which in the highest sense of the word dictates self-sacrifice. The men who live for self are dead, as Christ has been saying. A man gets rich, and in the process has dropped generous impulses, affections, interest in noble things, perhaps principle and religion. He has shrivelled and hardened into a mere fragment of himself; and so, when success comes, he cannot much enjoy it, and was happier, poor and sympathetic, and enthusiastic and generous, than he is now, rich and dwindled. He who loses himself in gaining the world does not win it, but is mastered by it.

4. A wholesome contempt for the worlds cackle is needed for following Christ. The geese on the common hiss at the passer-by who goes steadily through the flock. How grave and awful is that irony, if we may call it so, which casts the retribution in the mould of the sin! The Judge shall be ashamed of such unworthy disciplesshall blush to own such as His. May we venture to put stress on the fact that He does not say that He will reject them?
5. How marvellous the transition from the prediction of the Cross to this of the Throne! We do not know Jesus unless we know Him as the crucified Sacrifice for the worlds sins, and as the exalted Judge of the worlds deeds.
6. He adds a weighty word of enigmatical meaning, lest any should think that He was speaking only of some far-off judgment. The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be the event intended. It was a kind of rehearsal, or picture in little, of that coming and ultimate great day of the Lord, and was meant to be a sign that it should surely come.A. Maclaren, D.D.

Mar. 8:36-37. The loss of the soul.

I. The character of some of those who may be said to pursue the present world at the expense of their souls.

1. Consider, first, the case of those intensely occupied with the pursuit of the pleasures and indulgences of the world. It is no crime to be happy in this state of being (Php. 4:4). The crime is either in seeking happiness from wrong sources, or in so eagerly drinking at the streams of earthly joy which the bounty of God has opened to us, as to forget or neglect the Fountain where alone the soul can be satisfied.

2. Consider, next, the case of those who are pursuing, with the like intenseness, the interests of this life. Here also a reasonable regard to our own worldly interest, and that of others connected with us, is not condemned in Scripture (Pro. 22:29; 1Co. 4:12; 1Ti. 5:8). But if these worldly interests are pursued with feverish anxiety, from wrong motives or by wrong means; if they are the main objects for which we labour; if their pursuit is connected with disobedience to the will of God,then the supposition of the text is realised: the world is gained, but the soul is lost.

3. In like manner Scripture does not demand the austere rejection of worldly honours. Rank and natural influence, if it be the pleasure of the Most High to bestow them, are to be received with gratitude, and consecrated to the glory of the Giver, and to the benefit, temporal and spiritual, of His creatures. If, however, mistaking the means for the end, we sit down satisfied with the possession of reputation or influence, without considering the objects to which they are to be dedicated; if worldly honours are the main objects of desire; if the pursuit of them be connected with envy, fretfulness, or ambition, with the commission of sin, or the neglect of duty; if, in struggling for the corruptible crown, the love of God, of the Redeemer, of heavenly things, and of one another is suffered to decline, and in wearing it the lowliness of the gospel spirit is sacrificed,this, again, is to incur the condemnation of the text.

II. What is included in the loss of the soul.

1. The nature and value of the soul of man.
(1) Its intrinsic excellence and dignity.
(2) The price paid, and that by Divine appointment, for the redemption of the soul.
(3) The description given of the soul in Scripture, as the grand object of contention between the powers of heaven and hell.
(4) The mighty apparatus of means and instruments which it has pleased God to put into action for the recovery of the soul.
(5) And finally its capacity for the pursuits and enjoyments of another state of existence. With what faculties must that creature be endowed who, day and night and without ceasing, sings the praises of the Lord, who sees God as He is and knows Him as he himself is known!
2. What is more distinctly implied in the term lost.
(1) To lose the soul is not, as some, without the smallest warrant either from reason or Scripture, have ventured to affirm, to be annihilated.
(2) The loss of the soul is represented in Scripture as a penalty inflicted by the hand of God Himself.
(3) The loss of the soul is represented in Scripture as involving a species of suffering altogether without alleviation. We have perhaps witnessed the misery which the unrestrained dominion even of a single passion is able to inflict upon the sinner: conceive, then, all the faculties employed, and all the bad passions let loose, for the torment of the sufferer. Imagine, for instance, the discernment of truth employed only to assure the lost creature of the awful fact of his own eternal ruin. Conceive the powers of calculation, perhaps infinitely enlarged, and altogether engaged in familiarising the mind with ages of interminable woe. Conceive memory converted into a mere storehouse for the materials of anguish, recalling every neglected opportunity, every wasted warning, every lesson of truth forgotten, and every invitation of love refused. Imagine the conscience, which perhaps has slumbered through the whole period of our human existence, awaking from its temporary slumber, and scaring the mind with images of deeper woe and more insufferable torment.

III. The folly of thus sacrificing the soul to gain the world. On this subject it is not necessary to enlarge, because every line in the preceding argument leads decisively to this conclusion. One observation, however, I may make. It has, for the sake of argument, been taken for granted that it is possible to gain the world by the sacrifice of the soul. But how infinitely far is such a supposition from the fact! How few attain even a small part of the worldly objects at which they aim! How rarely are the hopes of the ambitious, or the covetous, or the sensual in the smallest degree realised! How difficult is it to obtain the prizes of life! how impossible to keep them! But to return to the point more immediately insisted upon in the text: suppose every object accomplished, every interest secured, and honour won, and pleasure enjoyed, what can they profit the man rolling on the gulf we have been contemplating, and shut out for ever from hope, from heaven, and from God?J. W. Cunningham.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Mar. 8:28. The worlds estimate of Christ.

1. Even an unbelieving world never gives a small name to Christ; for the names here suggested are those of the greatest of men.
2. The peculiarity of unbelief, that it can believe in old prophets brought back more easily than in new prophets raised up. Be a believer in a living God, who not only has given in the past, but in the present is giving heroes, sages, saints, and prophets. Happy those who see God at work around them!
3. A certain grudging spirit marks their estimates, reluctant to ascribe more dignity to Jesus than they can help. Beware of that spirit.R. Glover.

Mar. 8:29. Christs questions.Christ asks, Whom say ye that I am? in no doubtful and apologetic tone. He demands and expects an answer. It is His right. It is obedience to the plainest duty. Neglect on our part is an insult to our Lord, whose we are and whom we are bound to serve. It is treason to a lost world, which needs to be helped to an acceptance of its Redeemer, and which is hindered by any reluctance to confess Him on the part of His disciples. If Christians hide the faith which is in them, or if they veil it by silence or the neglect of appropriate action, they are doing a grievous wrong as well as immeasurable mischief.

Loyalty to Christ.The power and reach of genuine loyalty to Christ cannot be over-estimated. It is so spontaneous that it is unquestioned. When the sun is riding in unclouded splendour in mid-heaven, there is no occasion for asking from what fountain of light the glory of the noontide is pouring. And when Jesus Christ is so heartily owned and accepted and loved by a man that all which he is or does is in a measure transfigured by his affection for his adorable Lord, there is no dispute as to who and what Christ is to that man. Nothing so blesses the world, nothing so helps on the advance of the kingdom of God, as the testimony which consecrated lives bear to the truth and worth of the faith of the gospel.

Peters reply.

1. The reply of Peter is more marvellous in the lips of a Jew, whose great creed was the Unity of God, than in the lips of any other.
2. In all ages, in some form or other, men have expressed their faith in the Divinity of Christ.
3. The more refined the soul, the more adoring is its estimate of Christ.
4. They who truly honour God will very readily believe that He has love enough to become incarnate and save men.

Mar. 8:30. Tell no man of Him.This is partly a temporary precept, postponing the disciples testimony until after Calvary, on the ground that already the curiosity of the nation was over-roused, and interfered with the Saviours teaching; and is partly a precept of perpetual guidance. Tell people what Christ has done, and only assist them to find out for themselves who He is. A ready-made definition of the Saviour, saving people the trouble of thinking, is not a real service to any soul.R. Glover.

Mar. 8:32-33. Spiritual exaltation.Moments of spiritual exaltation are often followed by moments of spiritual exhaustion, and a good man is never more perilously open to temptation than after a long and high strain of devotion. So Peter falls from the height of his good confession to the depth of Christs displeasure, and from being inspired by the Spirit of all truth and goodness to being the mouthpiece of the spirit of all evil and error.S. Cox, D.D.

Learn

1. In the best of men there is weakness and liability to err.
2. Through mistaken kindness we may become the tempters of our brethren.
3. We must never lower our standard of duty because friends seek to spare us.

Mar. 8:34-38. The fundamentals of the Christian fellowship.

1. Its laws.
(1) The true denier of himself is the true confessor.
(2) The true cross-bearer is the true knight of the Cross.
(3) The true follower after Christ in obedience is the true conqueror.
2. Its grounds.
(1) He who will save his life in self-seeking shall lose it; he who loses it in devotion to Christ shall gain it.
(2) He who lays down his soul to win the world loses with his soul the world also; he who has gained his soul has with his soul gained the world also.
(3) To seek honour in the world while ashamed of Christ leads to infamy before the throne of Christ; but shame in the world leads to honour with Him.
(4) Readiness to die with Christ leads through death to eternal glory.J. P. Lange, D.D.

Mar. 8:34. Words addressed to disciples.We must come to Christ in order to come after Him. To wish to go to heaven when we die is not the same thing as to wish to follow Christ while we live. Following Christ means walking in the path that He trod.

I. To follow Christ we must take up the cross.

1. What is the cross? Trial, suffering, difficulty, etc. Divinely appointednot self-imposed. The reproach of Christ (Joh. 15:20; Php. 1:29; 1Pe. 4:16).

2. What is it to take it up? Voluntary acceptance (Joh. 4:34; Joh. 18:11; Mat. 11:29). Not to be dragged by usnor forced upon us.

II. To take up the cross we must deny self.

1. What is self? It is the personality taking the throne, claiming, possessing, and managing the whole being. This is a condition of selfness. There is unrighteous self and self-righteous self (Joh. 5:30; Joh. 8:28; Php. 2:7).

2. What is it to deny self? Notice the difference between denying to yourself certain things and denying self (Luk. 22:57).

III. To deny self we must enthrone Christ.

1. Christ and self cannot reign together (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:11).

2. Only Christ can dethrone self (1Pe. 3:15; 2Co. 6:16; 2Co. 13:5).E. H. Hopkins.

Self-denial.

1. Abnegation is not itself the good, but the most universal condition for the human attainment of the good.
2. Christ promises not happiness but life: yet sometimes life through death: the right hand may have to be cut off or the right eye plucked out.
3. We are slow to believe that the cross of anguish can be a tree of life.Prof. F. J. A. Hort.

The life of religion.

1. The exercise of self-denial infers the possession and display of all the milder virtues. Where this exists, there must be humility, diffidence, self-command, respect for authority, meekness, gentleness, goodness, temperance, charity.
2. The exercise of mortification infers the presence and exercise of all the stronger virtues. Where this is, there must be truth, integrity, justice, fortitude, contempt of pain, fearlessness of death.
3. The imitation of Christ requires the exercise of all those amiable graces which constitute the life and spirit of religion in the soul. Where that is, there must be faith, hope, love, piety, purity, peace, heavenly-mindedness, devotion. In short, these duties comprehend all the duties of morality and religion; and the exercise of them is only the discharge of some religious or moral dutyof something that is wise, dignified, good, and which could not be exhibited in the same spirit without their presence and power.T. S. Jones, D.D.

Self-sacrifice.That which especially distinguishes a high order of man from a low order of man, that which constitutes human goodness, human greatness, human nobleness, is surely not the degree of enlightenment with which men pursue their own advantage; but it is self-forgetfulness, self-sacrifice, the disregard of personal pleasure, personal indulgence, personal advantage remote or present, because some other line of conduct is more right.

Note the order of the three things.Deny selftake up crossfollow Me. Perplexity and spiritual difficulties often arise from a wrong order of right things. Thus we may read the words as if our Lord had said, Let him take up his cross and deny himself, etc. Taking up the cross may be understood as meaning much the same thing as denying self, which is not correct, or we may be putting following Christ first. But this is to miss the chief point in this lesson. Let him deny himselfthat is the main and first direction that must be understood and obeyed. We shall never take up the crossconsent to it, and do it willinglyuntil we have reached the point of denying self. The mind, of which self is the centre, will never take up the cross; it may sullenly endure to have it laid upon it, it may put up with it as that which is inevitable, but it will never take it up as an act of willing submission. But the mind of Christ is the mind that cheerfully yields to all that the Father appoints.E. H. Hopkins.

A cross is an instrument on which something is to be put to death. Taking it up is not wearing an ornament, nor even just carrying a burden, but putting something to death. What? Sin. Not some incarnate sin that we can catch and bind as they took Jesus, not some other personality, but the sin that is in usthe love of self, the love of the world, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Sin is a desperate enemy. And to be rid of it means thorough work, not coaxing it, not hiding it, not forgetting it, but putting it to death.C. M. Southgate.

Consider your cross.You may try, if you like, to go through life and not see a cross; or, if you like, you may consider it; you may avoid it, or you may meet it; you may resist, or you may acquiesce in it; you may murmur under it, or you may be still; you may drag it, or you may carry it; you may be in a hurry to lay it down, or you may wish to wait Gods time:but blessed is that man who considers his cross, and does not fly from it; who bears it silently, cheerfully, joyfully, and hastens not to be rid of it, but patiently tarries the Lords leisure. To that man that cross is his souls cure; it is the Spirits school; it is the badge of his discipleship, the token of his Heavenly Fathers love, the road to glory, the opportunity for all the promises, the earnest of an eternal crown.J. Vaughan.

The cross the way to life.

Wouldst thou inherit life with Christ on high?

Then count the cost, and know
That here on earth below

Thou needs must suffer with thy Lord, and die.
We reach that gain, to which all else is loss,

But through the Cross!

Not een the sharpest sorrows we can feel,

Nor keenest pangs, we dare
With that great bliss compare,

When God His glory shall in us reveal,
That shall endure when our brief woes are oer,

For evermore.Dach.

Follow Me.This implies not merely to believe His doctrine, obey His commandments, and trust in Him for salvation, but also to imitate Him in His spirit and conductin the holiness, activity, and usefulness of His lifein that love to God and man, that zeal for the Divine glory, that humility, patience, meekness, perseverance, and resignation with which He did and suffered His Heavenly Fathers will,in consequence of which He was exposed to hunger, thirst, poverty, and privations, to the contradiction of sinners, scorn of men, stripes, imprisonment, to all the horrors of Gethsemane and torments of Golgotha.T. S. Jones, D.D.

Mar. 8:35. The selfish, sinful life and the true, spiritual life hang at opposite ends of the scale-beam.The dip of the one means the ascent of the other. Self-denial is but choosing the better; denying the lower is accepting the higher. The soul cannot live in both at once; indeed, can truly live in the higher alone. We need only to keep this compensation in mind to see the excelling charm of self-denial. It is not the bare going without something pleasant, but giving up one attraction for a greater.C. M. Southgate.

Mar. 8:36. The worth of the soul.We cannot overrate our nature, as we cannot underrate our merit; we cannot think too highly of ourselves as immortals, or too humbly of ourselves as transgressors. There is quite as much danger in our undervaluing our immortality, as there is in our exaggerating our merit. In very deed we are more prone to the one than we are to the other; for if self-righteousness slays its thousands, self-neglect slays its tens of thousands.

1. The soul! that thinking, conscious, deathless essence, which thrills and throbs in every tenement of clay before me and around me,that soul! invisible, yet perceptible; wrapped up in the mortal, yet itself immortal; passing away, yet never to end:that soul! we argue that its worth is immense, because its origin was most exalted.
2. We argue the worth of the soul from the vast capacities and powers with which it is endowed. What a wonderful thing is the mind of man! How wondrous is his power of love! how deep the bitterness of his hate! how dark his desperation of revenge! how insatiable and yearning his desires! how high the inspirations of his soul! how all the drops he gathers from the cisterns of created good can never slake or satisfy the yearnings of his immortal mind! how he still craves and longs after something higher and more pure than earth can furnish! And, then, what a capability it has of enjoyment! what a capability of endurance!
3. I argue the value of the soul still more emphatically from its dread immortality. There is the mysterious attribute, compared with which all things temporal are but shadows and day-dreams.
4. I argue the worth of the soul still more emphatically from the fact that it was redeemed at an untold price: it was ransomed with the blood of God.
5. But if the worth of the soul be so immense, the loss of the soul must be tremendous. We therefore argue the fearfulness of that loss, because it involves the sacrifice and the shipwreck of all for which man was first created, and which Christ has redeemed to Him by His atoning bloodall that God can bestow or man receive. Neither is this all: there is not only privation of all that is good and gloriousthere is also the endurance of Gods everlasting anger, whose frown is death and whose smile is life; there is the perpetual gnawing despair of one that has made shipwreck of his all; there is the smouldering remorse, the worm that never dieth.H. Stowell.

World and soul.

1. It is impossible to gain the whole world, even at the sacrifice of our soul. None but Christ was ever tempted with such a huge bait.

2. The soul may be lost for the sake of securing a very infinitesimal portion of the world: Esau, Ahab, Jud. 1:3. In the ordinary course of things such a part of the world as is sufficient for our happiness may be easily gained without exposing the soul to loss (Pro. 8:21; Pro. 3:16; Pro. 10:4; Pro. 22:29); but even were this not so, nothing could compensate for the loss of the soul.

4. By endeavouring to gain the whole world or any part of it at the expense of the soul, we do not only disclaim the greatest good or happiness, but incur and invite the greatest evil and misery, which is not the losing the soul absolutely, however grievous and shocking to nature, but the keeping it, together with the gains and wages of sin, so as to wish it were lost.
5. Whereas by endeavouring to gain the whole world, though with the loss of our souls, it is impossible for us to gain the whole, and we are not so certain to gain any competent part of it; on the other hand, by endeavouring to save our souls, though with the loss of the world, we may not only be sure to save them, but to save them with advantage, or to purchase for ourselves a greater salvation.B. Kennet, D.D.

The world as a law of life.You may be as ignorant and as rude in your life as a Hottentot, and as poor as Lazarus, and yet have gained the world and lost your life. For this is not merely a question of the things which you acquire by your exchange, it is a question of the law under which you put yourself, of the moral quality of the end which you seek.M. R. Vincent, D.D.

The soul that may be lost.A German commentator who is usually very diffuse tersely and truly observes with respect to this passage, He who will understand it does understand it. There is no real room for doubt as to the meaning of our Lords words. The soul which may be lost is the very inmost seat of being; that which thinks in each one of us, but is not thought; that which feels, but is not feeling; that which remembers and is conscious, but is neither consciousness nor memory; that depth, that abyss of life which we so rarely explore, yet which is within each one of us, which we carry everywhere with us,the one mystery of which perhaps we know less than any other, and yet our very inmost self.Canon Liddon.

If.What a world of meaning there is in that little word if! It suggests the fact that few, perhaps not one in ten thousand, do gain that portion of the world on which they have set their heart. Many run in the race, but only one gains the prize; and not seldom he who bids fair to win fails through something which we call chance or accident.J. W. King.

Mar. 8:37. A business question.The apostles had been men of business; here was a business question indeed. They were decidedly practical, and they were met on their own ground. Their answer is not recorded. They doubtless thought long and often on it. Their final decision we know. They concluded their soul was valuable enough to justify them in giving up their affairs to save it; in giving up their time, ease, and indulgence to save it; in surrendering their repute, home, and country to save it; and, finally, in laying down their life to save it.T. F. Crosse, D.C.L.

Mar. 8:38. Confessing or denying Christ.

1. Confessing or denying Christ is certainly no mere affair of words. Yet words, though weak, are not worthless. Whatever worthy witness words can bear, they will not fail to utter in any loving and thoroughgoing confession of our loving Lord.
2. Confessing Christ and being confessed by Christ are not to be separated in our thought, like work-day and pay-day, as if the confessing were all here and the being confessed all there. What comes out there is simply the flash of an awakened consciousness of a judgment of Christ which has been going on here every day under the eyes of the invisible witnesses of many a negligent life.
3. Confessing or denying Christ here is not a question solely as to the totality or average of character, but quite as much a question as to the particulars of character. Point by point the world compares the professed copy with its model, and recognises agreements or contradictions in detail. No otherwise can it be in presence of the angels of God.J.M. Whiton.

Conduct and character.How does a son of a wise and virtuous father confess or deny him most expressively? Certainly not by the word which declares the eternal relationship, not by saying Father, though he ought to say it. Rather by conduct and character; either by the wise and virtuous following of parental example, which bespeaks him as his fathers own son, heir of his spirit as of his name, or else by the course of folly and vice, which denies all moral affinity with him. So on the fathers part; let father and son be in the same society, how does the wise and virtuous father most effectively own or disown the son before intelligent observers? Certainly not by saying, or omitting to say, My son; rather by being in the same circle with him as an object of comparison before observant witnesses, by the light which the fathers character reflects upon the son, to the sons honour or dishonour as the imitator or neglecter of a noble model.Ibid.

On being ashamed of Jesus.Those who would willingly follow Jesus where the road is smooth and easy, but leave Him where it is rugged and hard; who inwardly approve of His doctrine, but from the ridicule of the profane are ashamed to avow it; who punctually attend the routine of worship, but dispense with the observance of duties to which they are not compelled by human laws; who can occasionally associate with the drunkard and hear the name of God profaned without concern; who have no objection to do wrong when the multitude give their sanction; who, when unnoticed or secure of escaping censure, can lift the rod of oppression or receive the wages of iniquity; who can cherish pride, vanity, avarice, and ambition, and yet by nice dissimulation affect the opposite virtues; who can be tender and partial to themselves, but austere and cruel to others; who perform no duty on which human applause is not bestowed, and are deterred from no vice which fashion or common practice countenances;men of this character, and all who resemble themall false Christians, in short, who in public and private life have not the fear and love of God before their eyes, whatever may be their reception from the worldof them shall Jesus Christ be ashamed when in transcendent glory He shall come to judge the world. It is obvious, then, from this climax of vice and folly, that nothing under a sincere, uniform, and universal obedience to the moral law which Jesus came to fulfil will be accepted from His followers; and that no pretences, excuses, and palliations will avail, if this essential and absolutely necessary condition be not complied with.A. Stirling, LL. D.

Adulterous generationnot because the particular sin of adultery was so frequent in that age, but because by every kind of sin a man under the contract of religion runs into that character wherewith Solomon describes the adulteress, who forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God (Jas. 4:4).Dean Young.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 8

Mar. 8:27. A striking coincidence.If we are right in identifying the little bayDalmanuthawith the neighbourhood of Taricha, yet another link of strange coincidence connects the prophetic warning spoken there with its fulfilment. From Dalmanutha our Lord passed across the lake to Csarea Philippi. From Csarea Philippi did Vespasian pass through Tiberias to Taricha, when the town and people were destroyed, and the blood of the fugitives reddened the lake, and their bodies choked its waters. Even amidst the horrors of the last Jewish war few spectacles could have been so sickening as that of the wild stand at Taricha, ending with the butchery of 6,500 on land and sea, and lastly the vile treachery by which they to whom mercy had been promised were lured into the circus at Tiberias, when the weak and old, to the number of about 1, 200, were slaughtered, and the restupwards of 30,400sold into slavery. Well might He who foresaw and foretold that terrible end, standing on that spot, deeply sigh in spirit as He spake to them who asked a sign, and yet saw not what even ordinary discernment might have perceived of the red and lowering sky overhead.A. Edersheim, D. D.

Mar. 8:29. Comprehensive news of Christ.Many have at one time or other felt the charm of a Christ who is purely human, but not Divine. Our literature abounds at present with such pictures, and some of them are very fascinating. The Peasant of Nazareth, growing up beneath His mothers roof and in the carpenters workshop; the enthusiastic Lover of the poor and oppressed, who went about continually doing good; the pure and fearless Reformer, who blasted with the lightning of His eloquence the Pharisee and the priest; the Martyr, who died for the truth, and lies buried beneath the Syrian blue,this picture is being sketched by clever littrateurs; it is impossible not to enjoy it; and you ask, Why does this win me more than the Christ I hear of in church? The latter perplexes me with mystery, but this is simple, human, lovable. It is not, I think, difficult to explain this. If you know music, and have ever endeavoured to follow and grasp a long and classical composition of a great master, say, an oratorio of Handel or Haydn, I am sure you can remember in it a few airs and choruses which, if separated from the whole and executed by themselves, would produce far more immediate pleasure than the whole elaborate composition. Indeed, there are audiences which could not tolerate the oratorio as a whole, but would be delighted with its selected beauties. Yet, though these lovely morsels are enchanting, they are not Handel. Or, do you know literature? If you know your Browning, you must be aware how charming it is, after struggling through his more difficult pages, to light on a lyric here and there which is perfectly easy reading. Selections of these find their way even into school books, and many readers can enjoy selections from this great author who recoil from his longer and more difficult works. But though these elegant extracts are delightful, they are not Browning. In the same way these pictures of a merely human Christ are true as far as they go; they are the simpler traits selected from that great character and life; they are easy to comprehend, and they touch the feelings; but they are not Christ. At first sight that way of thinking of Christ as a great and good man appears to make everything simple; but it really involves you in confusion and contradiction. For what is it you hold Him to be? He is, you say, the ideal manthe model of modesty, wisdom, and truth. If He was merely a link in the chain of humanity, then, as a weak and fallible man, He ought to have confessed His own sins, and He was a blasphemer when He spoke of giving His life a ransom for many. When He said, All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth, and promised to be with His people always, even to the end of the world, He was not a wise man, but the victim of a madmans delusions. When He, a finite creature, spoke of Himself as seated on Gods throne and judging the assembled world, He was no model of goodness and modesty, but a man rendered insane with pride, who was presuming to pluck the sceptre from the bands of the Eternal. If He who said, Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, had not the peace and joy of salvation to give to those who come to hide their guilty heads in His bosom, then He was cruelly deceiving us all.Jas. Stalker, D. D.

A large Christ experienced.Payson, when he lay on his bed dying, said: All my life Christ has seemed to me as a star afar off; but little by little He has been advancing and growing larger and larger, till now His beams seem to fill the whole hemisphere, and I am floating in the glory of God, wondering with unutterable wonder how such a mote as I should be glorified in His light. But he came to that after a long life.

Mar. 8:33. We all have our Satanseach one of us a different Satan. Satan comes to one man in the form of idleness, and makes him waste day after day, year after year, until he has wasted his whole life doing nothing. Satan comes to another man as work, and makes him destroy himself in the opposite way by wearing out prematurely his brain and his body. He comes to another as Christian zeal, and the man becomes a bigot, full of fire for the Lord; but the Lord whom he serves is a God of wrath, a God who cares for trifles, a God who prefers sacrifice to mercy. He comes to another as charity, but it is a charity which tolerates evil, and lets it alone, which has no edge to it, no couragean indolent charity which is not love at all, but only easy good-nature. So he disguises himself as an angel of light, calling himself Patriotism when he wishes to make nations hate each other; calling himself Christianity when he wishes to make men persecute each other; calling himself Honesty when he wishes to encourage a man in his rude and overbearing ways; and so on, changing himself into every virtue and every grace.J. F. Clarke.

Mar. 8:34. To take up ones cross was a proverbial expression, both with the Jews and Romans, for any extraordinary sufferings, and it is probable they had it from the Persians, who made use of that form of punishment.T. J. Montefiore.

The symbol of the cross.It is strange, yet well authenticated, and has given rise to many speculations, that the symbol of the cross was already known to the Indians before the arrival of Cortez. Among the Egyptians a cross was the emblem of a future life. In OBriens Round Towers of Ireland there are some curious remarks on the cross. The use of it in some way by the Druids is noticed.

To take, not make, our cross.We are bid to take, not to make, our cross. God in His providence will provide one for us. And we are bid to take it up; we hear nothing of laying it down. Our troubles and our lives live and die together.W. Gurnall.

The spirit of the Christian soldier.When Garibaldi entered on one of his campaigns, he told his troops what he wanted of them. They replied, Well, General, and what are you going to give us for all this? He replied, I dont know what also you will get, but you will get hunger, cold, wounds, and perhaps death. They stood awhile considering, and then, throwing up their arms, exclaimed, We are the men! This is the spirit Christ looks for in His soldiers.

The spell of example.There is, we know, a wonderful spell in the cry, Come after Me, Follow Me. All history, profane as well as sacred, has shewn this. The great Roman general realised its force when he called to his soldiers, who shrank from the hardships of the Libyan desert, and promised to go before them, and to command them nothing which he would not first do himself. Even so Christ designed to help His followers by the assurance that He should first suffer that which they would be called to bear.

Predominance of the cross.Describing the artistic glories of the Church of St. Mark at Venice, Mr. Ruskin says: Here are all the successions of crowded imagery, shewing the passions and the pleasures of human life symbolised together, and the mystery of its redemption: for the maze of interwoven lines and changeful pictures lead always at last to the cross, lifted and carved in every place and upon every stone; sometimes with the serpent of eternity wrapped round it, sometimes with doves beneath its arms, and sweet herbage growing forth from its feet; but conspicuous most of all on the great rood that crosses the church before the altar, raised in bright blazonry against the shadow of the apse. It is the cross that is first seen and always burning in the centre of the temple; and every dome and hollow of its roof has the figure of Christ in the utmost height of it, raised in power, or returning in judgment.

Christs cross is the sweetest burden that ever I bore; it is such a burden as wings are to a bird, or sails to a ship, to carry me forward to my harbour.S. Rutherford.

The figure of the cross. My will is represented well by a straight linethus, running from birth to death in unbroken current through the flesh and the world in all manner of self-indulgence unto the hidden abyss. Gods will is represented by a perpendicular | thus, falling from heaven like a bolt of thunder. The two wills meet, and form the figure of the + thus. It cuts me, severs me, hinders me, clogs me, compels me; but Thy will, O God, saves me. That cross means the life and death of the Son of God. For me, therefore, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Christ the Leader.When Hedley Vicars fell at the head of his regiment during a night attack of the Russians, his voice was heard ringing out on the night air over the din of the conflict with the cry, This way, Ninety-seventh. A hundred goes would be weak in comparison with the come involved in that battle-cry. In all the cross-bearing of life the voice of the Captain of our salvation is still heard in the van, saying, This way, My disciple.

Following Christ in self-denial.A little girl was instructed by her parents in what Christ had taught, and how He lived, and that through Him we must enter into eternal life. When she heard these things, she became dissatisfied with her native land, and pressed her parents to be taken to that land where men lived as Christ had taught them, and as He lived. Her parents replied that she was then in a Christian land, and that those around her were Christians, and were living so. She shook her head and said, That I cannot believe, for those I see around me neither live as Christ taught nor as Christ lived; for Christ was voluntarily poor, we love gold and silver; He was humble and lowly, but we affect dominion and greatness; He was always in affliction, we hunt for carnal pleasures. What cutting truths from infant lips!

Mar. 8:35. Gain by loss.The most important use of a seed is that which results in the reproduction of its species; but in order that it may serve this high purpose, it must lose itself as a seed, must suffer the disintegration of its structure, and give up its elements for the production of new forms of life. The seed must, as it were, lose all thought of itself, must give up its own life, its own separate existence, and allow itself to be converted into new and productive forms of vegetation. A grain of corn stored away in the granary is of small account. To be of any use in the world it must be either ground to powder and made into bread for the eater, or be planted in the ground and transmuted by the joint action of the wonderful forces locked up within itself and those lodged in the soil around it, into a green and growing stalk which shall in due time bear fruit to nourish human life and bless the world. It is only one illustration of a great law prevalent in all the universe of God. Helpfulness to others is attained through sacrifice of self.

The reward of self-sacrifice.A group of firemen sat in their engine house to hold their anniversary. They have invited in the veterans. They eatthey remember. Which is the keenest delight, the memory of the terrible eight-and-forty hours in which you played the hero, carrying the nozzle through the doorway from which a hundred citizens had shrunk dismayed, or the present banquet? The pleasure of heroic deeds, ora piece of pie? Yet here is all the difference between noble and ignoble men. When we come to think of it, self-sacrifice has its own high reward. But observe how slow we are to win it with the denial of an appetite. The cross of Christ is no esoteric secret. It inheres in the constitution of things, even the commonest things.E. J. Haynes.

Lost.I remember being one winters night in a little town on the coast of Wales. We were sitting by the fire, cheerful, when we heard a sudden noise. We looked out into the night. The wind was very high, and suddenly we heard the scream of voices, then the boom of guns over the water; then the clatter of feet along the street, the lifeboat, and the lifebuoy. Human life in danger. We thought we descried a dark mass heaving over the black billows, but the breakers carried her away. That night she struck on the rocks. I walked down in the morning to look at her lying on the beach. I could not help saying, How human this is! how lifelike! There she lay, the pride and hope of her ownersstripped; masts, sails, shrouds, broken, ragged, torngone. And yet much had depended on her. She had been launched with many hopes and expectations. All gone, a melancholy wreck. The winds howled through as they lifted her ragged shrouds. She could not, as once she might have done, repel them, and make them her ministers. She was a lost ship. Melancholy type of a lost soul.E. Paxton Hood.

Mar. 8:36. Gained, but not possessed.A people may gain the whole world, and lose all those qualities of the head and heart which entitle them to possess it. May we not say of ancient Rome that she gained the whole world and lost her soul? Just as the tale of her conquests was almost complete, yet ere the Roman eagles were firmly planted on the Euphrates and on the Danube the soul of the old republic had departed. The temperance, courage, justice, patriotism, of the earlier Romans had died out; and while, in the intoxication of her victories, Rome grasped with one hand the sceptre of the world, she surrendered the liberties and lives of her citizens to the lusts and tyranny of the Csars with the other. A people may have been civilised, in the material sense of the word, for centuries, while it remains at heart and for ever barbarian. In ages when our ancestors were mere savages Chinese society was as highly organised, Chinese life as highly embellished, as at the present day. Yet no primitive race was ever capable of the extraordinary cruelties which are now of daily occurrence in China; and the dignity and the rights of man are nowhere treated with such lofty scorn as in those tribunals which are presided over by the passionless scepticism of a Chinese mandarin. Without a ray of moral life, without a soul, that vast and ancient empire exists as if that it may exhibit to Christendom the worthlessness and feebleness of mere material progress. Yet Pagan empires are no measure of the degradation of which Christian peoples are capable when they sacrifice truth and goodness in an attempt to gain the world. When during the first French Revolution divine honours were paid to one of the daughters of shame, throned on the high altar of the cathedral church of Paris, while the streets of that brilliant capital were deluged with the best blood of its citizens, men read Gods doom upon a noble people, bent fiercely for the moment upon spiritual suicide and upon material aggrandisement. And when we hear daily of the gigantic miseries inflicted and endured by a nation which but yesterday was a British colony, we may reflect that there are dangers against which no institutions or races can be guaranteed, and that we ourselves have our weaknesses and our temptations. My countrymen, I do not dispute your pre-eminence; you are unquestionably the princes of commerce, you reign without a rival over the realm of matter: but have you lost, or are you losing, that which is more precious than any acquisitions of your industry or of your geniusare you becoming the slaves of matter instead of its masters? Beneath the surface of many an advanced civilisation the human brute crouches, he scarcely slumbers, with the old untamed ferocity of his savage nature; and not merely the accumulations of your capital, but the creations of your science, your new projectiles, your rifled cannon, and your ironclad steam vessels, may but enable the nation which has gained the world to prove one day how much she has really lost in gaining it.Canon Liddon.

The world unsatisfying.Alexander the Great overran the whole earth, and subdued every nation; and at the conclusion of universal victory he sat down and wept like a child because he had not another world to conquer. We read also of a Roman emperor who had run the round of all the pleasures in the world offering a rich reward to any one who should discover a new pleasure. Cyrus the conqueror thought that for a little time he was making a fine thing out of this world; yet before he came to his grave he wrote out this pitiful epitaph for his monument: I am Cyrus. I occupied the Persian Empire. I was King over Asia. Begrudge me not this monument. But the world in after-years ploughed up his sepulchre. Pope Adrian VI. had this inscription on his monument: Here lies Adrian VI., who was never so unhappy in any period of his life as at that in which he was a prince. I, sinful wretch, by the grace of God, King of England and of France, and Lord of Ireland, bequeath to Almighty God my sinful soul and the life I have misspent, whereof I put myself wholly at His grace and mercyso wrote Henry IV. in his last will, when the frightful reality of leprosy had disenchanted the rapturous dream of usurpation. Queen Elizabeth, dying, cried: Millions of money for an inch of time! Was the gay queen happy? The history of kings and queens proves that though their crowns may be set with diamonds or Indian stones, the kings and queens themselves but seldom enjoy the crown of content which is worn upon the heart. The world clapped its hands and stamped its feet in honour of Charles Lamb. Was he happy? He says: I walk up and down, thinking I am happy, but feeling I am not. Samuel Johnson, happy? No. I am afraid I shall some day get crazy. Buchanan, the world-renowned writer, exiled from his own country, appealing to Henry VIII. for protection, happy? No. Over mountains covered with snow, and through valleys flooded with rain, I come a fugitive. Indeed, my lord, wrote famous Edmund Burke, I doubt whether, in these hard times, I would give a peck of refuse wheat for all that is called fame in the world. Sweet, says the poet, sweet were the days when I was all unknown;

But when my name was lifted up, the storm
Broke on the mountain, and I cared not for it.

Mans soul thirsts and longs for something nobler, brighter, greater, and better than the world itself. As Macduff says: As well try to fill the yawning chasm with a few grains of sand as satisfy the gulf of the souls desires with the pleasures of an empty world. Nothing can satisfy the soul but God.

A revealing light.A traveller who crosses the Alps by night sees only a foot or two before him; and he is as little alive to the extraordinary scene through which he is passing, to the beauties which encompass and to the risks which beset his path, as if he were walking quietly along the turnpike road from London to Cambridge. But as the early dawn breaks upon him, he becomes aware of those mountain pinnacles which tower above him till they hide their snowcapped summits in the very clouds of heaven; he sees the precipice which yawns at his very feet; he becomes conscious of dangers of which he had previously no idea; and he is grateful to the morning light which certainly has discovered to him a vision of unsuspected beauty, and which probably has saved him from an untimely death. And what is the question of our Blessed Lord in the text, but the very light of heaven itself, bringing out into sharp relief the real conditions of our personal existence!

The north of a soul.We know the force and majesty of the thoughts of Pascal. The realms of space and the worlds in them are full of grandeur in his philosophy; but there is one thing compared with which all this vast material universe is nothing. All the bodies, the stars, the firmament, the earth and all its kingdoms, are not worth one soul; for that soul knows both itself and them, and they know nothing.

The soul the chief concern.When the steamer London was lost some years ago on the English coast, among the many sad tales told in connexion with the shipwreck, I recollect reading of one in some respects the saddest of all. When the condition of the ship was hopeless, one of the passengers had gone down to his cabin, which was already under water, and had with some difficulty found his trunk, which he had carried up to the deck. The captain, who was standing by, waiting in silence for the inevitable catastrophe, shook his head as he saw what the poor man had done. He had saved his trunk; his life would be gone in a moment.

What then?An aged Christian once asked a young man who was just entering business and laying out his plans for life, What are you going to do? You are about to settle in business, I understand. Yes. And what do you intend then? I shall marry. And what then? I hope to make a fortune. And what then? I shall enter public life. And what then? I hope that I may make a family reputation. And what then? Well, 1 suppose I shall grow old and die. And what then? The young man was silent. He had never looked so far ahead.

The legend of Ninus.There is a legend of Ninus, the monarch of Assyria, that he had an ocean of gold and riches more than the sand of the Caspian Sea, but that he never offered sacrifice, nor worshipped God, nor administered justicein a word, he spent a life of selfishness and indulgence with no sense of accountability to God or man. This man is dead, says the old chronicler. Behold his sepulchre; and now hear where Ninus is (he is supposed to be speaking from his tomb). Sometime I was Ninus and drew the breath of a living man, but now I am nothing but clay; I have nothing but what I served to myself in lustthat was and is all my portion. The wealth with which I was blessed mine enemies shall bear away. I am gone to Tartarus, and when I went thither I neither carried gold nor horse nor chariot. I that wore a crown am now a little heap of dust.

Not much left.It is said of Saladin, also called the Great, that just before he gave his last sigh he called the herald who had carried his banner before him in all his battles, and commanded him to fasten to the top of a lance the shroud in which he was so soon to be buried. Go, said he, unfurl the banner, and whilst you lift up this standard proclaim, Saladin the mighty monarch is gone, and has taken no more with him than what you see.

As in life, so in death.There is a story of one that, being often reproved for his ungodly and vicious life, and exhorted to repentance, would still answer that it was but saying three words at his death, and he was sure to be saved. Perhaps the three words he meant were, Miserere mei Deus (God, have mercy on me). But one day riding over a bridge, his horse stumbled, and both were falling into the river, when in the moment of that precipitation he only cried, Capiat omnia diabolus (Horse and man and all to the devil). Three words he had, but not such as he should have had. He had been so familiar with the devil all his life that he thinks of none else at his death. Thus it usually is, that a wicked life hath a wicked end. He that travels the way of hell all his lifetime, it is impossible in the end of the journey he should arrive at heaven. A worldly man dies rather thinking of his gold than his God Some die jeering, some raging; some in one distemper, some in another way. They lived so, and so they die.

Crushed by gold.When Rome was besieged, it is said of the daughter of its ruler that she saw the golden bracelets on the arms of the enemy, and sent word to them that she would betray her city and deliver it into their hands if they would give her their bracelets. They readily accepted her proposition, and before sunset the daughter had secretly opened one of the gates to the city, and as the enemy entered they threw upon her their golden bracelets, and also their shields, until the great weight crushed her to death. How many poor souls to-day are striving to gain that which will in the end prove the means of their souls destruction!

Much lost for little.When Lysimachus was engaged in a war with the Get, he was so tormented by thirst that he offered his kingdom to his enemies for permission to quench it. His exclamation, when he had drunk the water with which they furnished him, is striking. Ah, wretched me, who for such a momentary gratification have lost so great a kingdom! How applicable is this to the case of those who for the momentary pleasures of sin part with the kingdom of heaven!

The folly of sacrificing eternity to time.When Sir Thomas More was in prison, his wife and children entreated him to yield to the king. For so many years, said his wife, we might yet live together: why then can you, in the flower of your age, bring yourself and our family to the worst misfortunes? How many years, said he, do you suppose I can yet live? At least twenty, said she. What a foolish exchange, exclaimed the Chancellor, for twenty years of life here below, and very likely not so much, that I should give up life eternal and condemn myself to endless torments! Better lose all than my soul: for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

Mar. 8:37. The value of a soul.It was doubtless when standing in full view of the niched rock cut by Greeks for the idol Pan, face to face with the lustrous marble temple to divine Augustus of the Romans at Csarea Philippi, that Christ said, What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? To Him belonged this costly adoration, squandered at the feet of idols; and He is a jealous God. There before His very eyes were the tokens of a false love. Jealousy in the purest womans heart, at sight of love-tokens bestowed upon another which were rightfully her own, is a severe, a biting thing, killing the one, or the two, or the three. Observe how poor and inadequate a thing is our English word jealousy with which to portray the Divine emotion. Our Blessed Lord laments over the value of a soul whose devotion is snatched from Himself; loves it all the more; condemns it with the unspeakable condemnation of wounded love; asks, Once lost, what shall man give in exchange, to get it back again? His jealousy drives Him to the Cross, that He may win His own againthe love of a priceless human soul. Let human jealousy learn a lesson. Lift yourself up on a cross, that you may draw unto yourself the heart you think you have lost.E. J. Haynes.

Mar. 8:38. Confession of Christ.In his Confessions St. Augustine relates a story of Victorinus, an eminent man at Rome, who had won the respect of a large number of his countrymen, among whom were many heathen. When the Spirit of God dawned upon his heart, and the light of Christ therein shone, he went direct to one of his friends, and told him that he was a Christian. The friend replied, I will never believe it until I see you openly profess your new faith in the church. This text came to him with such force that he went back with his friend, and boldly and openly confessed Christ as his Saviour.

Confession of Christ.A Roman emperor said to a Greek architect, Build me a Colosseum, a grand colosseum, and if it suits me I will crown you in the presence of all the people, and I will make a great day of festival on your account. The architect did his workdid it magnificently, planned the building, and looked after its construction. The building was finished, the opening day arrived, the emperor and the architect were in the Colosseum. Amid loud cheers the emperor arose and announced that the day was set apart in honour of the Greek architect, and everything must be done to his honour. Let us make merry and enjoy ourselves; bring out those Christians, and let us see the lions destroy them. A group of imprisoned Christians were led forth, and a number of half-starved lions turned loose among them. They were soon devoured, and the architect slowly arose, and in a firm though gentle voice said, I too am a Christian. The howling mob seized him and flung him to the fierce beasts, who soon tore his limbs from his body. This is confession, true and undefiled. It is easy enough to confess Christ before our own Church and friends, but do we confess Him among those that revile Him? Do we go among men that despise His precepts, and by our very life tell of Him? If we do not, we do not do our duty as His followers.

Confession of Christ unknown to nominal Christians.A Hindoo of rank was troubled in his conscience on the subject of a future state. He had heard of Christians, and longed to converse with them about their religion, and to know who Christ was. So he visited England, the Christians land, supplied with introductions to some leading people. Being asked to a great dinner, he turned to his neighbour in the course of conversation, and said, Can you tell me something about Christ, the founder of your religion? Hush, replied his new acquaintance, we do not speak of such things at dinner-parties. Subsequently he was invited to a large ball. Dancing with a young and fashionable lady, he took an opportunity of asking her who the founder of her religion, Jesus Christ, was. And again he was warned that a ball was no place to introduce such subjects. Strange, thought the Hindoo, are these Christians in England. They will not speak of their religion, nor inform me about Christ, its founder.

No silent partners.I come, sir, said a business man to a minister of the gospel, to ask if Jesus Christ will take me into the firm as a silent partner. The reply was, Jesus Christ takes no silent partners; the firm must be Jesus Christ & Co., and the names of the Co., though they may occupy a subordinate place, must all be written out on the signboard.

Power of confession.In relating his experience during the Peninsular War, Captain Watson says: I was nominated to sit on a garrison court-martial A number of officers of different ranks and regiments were present on the occasion, and before the proceedings commenced some of them indulged in loose and sceptical observations. Alas, thought I, here are many not ashamed to speak openly for their master, and shall I hold my peace and refrain when the honour and cause of Him who has had mercy on me are called in question? I looked for wisdom and assistance from on high, and I was enabled to speak for a quarter of an hour in a way that astonished my hearers and myself. The Lord was pleased to give what I said a favourable reception, and not another improper word was uttered by them during my stay in that room.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

7. JESUS THE MESSIAH 8:279:1

TEXT 8:279:1

And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and in the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they told him, saying, John the Baptist: and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. And he asked them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him, And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again, And he spake the saying openly, And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me Satan: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospels shall save it. For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There be some here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 8:279:1

403.

How far from Bethsaida to Caesarea Philippi? Please locate on the map.

404.

Why ask the disciples of the opinion of others? What meaning is there in the name Jesus applied to Himself? Cf. Mat. 16:13-14?

405.

How would Jesus meet the designations given concerning Himi.e. in what way was He like John the Baptist?; like Elijah?; like one of the prophets?

406.

Who thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead?

407.

Show how appropriate this question was at this particular time in the life of Jesus.

408.

What did Peter mean in his use of the name Christ?

409.

Why doesnt Mark record the blessing pronounced by Christ upon Peter?

410.

Define each of the three classes of persons referred to in Mar. 8:31.

411.

What is meant by the expression He spake the saying openly?

412.

Please attempt an explanation of the attitude of Peter when he rebuked the Lord.

413.

Why look at all the disciples and rebuke Peter? In what sense was Jesus not speaking to Peter?

414.

Show the connection of denying self with the rebuke of Peter.

415.

Define in your own words what it means to take up his cross and follow . . .

416.

How do we attempt to save our life and in the process lose it?

417.

Specifically how can we lose our life for His sake? Please be personal and practical.

418.

How is the word soul or life used in Mar. 8:36?

419.

Is Jesus saying a man has no real life or is not really living unless he is giving himself to His service?

420.

How does being ashamed of Jesus fit into this context?

COMMENT

TIMESummer of A.D. 29. From six to eight months before the Lords Crucifixion.
PLACEIn the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, about thirty miles northeast of Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. It was upon the upper sources of the Jordan, the largest of the three streams that unite to form the river springing from a fountain near Caesarea Philippi. Professor McGarvey says: The city of Caesarea Philippi stood at the northeastern curve of the upper Jordan valley, and about twenty-six miles north of the lake of Galilee. Mountains 2,000 feet high rise abruptly from the eastern side of it, while the snow covered summit of Mt. Hermon, 9,000 feet high, swells heavenward but a few miles north of it. Its earliest name known to us was Paneas, so called in honor of the god Pan, and on or near its side Herod the Great erected a temple in honor of Augustus Caesar. Afterward Philip the Tetrarch, to whom Herod gave the district at his death, rebuilt the old town, and called it Caesarea Philippi in honor of himself and Tiberius Caesar. The city is now in ruins, but the wall can be traced on every side, and in some points on the east and south sides it is standing at almost its original height. Just outside the northeastern angle of the wall is the famous spring which is one of the three principal sources of the Jordan.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat. 16:13-28; Luk. 9:18-27.

LESSON OUTLINE1. The Good Confession. 2. The Cross of Christ. 3. Losing and Finding Life.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE GOOD CONFESSION, Mar. 8:27-30.

1.

Christ at Caesarea Philippi. Mar. 8:27; Mat. 16:13; Luk. 9:18.

2.

Opinions of Christ. Mar. 8:28; Mat. 16:14; Luk. 9:19 : Joh. 6:69.

3.

Peters Confession. Mar. 8:29; Mat. 16:16.

II.

THE CROSS OF CHRIST, Mar. 8:31-34.

1.

The Prophecy of the Cross. Mar. 8:31; Mat. 16:21; Mat. 17:22 : Luk. 9:22.

2.

Peter Rebuked. Mar. 8:32-33; Mat. 16:22-23.

3.

Bearing the Cross. Mar. 8:24; Mat. 16:24; Luk. 9:23.

III.

LOSING AND FINDING LIFE, Mar. 8:35 to Mar. 9:1.

1.

The Way to Save Life. Mar. 8:35; Mat. 16:25; Luk. 9:24.

2.

Gain or Loss. Mar. 8:36-37; Mat. 16:26; Luk. 9:25.

3.

Ashamed of the Cross. Mar. 8:38; Luk. 9:26; Rom. 1:16.

4.

Coming in the Kingdom. Mar. 9:1; Mat. 16:28; Luk. 9:27.

INTRODUCTION

It was after our Lord had closed his public ministry in Galilee, and while he was seeking retirement in order to communicate special instruction in the principles of his kingdom to the apostles, who were to succeed in his work, that he gave the great lesson concerning the foundation on which he would found his church, and the lesson on consecration and self-denial that its extension in the world requires. Here begins the second great division of the Saviors ministry, a period that leads directly to his sufferings and death. The first period culminated in the confession of Peter; the second in the cross and resurrection.

EXPANATORY NOTES

I. THE GOOD CONFESSION.Mar. 8:27. Jesus went out, and his disciples. Went out is the word regularly used in this gospel when a departure from one scene of work to another is notified. In this case, our Lord, leaving the district in which he had hitherto been chiefly working, proceeded in a northeasterly direction along the valley of the Upper Jordan. And his disciples. Their presence is here mentioned expressly, calling attention to the object of a journey through a district to a great extent heathen, and lately traversed, viz., their special instruction (Mar. 9:31). Into the towns, Away from the populous cities The solitude of the beautiful district, wither the Savior now journeyed, is illustrated by the fact that it is the only district in Palestine where a recent traveller found the pelican of the wilderness (Psa. 102:6). Caesarea Philippi. A city at the northeast extremity of Palestine and at the foot of Mount Lebanon, anciently called Paneas, and now Banias. It has now about fifty houses, many ruins of columns, towers, temples, a bridge, and a remarkable castle. And by the way. His conversation by the way: (1) The turn it often took when the disciples were left to themselvesdisputes concerning greatness, etc. (2) The turn Christ gave to itinquirings concerning his mission and person. Learn: (1), Avoid foolish and worldly talk; (2), Improve passing opportunities; (3), Let your talk be often about the Savior.Biblical Museum. Whom do men say that I am? The following conversation refers to three points: (1) The Christ. (2) The suffering Christ. The disciples of the suffering Christ. The object of this first question is evidently to prepare the way for the next. The inquiry was not concerning the opinions of the Scribes and Rabbis, but concerning the opinions of the people.

Mar. 8:28. And they answered. As Jesus had not openly declared that he was the Messiah, but had allowed men to hear his surpassing wisdom and see his life and works and draw their own conclusions, there would naturally be various opinions. John the Baptist. Who had been killed by Herod a few months before, now restored to life. That was one popular notion regarding him, circulating, no doubt, chiefly among those who had never seen him. Herod Antipas entertained it (chap. Mar. 6:16). Elias. The great ideal of a prophet and spiritual reformer. It was very generally expected that he was to return to the earth in connection with the Messiahs advent (Mal. 4, 5).Morison. One of the prophets. The Jews believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again. They did not declare their belief in him as the Messiah himself, doubtless for this reason, that the whole ministry of Christ appeared to them to stand in contradiction to their Messianic expectations.

Mar. 8:29. Whom say ye that I am? He had never openly spoken of his Messiahship. It was his will that the revelation should dawn gradually on the minds of his children; that it should spring more from the truths he spake, and the life he lived, than from the wonders which he wrought. It was in the Son of man that they were to recognize the Son of God.Farrar. The time was come when it was of the greatest moment that they should have a settled conception of his real character and mission. And Peter answereth. With that honest readiness and impulsiveness which were so characteristic of his nature, and which fitted him for being a leader of the little circle.Morison. Thou art the Christ; Matthew adds, the Son of the living God. This confession not only sees in Jesus the promised Messiah, but in the Messiah recognizes the divine nature.Cambridge Bible. The confession of Peter is the first fundamental Christian confession of faith, and the germ of the Apostles Creed.Lange. It was a decisive answer, and given as out of a higher inspiration. The Lord himself, as we learn from Mat. 16:17, traced the thought to its divine source. And yet it was, no doubt, founded on evidence which the disciple had diligently studied, and logically construed to his own inner satisfaction. The Lord in the passage in Matthew declares that the grand truth confessed by Peter is the rock on which his church shall be built. By faith in this truth men become disciples of Christ and members of his church.

Mar. 8:30. Charged them that they should tell no man. The time had not yet come to proclaim that he was the Christ. To do so prematurely would result in harm rather than good. He must first demonstrate his Messiahship by his resurrection.

II. THE CROSS OF CHRIST.Mar. 8:31. He began to teach them . . . must suffer many things. The great lesson of our two years of his ministry was that he was the Christ; after this had been learned by his apostles they were ready to be taught he must die a violent death. So from this time onward we find him speaking more and more plainly of the decease which he must accomplish. The supreme purpose of his advent was not to teach truth, nor to work miracles, nor to illustrate the perfection of manly character, but to die, to die for sinners, to bear their sins in his own body on the tree. Rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes. The three constituents of the Sanhedrim. The elders (leading men) would be chosen because of their material and political influence; the high priests, because of their elevated ecclesiastical position; the scribes, because of their literary and rabbinical qualifications. Now, for the first time, the disciples received full and clear information of the sufferings and death of Christ.

Mar. 8:32. And he spake that saying openly. Without reserve, publicly. The previous statements respecting this subject, made by our Lord, were expressed in figurative language.Godwin. And Peter began to rebuke him. The same Peter who but just now had made so noble and spiritual a confession, and received so high a blessing, now shows the weak and carnal side of his character. This world has many Peters, who wish to be wiser than Christ, and to prescribe to him what it is needful to do.

Mar. 8:33. Turned about and looked on his disciples, A sudden movement is indicated. Looking at all, he singles out Peter for special warning. Rebuked Peter, saying Get thee behind me, Satan. Christ saw, with the lightning glance of his spirit, in the words of Peter a suggestion not so much of his as of Satans. This is the very temptation that fell from the lips of Satan in the wilderness when he offered to surrender the kingdoms of this world to Jesus without his suffering on the cross. The Lord when he says, with sudden vehemence, Get thee behind me Satan! was not speaking directly to Peter but to the prince of darkness, who had for a moment taken possession of Peters mind and lips. Peter had been greatly elated over the Messiahship of Jesus, but still expected an earthly king Messiah after the type of David, in whose kingdom he would have a great place. To hear the Lord talk of the cross was a cruel disappointment to his ambitious hopes.

III. LOSING AND FINDING LIFE.Mar. 8:34. When he had called the people unto him. The great lesson of his Christhood and death on the cross had been given to the apostles alone. Now the throng and his disciples are united and the Lord teaches a grand truth that springs directly from what had occurred just before, Will come after me. Will become my disciple. There was an eagerness among many of the people to come after him. The wistfulness of a considerable proportion of the northern population had been awakened. They were ruminating anxiously on Old Testament predictions, and filled with vague expectancy. Let him deny himself. The word is strong in the originallet him deny himself off, let him entirely renounce himself. Let him be prepared to say no to many of the strongest cravings of his nature, in the direction more particularly of earthly ease, comfort, dignity and glory. Our common thoughts of self-denial, i.e., the denial to ourselves of some pleasure or profit, fall far short of the meaning of the Greek. The man is to deny his whole self, all his natural motives and impulses, so far as they come into conflict with the claims of Christ. And take up his cross. Even as the Lord would take up his cross at Jerusalem. So every disciple must crucify the old man, his selfish nature (Rom. 6:6), give up his old life, and become dead to it. The cross is the pain of the self-denial required in the preceding words. The cross is the symbol of doing our duty, even at the cost of the most painful death. Christ obeyed God, and carried out his work for the salvation of men, though it required him to die upon the cross in order to do it. And ever since, the cross has stood as the emblem, not of suffering, but of suffering for the sake of Christ and his gospel as the highest ideal of obedience to God at any and every cost. Follow me. Obey and imitate Christ.

Mar. 8:35. Whosoever will save his life. Whoever makes this the end will lose life. A great principle is stated. All self-seeking is self-losing. Even in spiritual things, he who is perpetually studying how to secure joy and peace for himself loses it. A certain measure of self-forgetfulness is the condition of the highest success, even in Christian grace. But whosoever shall lose his life. In the sphere of the present. For my sake, and the gospels. It is only loss for the sake of Christ that has this promise. Multitudes of people lose their lives for gain, for pleasure, for fashion. Each of these has more martyrs than the cross ever required; but the loss was without compensation or hope. But whosoever loses for the love of Christ, for the sake of preaching and advancing the gospel shall save itshall have a blessedness and glory which will a thousand times compensate for every loss.

Mar. 8:36. What shall it profit a man? This is one of the searching questions that the Scriptures are wont to throw out to arouse reflection. Let each student try to conscientiously answer this question and the one which follows.

Mar. 8:37. What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? What would a man not give? If he had the whole world, would he not willingly give it, provided he really knew, believed, or felt, that otherwise he would be utterly lost? The Saviour has gone forward in thought, and taken his standpoint in eternity. It is from that standpoint that he puts the question.

Mar. 8:38. Shall be ashamed of me and of my words. As many would be prone to be. The temptation to shame, in reference to the Savior and the Saviors sayings or doctrines, continues to the present day, and is pervading society to the core, even in countries called Christian, It is one of the severest temptations which young converts have to encounter. The anticipation of it is one of the mightiest motives to keep men away from conversion, and on the other side of Christian faith and fealty. This adulterous and sinful generation. Adulterous here, as in the Old Testament, means unfaithful to God. When he cometh, etc. The glorious coming to judge the world when all nations shall appear before him.

Mar. 9:1 Some of them that stand here, etc. The allusion to the final coming of the kingdom of Christ in power which took place on the day of Pentecost. The day of Pentecost, when the descent of the Spirit took place, marks the beginning of the dispensation of the Spirit, the new economy, or the kingdom of righteousness. Its consummation will be seen when all souls shall be converted to righteousness and Jesus shall come.

FACT QUESTIONS 8:279:1

455.

Give three facts about Caesarea Philippi.

456.

The verses before us begin what great division in our Lords ministry?

457.

What area of public ministry concludes with the eighth chapter?

458.

What was the purpose of our Lord in going into the district of Caesarea Philippi?

459. Give three lessons we can learn in the example of our Lord.
460.

Did Jesus want the opinions of the scribes and rabbis? Why not?

461.

Show how Mal. 4:5 helped form the opinion of some.

462.

Show how the whole ministry of Christ appeared to them to stand in contradiction to their Messianic expectation?

463.

It was in the Son of man that they were to recognize the of .

464.

The confession of Peter sees in Jesus the Messiah but even morewhat was it?

465.

The confession of Peter had both a human and divine originexplain.

466.

How was Jesus going to demonstrate His Messiahship?

467.

It took two years to teach one great truthwhat was it? What was the second great truth to be taught in the next few months?

468.

What was the supreme purpose of His advent?

469.

Why choose the three classes mentioned in Mar. 8:31? Do we have their counterpart today? Discuss.

470.

What hurt Peter the mostthe words that Jesus would be killed or being called Satan? Discuss.

471.

Satan repeated his temptation to Jesus through the words of Peterexplain.

472.

Were there many who wanted to follow Him? Who? Why? How?

473.

Explain the strong meaning of deny himself.

474.

Discuss in your own words the meaning of the cross as here ascribed to every disciple.

475.

Even in spiritual matters he who would save his life shall lose itplease apply.

476.

Multitudes lose their livesdiscuss two or three areas where this loss takes placewith no gainonly loss!

477.

In what way do we save our life?

478.

Isnt the use of the word soul in Mar. 8:37 an unfortunate one?it has a wider use than the eternal nature of manDiscuss.

479.

How is the temptation to be ashamed overcome?

480.

What is the fundamental error in being ashamed?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(27-29) See Notes on Mat. 16:13-16.

The towns of Csarea Philippi.Better, villages.

He asked his disciples.The tense of the Greek verb implies that it was not a single question only, but a continued and, as it were, searching inquiry. The time was come to test the faith of the disciples thoroughly.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

73. THE APOSTOLIC INAUGURATION AT CESAREA PHILIPPI, Mar 8:27-30 ; Mat 16:13-21 .

27. And Jesus went out From Bethsaida. Towns of Cesarea The hamlets near the city. It does not appear that our Lord went into the city itself.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Disciples’ View of Jesus Is Revealed – Jesus Teaches His Disciples and Corrects Their Wrong Impressions – Three of Them Behold His Glory – And He Heals a Man Whom His Disciples Cannot Heal. The Disciples Are Receiving Gradual Illumination (8:27-9:32).

We have already seen how Mark has built up to this incident from chapter 7 onwards when the Pharisees had criticised Him, and especially that the disciples have been portrayed as deaf and blind, with the assurance that He will make them hear and will open their eyes so that at first they will see dimly, and then clearly. Now that will come to fulfilment, firstly in Peter’s confession, and then gradually in what follows.

In this passage Peter reveals that the disciples were still confident that Jesus was ‘the Messiah’, the unique Deliverer promised by God, although puzzled about what His intentions were, for the majority view in Galilee and Judaea was that when the Messiah came he would raise an army and drive out the Romans, after which he would establish the Jews in peace and plenty, and all by the power of God, which did not seem to be Jesus’ intention at all. But the variations in the expectations were in fact legion.

For the disciples’ view of Jesus’ Messiahship we can compare Joh 1:41; Joh 1:49 – but that was in initial enthusiasm. This was a more thought out position, even in the light of their inability to understand exactly what His intentions were. They had no doubt gone through periods of great mind searching and discussion, for He just did not seem to be behaving as men in general had expected the Messiah to behave. Peter is now probably expressing the view of all of them as discussed among themselves.

Then Jesus will begin to teach them what this signifies and how it affects them. They must learn what kind of Messiah He has come to be. So He begins to show them that He must die and rise again, and that, in the light of the resurrection, they too must be ready to suffer and die. After that He is transfigured before Peter, James and John, and His authority is revealed in the healing of a sad case which even His disciples could not deal with. This is meanwhile accompanied by teaching which lays stress on His coming suffering, followed by His resurrection. He is seeking to prepare them for what is coming in the light of their limitations.

The authenticity of this passage is brought out by a number of factors. Firstly by its identification with a specific and unusual and unexpected place (Caesarea Philippi), secondly by the fact that Jesus is not seen as actually confirming Peter’s confession (except by implication), thirdly by the stern and unprecedented forceful rebuke to Peter, and especially his being called Satan, almost aligning him with Judas, fourthly by the vivid and lifelike picture drawn of Peter’s error, and fifthly by its specific connection ‘after six days’ (Mar 9:2) with the incident that followed, when the dim sight revealed here becomes for at least three of them the bright light of certainty of men who see clearly. Such a time based connection is unusual for Mark and was clearly part of the tradition from the beginning. Had the event been an invention these factors would not have arisen.

This visit to Caesarea Philippi is often depicted as though it was a time when Jesus was alone with His disciples, but a careful reading of the narrative is against that idea, for it will be noted that the private conversations take place while they are ‘in the way’ between villages (Mar 8:27). But meanwhile ministry is taking place in the villages around Caesarea Philippi (Mar 8:27) and we learn of a large crowd whom He can call on to hear His words (Mar 8:34). They are very much rarely alone.

Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Messiah and His Subsequent Failure ( Mar 8:27-33 ).

While on the way between villages Jesus now challenges the disciples as to their present view of Him and Peter declares that they see Him as the coming Messiah. Jesus does not deny the title but immediately goes on to firmly reinterpret it in terms of the suffering Son of Man (Mar 8:31), Who will rise again and will one day come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels (Mar 8:38) having received Kingly Rule (Mar 9:1), a teaching backed up by the displaying of His glory on a high mountain (Mar 9:2-8). It is a startling revelation to which all that has gone before has been leading up. From now on there will be a new urgency to His teaching.

Analysis of 8:27-33.

a And Jesus went forth, and His disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and on the way He asked His disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?”. And they told Him, saying, “John the Baptist, and others, Elijah, but others, One of the prophets” (Mar 8:27-28).

b And He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” (Mar 8:29 a).

c Peter answers and says to Him, “You are the Christ” (Mar 8:29 b).

d And He charged them that they should tell no man of Him (Mar 8:30).

e And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mar 8:31).

d And He spoke the saying openly (Mar 8:32 a).

c And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him (Mar 8:32 b).

b But He turning about, and seeing His disciples, rebuked Peter (Mar 8:33 a).

a And He says, “Get you behind me, Satan, for you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men”(Mar 8:33 b).

Note that in ‘a’ the reply to Jesus question is of what men say, and in the parallel Peter is back on the same level with them and also regards only the things of men. In ‘b’ Jesus asks His disciples what they think of Him, and in the parallel notices that they have listened to Peter’s false ideas and therefore rebukes him publicly. In ‘c’ Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah (what he says is of God), and in the parallel Peter wrongly thinks that he can rebuke Him (what he says is of men). In ‘d’ Jesus charges His disciples to tell no one that He is the Messiah, and in the parallel He speaks openly about the Son of Man. Centrally in ‘e’ He teaches what must happen to Him as the Son of Man.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘And Jesus went out, and his disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and in the way he asked his disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?” And they told him saying, “John the Baptiser, and others Elijah. But others, one of the prophets.”

The group travelled northwards towards Caesarea Philippi, visiting the villages around. The proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God went on apace. Meanwhile Jesus took advantage of the time spent on the road to challenge His disciples, and to examine and clarify their thinking. He did this by means of a question concerning what men were saying about Him, always a good teaching approach. In view of what was soon coming it was important that they had some basic understanding of Who He was imprinted in their minds, and it had to be rightly interpreted. For similar questioning see Mar 4:13; Mar 4:40; Mar 7:18; Mar 8:17-18.

Their reply indicated that some saw Him as John the Baptiser risen from the dead (as Herod had previously), others saw Him as the coming Elijah (Mal 4:5), while still others saw Him as ‘one of the prophets’. Compare on this reply Mar 6:14-15. See also Mat 16:14. Matthew adds ‘Jeremiah’ to the list. Thus Jesus, presumably because of His miracles, was seen as a great ‘returning’ figure by many, and a prophet similar to the great prophets by others. The likeness to Elijah and Jeremiah may simply mean someone with the same qualities, although many certainly expected Elijah in person and the return of Jeremiah (and of Isaiah) is anticipated in extra-Biblical literature, in 2Es 2:18. It is significant that none saw Him as the Messiah or as the ‘prophet like Moses’ (Deu 18:15). For, although at times the question must have crossed their minds, He did not behave like they expected the Messiah to behave, .

‘The villages of Caesarea Philippi.’ Not the town itself but the villages in the surrounding area. This was in Herod Philip’s territory. It was Herod Philip who rebuilt Caesarea Philippi and dedicated it to the emperor, calling it Caesarea. The name Philippi was added to distinguish it from the main Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast from where Pilate governed Judaea. It was built at what was said to be the main source of the Jordan on the slopes of Mount Hermon. Nearby was a Temple of Augustus, built by Herod the Great, and an ancient shrine dedicated earlier to Baal and then to Pan, the god of nature, whom many claimed was born in a cavern there. Thus it was a centre of Emperor and Roma worship and of primitive nature religion. In a sense by coming to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God in their villages Jesus had come to challenge the dominion of these pagan gods, and it was highly appropriate that it was in this vicinity that Jesus should test what the disciples thought about Him.

‘In the way.’ A favourite expression of Mark denoting the period of travel between two places, periods which Jesus made full use of. Compare Mar 8:3; Mar 9:33-34; Mar 10:17; Mar 10:32.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Peter’s Great Confession at Caesarea Philippi ( Mat 16:13-20 , Luk 9:18-21 ) Mar 8:27-30 gives us the account of Peter’s great confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God at Caesarea Philippi. According to Luke’s Gospel, at this point in Jesus’ earthly ministry, He turns His face towards Jerusalem and Calvary and no longer focuses upon His public ministry to the multitudes. He now begins to predict His death on Calvary to His disciples. But in Mark’s Gospel Jesus continues to minister to the public.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Jesus the Christ and His Service.

A journey to the heathen country:

v. 27. And Jesus went out, and His disciples, into the towns of Caesarea-Philippi; and by the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?

v. 28. And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

Jesus now at last got the opportunity for which He had been waiting and planning for some time. His work was to instruct His disciples more fully in the essentials of their calling, for this preparation was sorely needed. Leaving Bethsaida-Julias, they traveled northward by easy stages, until they came into the vicinity, into the suburbs of Caesarea- Philippi. They were now in the province of Gaulanitis, or Auranitis, in which Philip was tetrarch. Caesarea was its capital. It had been built on the site of the former village Pallium, on the eastern slope of the Lebanon, near the source of the Jordan. Philip called the new city Caesarea, in honor of the emperor, but to distinguish it from the city of the same name on the western coast of Palestine, he added his own name as a distinguishing mark. The whole district was now known by this name. It was a beautiful and prosperous region, upon which the snow-covered peak of Hermon looked down. But the inhabitants were, for the most part, heathen. Jesus here had the leisure, as His little company slowly traveled along the highways, to impart to them some of the information which would later stand them in good stead. But He also took the opportunity to ask them questions concerning the knowledge they had gained, a method sure to be effective in the case of such a teacher. He asked them, in a preliminary way, what opinion the people, especially those of northern Palestine, of Galilee, and of the country west of the Jordan, had concerning Him. They answered Him according to the information they had. Many held the opinion that He was John the Baptist; others, that He was Elijah in a reincarnation; others, that He was one of the prophets. See chapter 6:14-15.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mar 8:27. Whom do men say that I am? See on Mat 16:13; Mat 16:28. It is remarkable, that the noble confession of St. Peter, recorded in St. Matthew, is suppressed here; which is a strong presumption that either St. Peter dictated this Gospel, or revised it, according to the ancient tradition.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mar 8:27-38 . See on Mat 16:13-27 . Comp. Luk 9:18-26 .

] from Bethsaida (Julias), Mar 8:22 .

. .] into the villages belonging to the region of Caesarea.

Mar 8:28 . With the reading (see the critical remarks), is to be supplied. Matthew was the more careful to insert the name of Jeremiah from the collection of Logia, because he wrote for Jews.

Mar 8:29 . Mark and Luke omit what Matthew relates in Mar 8:17-19 . Generally, Matthew is here fuller and more original in drawing from the collection of Logia. According to Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact (comp. Wetstein, Michaelis, and others), Mark has omitted it on purpose: . . . According to B. Bauer, the narrative of Matthew has only originated from the consciousness of the hierarchy. Both these views are arbitrary, and the latter rests on quite a groundless presupposition. As the remarkable saying of Jesus to Peter, even if it had been omitted in the collection of Logia (Holtzmann), cannot have been unknown to Mark and cannot have its place supplied by Mar 3:16 , it must be assumed that he purposely abstained from including it in this narrative, and that probably from some sort of consideration, which appeared to him necessary, for Gentile-Christian readers. [115] Thus he appears to have foregone its insertion from higher motives. To Luke, with his Paulinism, this passing over of the matter was welcome. The omission furnishes no argument against the Petrine derivation of our Gospel (in opposition to Baur, Markusevang. p. 133 f.), but it is doubtless irreconcilable with its subserving a special Petrine interest , such as is strongly urged by Hilgenfeld and Kstlin. Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 58 f. And to invoke the conception of a mediating Petrinism (see especially, Kstlin, p. 366 f.), is to enter on a field too vague and belonging to later times. Observe, moreover, that we have here as yet the simplest form of Peter’s confession. The confession itself has not now for the first time come to maturity, but it is a confirmation of the faith that has remained unchangeable from the beginning. Comp. on Mat 15:17 .

Mar 8:31 . [116] . . . . . ] Although these three form one corporation (the Sanhedrim), still each class is specially brought before us by repetition of the article, which is done with rhetorical solemnity .

.] after the lapse of three days . Comp. Mat 27:63 . More definitely, but ex eventu , Matt. and Luke have: , with which . . , according to the popular way of expression, is not at variance. See Krebs, Obs. p. 97 f.

Mar 8:32 . . . .] a significant feature introduced by Mark, with the view of suggesting a still more definite motive for Peter’s subsequent conduct: and openly (without reserve, frankly and freely) He spoke the word (Mar 8:31 ). stands opposed to speaking in mere hints, obscurely, figuratively (Joh 11:14 ; Joh 16:25 ; Joh 16:29 ).

. ] to make reproaches , namely, , Theophylact. But “Petrus dum increpat, increpationem meretur,” Bengel. Comp. , Mar 8:33 .

Mar 8:33 . ] when He had turned Himself towards him and beheld His disciples . The latter clause gives more definitely the reason for the stern outburst of the censure of Jesus; He could not but set an example to the disciples, whom He beheld as witnesses of the scene. Moreover, in there is a different conception from that of , Mat 16:23 .

Mar 8:34 . Jesus now makes a pause; for what He has to say now is to be said to all who follow Him. Hence He calls to Him the multitude that accompanies Him, etc. Mark alone has clearly this trait, by which the is expressly brought upon the scene also (Luke at Mar 9:23 relates after him, but with less clearness). Comp. Mar 7:14 . This is to be explained by the originality of the Gospel, not by the of Luk 9:23 (which de Wette thinks Mark misunderstood). Comp. Hilgenfeld, Markusevang. p. 61.

] quicunque , not at variance with the sense (Fritzsche), but as appropriate as .

.] both times in the same sense of discipleship. See, moreover, on Mat 10:38 .

Mar 8:35 . See on Mat 10:39 . . .] expression of self-sacrifice ; His own soul He spares not.

Mar 8:37 . (see the critical remarks) gives the reason for the negative sense of the previous question.

Mar 8:38 . ] proves from the law of the retribution, which Jesus will fully carry out, that no ransom can be given, etc. Whosoever shall have been ashamed to receive me and my doctrines of Him the Messiah shall also be ashamed (shall not receive him for His kingdom, as being unworthy) at the Parousia ! As to ., comp. on Rom 1:16 .

] see on Mat 12:39 . This bringing into prominence of the contrast with the Lord and His words, by means of , is only given here in the vivid delineation of Mark; and there is conveyed in it a deterrent power, namely, from making common cause with this by the denial of Christ. The comparison of Mat 12:39 ; Mat 16:4 , is not, on account of the very dissimilarity of the expressions, to be used either for or against the originality of Mark, against which, according to Weiss, also , Mar 8:35 (Matt.: , which Luke also has), is supposed to tell. Nevertheless, . , Mar 8:35 , is an addition of later tradition.

. . ] Bengel aptly says: “Nunc non ego , sed filius hominis , quae appellatio singularem cum adventu glorioso visibili nexum habet.” Comp. Mar 14:62 .

And as to this mighty decision, how soon shall it emerge! Mar 9:1 . What warning and encouragement in this promise!

[115] Beza, however, justly asks: “Quis crediderit, vel ipsum Petrum vel Marcum praeteriturum fuisse illud Tu es Petrus , si ecclesiae Christianae fundamentum in his verbis situm esse existimassent?”

[116] The view that Jesus Himself now for the first time clearly foresaw His death (Weizscker, p. 475; Keim, geschichtl. Chr. p. 45), conflicts, even apart from the narrative of John, with Mar 2:20 . Comp. on Mat 16:21 . Moreover, we cannot get rid of the mention of the Parousia, Mat 10:23 , and the interpretation of the sign of Jonah, Mat 12:39 f. (comp. on Luk 11:30 ).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

3. The Opinions of the People, and Peters Confession. Pre-announcement of His Sufferings. The Presumption of Peter. Christs Teaching concerning Cross-bearing. Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1

(Parallels: Mat 16:13-28; Luk 9:18-27)

27And Jesus went out and his disciples into the towns of Csarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? 28And they answered,14 John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the 29prophets. And he said unto them, 15 But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answer eth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. 30And he charged them that they should tell no man of [respecting] him. 31And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of [by] the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33But when he had turned about, and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest [mindest] not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. 34And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever 16 will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35For whosoever will save his life 17 shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospels, the same shall save it. 36For what shall 37it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what 18 shall a man give in exchange [as a ransom] for his soul? 38Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels.

1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

See on Matthew and Luke.In respect to time, this is another section which stands in strict internal connection with the preceding crises. There are some important peculiarities in Mark. Matthew mentions the district of Csarea Philippi, Mark the villages which surrounded it, as the first goal at which our Lord aimed; and the latter transfers the question to the way thither. Among the peoples thoughts and verdicts concerning Jesus, he omits the mention of Jeremiah. It is observable that he leaves out the benediction of Peter, and the special prerogative assigned to him after his confession. Luke also omits these, while Matthew details them all in full. Here, as elsewhere, Peter, Marks informant and voucher, omitted or kept in reserve points which tended to his own honor. On the other hand, Mark states prominently that the Lords prediction of His passion was part of the instruction which He openly gave; he also quotes the Saviours rebuking word to Peter, Satan, without any of the definite explanatory particulars which Matthew gives, and without Christs Thou art to Me a . Mark speaks of the people as also called by Jesus to hear the statement of the universal law of suffering in the kingdom of God. He alone has the emphatic word, that he who is ashamed of the Lord is ashamed of Him (in a disgraceful manner) in an adulterous and sinful generation. In conclusion, Mark represents the coming of Christ more expressly than the other two Evangelists as a coming in power (majesty); while Luke speaks of His kingdom, and Matthew of His appearing in that kingdom.

Mar 8:31. After three days.General and popular way of speaking, instead of on the third day, which afterwards is used as the more definite statement.

Mar 8:34. And when He had called the people unto Him.This scarcely requires us to understand great multitudes. But Christ makes the people who were present sharers in this part of His instruction, in order to impress it the more upon His disciples that the way of suffering was absolutely imperative, and in order to lay down the fundamental laws of self-denial and holy suffering in all their universality of application.

Mar 8:37. In exchange for: ransom-price.The is the counter-price antithetic to the price, . The price which the earthly-minded gives for the world, the , is his soul. But, after having laid that down as the price, what has he for an , to buy the soul back again?

Mar 9:1. There be some of them that stand here.See on Matthew.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See on the parallels of Matthew and Luke.

2. According to Mark, Jesus first called and collected the Twelve in the villages outside of Nazareth (Mar 6:6-7); then, in the villages of Csarea Philippi, again gathering them together and confirming them. Solitude and sequestered probation, a condition of establishment and confirmation in the spiritual office.

3. It is of great significance that Peter does not, in his own Gospel, once mention the word of Christ concerning his own personal priority among the Apostles, least of all as the institution of an official primacy.

4. So it is to be observed how strictly, according to Mark, the confession of Christ is conjoined with the announcement of His passion, and with the requirement of following Him in the way of the Cross.
5. Let him take up his cross.An obscure intimation of His own approaching suffering upon the cross, which, even in its general terms, gave a definite meaning. Let him hold himself ready to follow Me, regarded as the vilest malefactor, and exposed to the deepest shame and the most cruel death. The cross of Christ, as such, is not a kind of suffering which is the natural consequence of sin, but which crosses the views of an ideal or newly awakened higher life.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See on Matthew; and compare Lukes parallel.The question of Christ: Whom say the people that I am? a means of exciting a definite Christian consciousness, in opposition to the uncertain notions of the world.The answer of the disciples in all its significance: 1. No man says, and no man could say without madness, that Christ was nothing, or a person of no importance. 2. The scorners and slanderers of Christ are not regarded or alluded to. 3. The testimonies or opinions: a. John the Baptist (according to Herod, returned from the dead): thus Christianity was something ghostly and preternatural. b. Elias (in the sense of Malachi): thus they were not able to distinguish Elias from Christ. Christianity seemed to them as a power exerted after the manner of Elias; thus in a spiritual sense as something legal. c. One of the prophets: something indefinite, a spiritual power, which none could clearly understand.The question was not, what the people said concerning Christ, but what the Apostles said concerning Him.Christ could be preached as the Christ of all the world, only after the fulfilment of His passion as the Crucified and the Risen. The confession of His people was to the Lord no sign that He would escape from suffering, but a certain sign that He would suffer.What it means, that the Lord announces His sufferings to the disciples without any restraint: 1. In reference to Himself, 2. to the disciples, 3. to the world.Only after we have known the person of our Lord in His word and work, can we understand and bear the knowledge of Christs work in His passion.The true confession of Christ must be confirmed by a readiness to follow Him.The suffering of Christ is a divine sympathy: 1. As suffering through and for the world, it sprang from His sympathy with the world; 2. it establishes a divine sympathy in the world, as suffering on its own account and with Christ.Self-renunciation of the believer is the soul of the confession of Christ.The fundamentals of the Christian fellowship: I. Its fundamental laws: 1. The true denier (of himself) is the true confessor; 2. the true cross-bearer is the true knight of the cross; 3. the true follower (after Christ in obedience) is the true conqueror. II. Its grounds: 1. He who will save his life in self-seeking, shall lose it; he who loses it in devotion to Christ, shall gain it. 2. He who lays down his soul to win the world, loses with his soul the world also; he who has gained his soul, has with his soul gained the world also. 3. To seek honor in the world while ashamed of Christ, leads to infamy before the throne of Christ; but shame in the world leads to honor with Him. 4. Readiness to die with Christ leads through death to the day of eternal glory.It is in self-denial that we first find our true selves, recovering our personality again.True self-denial is the raising of our buried personality out of the grave of self-deceptions.The false and the true self.How shameful to be ashamed of Christ in an adulterous and sinful generation: 1. As the deification of a vanishing honor, which is eternal shame; 2. as the refusal of a vanishing shame, which is eternal honor.How Christ detects the thoughts of men in His communion.

Starke:Canstein:We may lawfully ask what others hold us for, if the question does not spring from pride, but from a desire to do ourselves or others good.Hedinger:It is not wrong to be jealous of ones public repute. But Christ remains ever what He is, despite all the various opinions concerning Him.Quesnel:The true knowledge of the secret mysteries of Christ is attained only by scholars of truth and light.Here is a catechetical lesson given by Christ Himself.All truths have a set time for their full revelation: we should be always careful that we do not prematurely speak, or anticipate that time, Ecc 3:7; we must suffer with willing heart, be rejected of the world, and be crucified with Christ, if we would be raised with Him, Rom 6:6-8.The ungodly can do nothing against us but what the wise decree of God has already determined.Bibl. Wirt.:Flesh and blood always look rather at external danger and damage, han at the solemnity and claims of the call (Rom 8:6-8; 1Jn 2:15-17; 1Pe 2:11; 1Pe 2:20-21; Gal 5:21.)You must not watch Christ, but follow Him; you must not boast about Him, but act like Him.Nova Bibl. Tub.:World gained, nothing gained; soul lost, all lost.The greatest good is not to be met with in the transitory world, nor in the debauchery of the flesh: he whose soul is united with God has found it.If thou art ashamed of Christ in His humble and lowly state, thou wilt have no part in His exalted and glorified state.To die before one has seen the kingdom of God, is a wretched end.

Braune:The kingdom of God is, in a certain sense, near at all times: there is no season when its beginnings are not manifest.Gerlach:(Peter), rash and impetuous, spoke only, as he was wont to do, in the name of all the rest.

Gossner:He who opposes himself to the cross of Christ and its doctrine, is a Satan, even though his name were Peter.In the kingdom of God, all the world is inverted.Losing is there called gaining, and gaining is there called losing.Bauer. on Mar 9:35 :The beginning towards eternal life.

Footnotes:

[14]Mar 8:28.According to B., C.*, D., L., A., [Vulgate, Itala,] Lachmann, and Tischendorf add . [Superfluous, and therefore more likely to be omitted than added. (Mayer.)]

[15]Mar 8:29. , instead of , after B., C., D., is the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, [and Mayer.]

[16]Ver.34.B., C.*, D., L., ., [Vulgate, Itala, Lachmann, Tischendorf,] read instead of A., B., Lachmann, Tischendorf have instead of .

[17]Mar 8:35. , Codd. A., D., Lachmann. ( , Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf.)

[18]Mar 8:37.Tischendorf, , instead of , after B., L., .; he also omits .

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(27) And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? (28) And they answered John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. (29) And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? and Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. (30) And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

We never can be sufficiently thankful to the LORD for putting this question to his disciples. Neither can we too highly prize that grace the LORD gave Peter in the answer. Oh! for the same divine teaching, whereby alone the knowledge he had is attainable. See Mat 16:13 , etc.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

II

SEASON OF RETIREMENT PART II WHO IS JESUS OF NAZARETH AND WHAT IS HIS MISSION?

Harmony, pages 89-92 and Mat 16:13-28 ; Mar 8:27-9:1 ; Luk 9:18-27 .

The scene of this discussion is Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part of Palestine. The historians are Matthew (Mat 16:13-28 ); Mark (Mar 8:27-28 ; Mar 9:1 ); and Luke (Luk 9:18-27 ). These records, being presented in parallel columns, sections 64 (Mat 16:13-20 ; Mar 8:27-30 ; Luk 9:18-21 ) and 65 (Mat 16:21-28 ; Mar 8:31-38 ; Mar 9:1 ; Luk 9:22-27 ), on pages 89-92 of the Harmony of the Gospels, it is quite easy to observe the peculiarities of each. Note three general observations: First, they exhibit the most remarkable independent testimony, each supplying entirely some detail omitted by the others, or adding somewhat to details given by them, not only without the slightest discrepancy, but so that all that each says may be incorporated into one perfectly congruous statement. Second, Mark, commonly called Peter’s gospel, modestly omits Christ’s high commendation of Peter, but is particularly careful to record Peter’s sin, the public rebuke of it, and the exhortation based on it; while Luke, commonly called Paul’s gospel, omits the sin of Peter, its rebuke and the connection between it and the exhortation. Third, Matthew writing for Jews, records particularly and elaborately the things most needed by them, to wit: the kind of faith necessary to salvation; the true foundation of the church; its indestructibleness; its high functions and authority; the necessity of the vicarious passion of Jesus; the certainty and glory and judgment of the second coming.

Now, combining a congruous statement of all the records, it is easy to fashion an outline for the whole. The following is submitted as that outline:

1. The great ministry in Galilee is ended forever.

2. To sum up and crystallize its results, and to rest somewhat before entering upon a final ministry elsewhere there is a season of retirement.

3. Having reached the place of retirement, a suburban village of Caesarea Philippi, our Lord separates himself from his immediate disciples and the attendant multitudes to seek God in prayer (Luk 9:18 ).

4. The object of that prayer, as inferred from the context, is that however variant the opinions of others concerning himself, his own disciples may have a God-revealed faith in his office and divinity, so that they may be able to receive clearer teaching concerning his vicarious passion by which his office becomes efficient in the salvation of men (Mat 16:17-21 ).

5. What men think of him and why.

6. What the disciples believed as expressed in Peter’s confession.

7. Our Lord’s wonderful response to this confession and the doctrines involved.

8. Clearer teaching concerning his passion.

9. Peter’s rebuke of Christ and Christ’s rebuke of Peter.

10. Terms of discipleship and why so hard (Mar 8:34-37 ).

11. A great danger and its antidote, the danger of being ashamed or afraid before the world, to confess Christ (Mar 8:38 ).

12. An assuring promise: That some of them should not taste of death until they saw Jesus coming in glory to judge the world (Mat 16:28 ).

It cannot reasonably be expected that I should discuss all this outline in one chapter. I can cover none of it elaborately except one capital point. But it is desirable to make an outline of all the salient points suggested by these remarkable incidents at Caesarea Philippi. Let it be impressed on the mind that the Galilean ministry is ended forever. For that great section, parable, and miracle are over forever. In his teaching capacity he has finally left Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. True, we will find him subsequently, passing through Galilee, but in hurry and silence. True, after his resurrection, he there, once more, meets with is own people and commissions them. But his own personal ministry to that lost people to those doomed cities is completely ended.

This ministry being finished, it becomes to Christ a very solemn question: What are its results? The people who heard him, who witnessed his miraculous deeds, were bound, by the very nature of the case, to propound each to himself and to others this question: Who is he? We need not be surprised that the answers to this question were widely variant. It requires no deep philosophy to understand why men, hearing the same things and looking upon the same facts, shall yet reach widely different conclusions from what they hear and see. The standpoint alone will account for the divergence. We may easily understand why Herod would suppose from what he had heard of Jesus that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead. He reasoned from the standpoint of an excited and guilty conscience, taking counsel of his fears. His superstitious apprehension of coming evil for his wrongdoing would lead him to put a construction upon Christ and his work that would not suggest itself to any other man. It is just as easy to understand how others familiar with the closing passages of the Old Testament, which predict the coming of Elijah before the great and notable day of the Lord, should surmise that this Jesus, working such wondrous deeds, was that Elijah. A widely prevalent tradition accounts also for the fact that yet others supposed he might be Jeremiah. The tradition was that Jeremiah, at the destruction of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, had hidden away in some secret place in the mountains, known only to himself, many of the sacred utensils of the Temple, and that at some time in the future he would return and show Israel the place of deposit of these precious relics. We see the same divergent opinions concerning Christ at the present time. Some say he is a good man; others that he is an impostor; others that his teaching concerning morality is perfect, but there is no reason to admit the claims of his divinity. Conscious in his own mind of the divergent conclusion concerning himself and his work, and having so faithfully instructed his immediate disciples, and intending now to call forth a definite expression from them, we can see an occasion for his prayer. While we may not dogmatize, it would seem that he would pray after this manner: “O Father, the world does not understand me and my mission. But here is a particular group that I have called out from the others to be with me and to hear thy word. They have witnessed more than the others. They have been near to me; O Father, grant that these, my disciples, at least, may have a God-revealed faith in me as the Messiah.” That his prayer was somewhat in this direction may perhaps be inferred from the exultation manifested by him on Peter’s avowal. Anyhow, immediately after his prayer comes first the question calling out the popular verdict, and then the emphatic question, “Who say ye that I am?” Very naturally Peter speaks for the others. We have had reason already to observe the readiness with which he takes the lead. Mark the principal elements in his answer: “Thou art the Christ,” recognizing his office; “the Son,” recognizing his divinity; “of the living God,” sharply drawing a distinction between the real God and the dead and dumb deities of the heathen world.

In considering Christ’s response let us take up each word. “Simon” means a hearer. “Peter” means a rock, “Barjona” means the son of Jona, or, according to the best Greek text, the son of John. This answer of Christ to Peter gives us a clue to the true faith: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven.” Many other passages of Scripture might be cited to show that evangelical faith is not an intellectual perception of the truth of a proposition, but that it is a product of the divine Spirit, as is expressed in the beginning of John’s Gospel: “To as many as received him, even to them that believed on his name, he gave the power to become the sons of God, who were born, not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Let the reader, therefore, especially note the nature of the true faith. It might be asked just here if this was the first time that there had been among his disciples a recognition of his messiahship. We have twice already found in the ground over which we have passed, some recognition on the part of his disciples of Christ as the Messiah. Now there has been clearer teaching, and the statement, under the present conditions, that he is the Messiah, shows a great advance in the nature of their faith.

We come now to consider perhaps the most remarkable passage in the New Testament: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whosoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whosoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Here almost every word calls for explanation and occasions controversy. Who or what is the “rock” upon which the church is founded? In what sense is the term “church” used? What is the import of Hades and what signifies, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? What signify the “keys of the kingdom,” and the binding and loosing power?

The first thought that I would impress upon the mind is that Christ alone founded his church. I mean that the church was established in the days of his sojourn in the flesh; that the work of its construction commenced with the reception of the material prepared by John the Baptist. That organization commenced with the appointment of the twelve apostles, and that by the close of his earthly ministry there existed at least one church as a model, the church at Jerusalem.

We find in the history immediately succeeding the Gospel account that this church at Jerusalem began to transact business by the election of a successor to Judas; that they were all assembled together in one place for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and that to them were added daily the saved. Hence, we are prepared to ask: On what did Christ found his church? What is the rock?

After mature deliberation and careful examination of all the opposing views, and after a thorough study of the Word of God, it is clear to my mind that the rock primarily and mainly is Christ himself.

If it seems to violate the figure that he, the builder, should build upon himself, the violation is no more marked here than in the famous passage in John where he gives the bread to the disciples and that “bread of life” is himself. I would have the reader note the scriptural foundation upon which I rest my conclusion that the rock is Christ. The first argument is from prophecy:

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste” (Isa 28:16 ).

This prophetic scripture clearly declared God’s purpose to lay in Zion a foundation, a stone foundation, one that was to be tried, that was assured, a foundation on which faith should rest, without haste or shame.

We next cite Psa 118:22 : “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing. It is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it.” In fulfilment of these prophecies we cite first the testimony of Peter, unto whom the language of our passage was spoken: “To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient the stone which the builders disallowed the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed” (1Pe 2:4-8 ).

The spiritual house of which Peter here speaks is unquestionably the church. The foundation upon which that church as a building must rest, is unquestionably our Lord Jesus Christ himself. He claims this as a fulfilment of the prophecies which have been cited. Our Lord’s own words in another connection (Mat 21:42 ), claim the same fulfilment: “The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.” With any other construction it would be impossible to understand Paul’s statement (1Co 3:11-17 ): “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

Here again the church is compared to a building. The foundation of that building is distinctly said to be Christ. It is also worthy of note that any other foundation for the church than Christ himself would be wholly out of harmony with the Old Testament concept, as given by Moses, Samuel, David, and Isaiah, and Paul’s New Testament comment in the following passages, which the reader will please note and examine carefully for himself: Deu 32:4 ; Deu 32:15 ; Deu 32:31 ; 1Sa 2:2 ; 2Sa 22:2 ; 2Sa 22:32 ; Psa 18:2 ; Psa 18:31 ; Psa 61:2 ; Psa 89:26 ; Psa 92:15 ; Psa 95:1 ; and Isa 17:10 ; 1Co 10:4 . Do not understand me to affirm that all these passages refer to God as a foundation. The thought is that the Bible concept regards God as the rock of his people under every variety of image, and so uniformly that to make a mortal and fallible man that rock on the doubtful strength of one disputed passage, which may easily and naturally be construed in harmony with the others, does violence to the rule of the faith as well as to the usage of the term.

In a secondary sense, indeed, other things may be called the foundation and are so called, but all these senses support the view that Christ is the rock, primarily and mainly. By examining and comparing Isa 8:14 ; Luk 2:34 ; Rom 9:33 ; 1Pe 2:8 ; Luk 20:18 , we may easily see how the faith which takes hold of Christ may be compared to a foundation. This accounts for the fact that many of the early fathers of the church understood the rock in this passage to be Peter’s faith in Christ, and also explains how others of the fathers understood the foundation of the church to be Peter’s confession of that faith. The great majority of Protestant scholars regard the confession of faith as the rock, and it is a notable fact that Baptists particularly make this confession or its equivalent a term of admission into the church. Indeed, in a certain sense, both the faith and the confession may be regarded as the foundation of the church. From Eph 2:20-22 and Rev 21:14 , we see that the apostles are called the foundation. But it is only because they teach Christ. They are but instruments in leading souls to Christ, and are not the true foundation. By so much as Peter was more prominent than the others, in this sense the church may be gaid to be founded on Peter. The scriptural proof of Peter’s prominence is very clear. Though not the first apostle chosen, his name heads all the recorded lists of the twelve (Mat 10:2 Mar 3:16 ; Luk 6:14 ; Act 1:13 ). He also leads the movement in filling the place of Judas (Act 1:15 ). He opens the door to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:14 ). And he is selected to open the door to the Gentiles (Act 10 ; Act 15:7 ). By noting carefully Heb 6:1-2 , we see that the primary or fundamental doctrines concerning Christ may well be called a foundation, and at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, obedience to Christ is compared to building a house on a rock (Mat 7:24 ), but all these secondary senses derive their significance from their connection with Christ, the primary and real foundation.

Inasmuch as there are in the world at least 200,000,000 nominal professors of the Romanist faith, constituting over half of Christendom, and as all of these regard Peter as the rock upon which the church was founded, and as they deduce most tremendous and portentous consequences from this interpretation, I think it well to carefully examine this Romanist faith I would not, however, have the reader derive his views of Romanist doctrine from any other sources than those regarded as authoritative by themselves. A natural inquiry of the mind would be, “On what scripture do Papists rely for proof of Peter’s primacy”? Only three passages of Scripture are cited by them: Mat 16:18-19 ; Joh 21:15-17 ; Luk 22:31-32 These are called the “rock-argument,” the “keysargument” the “shepherd-argument,” and the “confirmerargument.” I” connection with our text, which is the main one cited “Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church ” they construe Joh 1:42 , where Christ promises that Simon shall be called Cephas, a stone. When they speak of the powers indicated by the keys as conferred upon Peter, they understand that government and Jurisdiction are among those powers, in proof of which they usually cite Isa 22:22 ; Rev 3:7 ; Job 12:14 ; Isa 9:6 ; from which they claim that if putting the key upon the shoulder of Jesus implied government, surely it meant as much when applied to Peter; and they interpret the historical usage of giving up the keys of a walled city or fortress to a conqueror, as signifying that the control of that city or fortress is thereby publicly ceded, and that to the one to whom these keys are presented is the province of receiving or excluding.

In the same way they derive the thought of jurisdiction from the shepherd argument, by construing it with 2Sa 5:2 ; Psa 78:71-72 ; Eze 34:1-23 ; Jer 3:15 ; Jer 3:23 ; Nah 3:18 ; Isa 40:11 ; Mic 7:14 ; Joh 10:1-18 ; 1Pe 2:25 ; 1Pe 5:4 ; Act 20:28 . Whoever is able to meet these four arguments, the rock, the keys, the shepherd, the confirmer, is able to answer the whole of the papal system.

On these three scriptures they predicate the stupendous doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, signifying that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses authority and jurisdiction in things spiritual over the entire church, so as to become the visible head and the vicar or viceregent of Christ on earth; that, as the universal shepherd, he is the center of unity, with whom all the flock must be in communion or be guilty of schism; that he is the fountain of authority, all subordinate rulers in the church being subject to him, and deriving their limited jurisdiction from him; that all the executive power of the universal church is vested in him. He confirms in the faith; he oversees all; he corrects all; he corrects abuses; he maintains discipline; he possesses all inquisitorial power necessary to evil, and all authority to subdue or excommunicate the refractory. He is infallible in all utterances concerning faith and morals, being God’s mouthpiece, and his decrees thereon are absolute and final, being God’s viceregent.

It is necessary for me to cite the authentic Romanish authyroids from which this monstrous doctrine is gathered. I cite: (1) the profession of the Tridentine faith, which says, “I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.” The Council of Trent met in the Tyrol near the middle of the sixteenth century, lasting off and on for about eighteen years. The language which I have quoted is not a part of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, but it is from the profession of the Tridentine faith, issued by the Pope, and to which all Catholics must subscribe. The date of it is 1564. The second authoritative source is the dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council held in 1870, which declare the following propositions:

1. That our Lord Jesus Christ himself instituted the apostolic primacy at Caesarea Philippi, by setting Peter as prince and chief over the rest of the apostles, and making him, as God’s vicar, or viceregent, the visible head of the universal church, which becomes indestructible because founded on Peter, thereby constituting him the center of all ecclesiastical unity and fountain of all directly, in his single person, with supreme jurisdiction over preachers and church. The council expressly denies that this supreme jurisdiction was conferred upon the twelve apostles originally and reached Peter through them, or as one of them, and expressly denies that it was conferred on the church originally and on Peter through the church, but by a variety of expressions set forth the claim that his jurisdiction was direct, immediate, single, original, personal, centripetal, supreme, and, by being transmissible to his successor, perpetual, thus putting him alone in the place of God to all the rest of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, to the end of time, and anathematizes all who deny the claim. This declaration of the institution of the papacy, as I have just said, and as this council expressly declares, is based upon the rock, keys, and shepherd arguments, drawn from Mat 16:18-19 , and Joh 21:15-17 .

2. The second declaration purports to show how this power of Peter was transmitted to his successor as the Bishop of Rome. They declare that Peter founded the church at Rome; became its first bishop, constituted this bishopric the Holy See, and that to this day Peter lives, presides, and judges in his successors in that bishopric, so that whoever obtains the office of Bishop of Rome does by the institution of Christ receive the entailed supremacy conferred on Peter over the whole church. This declaration closes with this clause: “If then any should deny that this be the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the supremacy over the universal church, or that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.”

3. Their next declaration relates to the nature and extent of this power. Let us quote: “Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman church possesses a priority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power or jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate, to which all, of whatever right or dignity, both pastors and people, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”

The council makes him the supreme judge of the faith, and further declares that recourse may be had to his tribunal in all questions, the discussion of which belongs to the church, and that none may reopen his judgment, nor can any review his judgment. There is no greater authority than his. His office is not merely of inspection and direction, but of full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church. His power is not mediate and extraordinary, but immediate and ordinary over each and all the churches, over each and all the pastors. Whoever denies it, let him be anathema.

4. Their fourth declaration is concerning infallibility. Citing one proof text only, “I have prayer for thee that thy faith fail not” (Luk 22:3 ). The council declares that this See of Holy Peter remains ever free from any blemish of error, and as through Christ’s prayer Peter’s faith failed not, so his. inerrancy of teaching is transmitted to his successors. Therefore, quoting their precise language: “It is a dogma, divinely revealed: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith of morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one which may God avert presume to contradict this, our definition: let him be anathema.”

It seems an incalculable thing, an inexplicable thing, that in the latter part of the nineteenth century such a quadruple declaration could be made by the distinguished and educated leaders of any form of religion. We may well inquire just here what proof is necessary to support these stupendous claims. This much proof is absolutely necessary: (1) Scriptural proof that the supreme and absolute power here claimed was conferred on Peter himself. (2) Scriptural proof that it was transmissible and actually transmitted. (3) Scriptural proof that the method of transmission was through a local pastorate. (4) Scriptural proof that the See of Rome was constituted that pastorate.

In his lectures on the church Cardinal Wiseman seems to consider himself able to furnish abundant proof, if not just this proof. The limits of this discussion admit only a suggestion of some things in reply: (1) All the apostles were declared to be a foundation of the church (Eph 2:19-22 ; Rev 21:14 ). (2) All the apostles had the same binding and loosing power (Joh 20:23 ; 3Jn 1:10 ). So also had Paul (1Co 5:3-5 ; 2Co 2:6-10 ; 2Co 13:2 ; 2Co 13:10 ). (3) So had every local church (Mat 18:18 ; 2Co 2:10 ). (4) For preserving unity and averting schism all the apostles and others were appointed and no human headship hinted at (1Co 12:25-30 ; Eph 4:11-16 ). (5) A short time after our Lord used the words, “Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church,” cited as indubitable proof by Papists of the institution of the office of Pope, none of the disciples knew who was to be the greatest, and our Lord, in reply to their question, was careful not to say that he had just given that office to Peter (Mat 18:1-4 ). Indeed he seems to deny that he had given it to any one (Mar 9:38-39 ). If the Papist claim, that the office of Pope was established in Peter at Caesarea Philippi, as recorded in Mat 16 , is correct, this incident a short time after recorded in Mat 18 , is inexplicable. (6) On a still later occasion we find the question of priority still unsettled. How else account for the fact that James and John, sons of Zebedee, through their mother, asked for the highest places in the kingdom? Why did not Jesus, in answering this request, reply that he had already given the highest place to Peter? Why did he expressly declare that none of them should exercise authority over the others, and that there should be no greatness and no primacy but in humility and service? (See Mat 20:20-28 ; Mar 10:35-45 .)

On a yet later occasion, up to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, we find the question still unsettled (Luk 22:24-40 ). And again it is declared that there shall be no primacy of authority and jurisdiction, but all are put on an equality, each occupying a throne. On still another occasion we have these words: “One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ.”

Now as the word “Pope” means father, this language is equivalent to saying, “And call no man your Pope on earth, for one is your Pope, which is in heaven.”

When we examine the history of the apostles, as recorded in Acts, and the references to apostolic authority cited in the letters, we find every reason to suppose that such supreme and absolute authority had not been conferred upon Peter. Take, as an example, the case of Samaria, as recorded in Act 8:14 . When the apostles heard that the Samaritans had received the word, it is not Peter who sends the others, but it is the others who send Peter. And even in the case of Cornelius, where Peter was specially empowered by divine authority for opening the door to the Gentiles, we find that he was held to an account for his action by the others (Act 11:1-18 ).

Again in the great consultation on a question of salvation, as recorded in Act 15 , there it not only no indication that Peter exercised Papal functions, but it is evident that the sentence was framed by James and not Peter, and that it was sent out in the name of all the apostles and the church. In Gal 2:11-12 , we find a proof of Peter’s deference to James, the half brother of our Lord, utterly inconsistent with the papal office. And the scriptural proof is overwhelming that there was no subordination of Paul to Peter. That Peter was not the fountain of authority to Paul. He did not derive his gospel from Peter. He withstood Peter to his face when Peter was in error. But examine particularly the following scriptures; 1Co 9:1-5 ; 2Co 10:8-15 ; 2Co 9:5-15 ; Gal 1:11-12 ; Gal 1:17 ; Gal 2:6-14 .

Another observation in this connection will be regarded as just. There is abundant New Testament proof of Paul’s presence and work in Rome, but not a hint in that Holy Book about Peter’s ever being there. It is equally true that Paul’s argument in 1Co 1:12 ; 1Co 3:4-23 , is adverse to the papal claim. But what is more remarkable still, Peter himself not only never claimed such authority, but exhorts against its exercise (1Pe 5:1-4 ).

We may add this pertinent fact: Inasmuch as Peter died be-fore John (that is, as John was the last surviving apostle), if Peter’s succession in the papal authority was transmitted through his pastorate at Rome to his successor, that uninspired successor would become the fountain of authority for the apostle John, yet alive, and John, who derived his authority directly from the Lord, would be under the absolute jurisdiction of one who had never known the Lord in the flesh, nor received authority from him.

The true history of that Vatican Council would make interesting reading. It was a secret conclave. Its program was dictated by the Pope. It was neither free nor ecumenical. The awful subordination of intelligent human conscience to such a dictum, and the horror it excited in the minds of even true and long-tested papists, may be gathered largely from a speech of the late Archbishop Kenrick, prepared to be delivered before this council, in which he sets forth some views very little different from those I have advocated as to the rock being Christ, and to the utter insufficiency of any scriptural proof for the papist claim, based on any of the other passages. It may be well to cite a few statements from this famous speech of Archbishop Kenrick. After combating the papal argument based on the several scriptures which have been cited, Archbishop Kenrick says:

The natural and primary foundation, so to speak, of the church, is Christ, whether we consider his person, or faith in his divine nature. The architectural foundation, that laid by Christ, is the twelve apostles, among whom Peter is eminent by virtue of the primacy. In this way we reconcile those passages of the fathers, which understand Him on this occasion (as in the instance related in Joh 6 , after the discourse of Christ in the synagogue of Capernaum), to have answer-ed in the name of all the apostles, to a question addressed to them all in common; and in behalf of all to have received the reward of confession.. In this explanation of the word rock, the primacy of Peter is guarded as the primary ministerial foundation; and the fitness of the words of Paul and John is guarded, when they call the apostles by the common title of the foundation; and the truth of the expression used with such emphasis by Paul is guarded: “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, even Christ Jesus” (1Co 3:2 ); and the adversaries of the faith are disarmed of the weapon which they have so effectively wielded against us, when they say that the Catholics believe the church to be built, not on Christ, but on a mortal man.

Again referring to the fallacy of the usual modern Romanist interpretation of Luk 22:31-32 , he cites his own “Observations,” from which we extract the following paragraph:

Neither is there any more value as a proof of papal inerrancy in those words of Christ to Peter (Luk 22:31-32 ), in which the advocates of this opinion think to find their main argument. Considering the connection in which Christ uttered them, and the words which he proceeded to address to all the apostles, it does not appear that any gift pertaining to the government of the church as then granted or promised to Peter, much less that the gift of inerrancy in Christ’s prayer for him that his faith might not fail that is, that he might not wholly or forever lose that trust by which thus far he had clung to Christ. The words of Christ, then, are to be understood, not of faith as a body of doctrine, in which sense it is never used by our Lord.

In another part of the speech he says: “I believe that the proofs of the Catholic faith are to be sought rather in tradition than in the interpretation of the scriptures.” And again,

We have in the Holy Scriptures perfectly clear testimony of a commission given to all the apostles, and of ths divine assistance promised to all. These passages are clear, and admit no variation of meaning. We have not even one single passage of scripture, the meaning of which is undisputed, in which anything of the kind is promised to Peter separately from the rest. And yet the authors of the Schema want us to assert that to the Roman pontiff, as Peter’s successor, is given that power which cannot be proved by any clear evidence of Holy Scripture to have been given to Peter himself, except just so far as he received it in common with the other apostles; and which, being claimed for him separately from the rest, it would follow that the divine assistance promised to them was to be communicated only through him, although it is clear from the passages cited that it was promised to him only in the same manner and in the same terms as to all the others. I admit, indeed, that a great privilege was granted to Peter above the rest; but I am led to this conviction by the testimony, not of the Scriptures, but of all Christian antiquity.

Yet again he says, with reference to the proposed declaration of infallibility:

I boldly declare that that opinion, as it lies in the Schema, is not a doctrine of faith, and that it cannot become such by any definition whatsoever, even by the definition of a council. We are the keepers of the faith committed to us, not its masters.

God only is infallible. Of the church, the most that we can assert is, that it does not err in teaching the doctrines of faith which Christ has committed to its charge; because the gates of hell are not to prevail against it. Therefore, infallibly, absolute and complete, cannot be predicated of it; and perhaps it would be better to refrain from using that word, and use the word “inerrancy” instead.

What need would there be to a Pope who accepted this notion, of the counsel of his brethren, the opinions of theologians, the investigations of the documents of the church? Believing himself to be immediately led by the divine Spirit, and that this Spirit is communicated through him to the church, there would be nothing to hold him back from pressing on in a course on which he had once entered.

At the close of his speech, arguing against undue haste, and meeting the objection of the Archbishop of Dublin that an examination into the facts would last too long, in that it would reach to the day of Judgment, he says,

If this be so, it were better to refrain from making any definition at all, than to frame one prematurely. But it is said the honor and authority of the Holy See demand a definition, nor can it be deferred without injury to both. I answer in the words of Jerome, substituting another word for the well-known word auctoritas: Major est calus orbis quam urbis. [“It is better to save the world than the city.”] I have done.

Let the reader understand that the authoritative pronunciamento of papal infallibility issued by the Vatican Council in July. 1870. is retroactive. It means that every ex-cathedra utterance of every Pope of the past ages is infallible and irreformable. As this decree of infallibility is retroactive, I will illustrate its awful significance by citing only four things out of many thousands:

1. In 1320, Pope Boniface VIII issued ex-cathedra a bull, entitled Unum Sanctum, which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope what is called the “double sword”; i.e., the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian world, and the power to depose princes and absolve subjects from their oaths of allegiance. If we would know whether this power has ever been exercised we should ask history to tell us what Pope Paul III did for Henry VIII; Pius V for Queen Elizabeth; how Henry IV of Germany on demand of the Pope went to Canossa, and there barefooted and clad in a hair shirt, waited in penitence, for days, in an outer court, until Pope Gregory VII condescended to receive and absolve him; how Pope Innocent III treated Raymond VI of Toulouse; and others too numerous to mention. Connect all this with the papal declaration that the Popes have never exceeded their powers.

2. In September, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued the bull called Unigenitus, which condemns 101 sentences in a book of the Jansenist, Pasquier Quesnel. Among the sentences condemned are some that assert the total depravity of fallen human nature, others the renewing power of the free grace of God in Christ, but particularly some that assert the right and duty of all Christians to read the Bible for themselves. In the bull of condemnation the following terms are indiscriminately employed to describe the condemned sentences: “False, captious, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, rash, injurious, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy and savoring of heresy itself, near akin to heresy, several times condemned, and manifestly renewing various heresies, particularly those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansenius.”

I will cite now the condemned sentences that assert the right and duty of the people to read the Bible, and that there may be no mistake I give them in both Latin and English, retaining the original number of each condemned proposition:

(79). Utile et necessarum est ornni tempore, omni loco, et omni personarum generi, studere et cognoscere spiritum, pietatem et mystheria sacrae Scripturae. (80). Lectio sacrae Scripturae est pro omnibus. (81). Obscuritasi sancti verbi Dei non est Jaicis ratio dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione. (82). Dies Dommicus a Christianis debet sanctificari lectionibus pietatiset super omnia sanctarum Scripturarum. (83). Damnosum est, velle Christianum ad hac lectione retrahere. (84). Abripere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum seu eis illud clausum tener auferendo eis modum istud intelligendi, est illish Christi os obturare. (85). Interdicere Christianis lectioneum sacrae Scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filis lucis et facere, ut uatiantur speciem quamdam excommunicationis.

As I know of no English version of Quesnel’s book, I submit a reasonably accurate translation of the foregoing Latin propositions:

(79). It is useful and necessary at all times, in every place, for all sorts of people, to study and investigate the spirit, piety, and mysteries of the Holy Scriptures. (80). The reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. (81). The obscurity of the Holy Word of God is not a reason why laymen should excuse themselves from reading it. (82). The Lord’s day ought to be hallowed by Christians by readings of piety, and, above all, of the Holy Scripture. (83). It is injurious to wish that a Christian draw back from that reading. (84). To snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed to them by taking away from them this manner of understanding it, is to close to them the mouth of Christ. (85). To forbid to Christians the reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially the Four Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a certain kind of excommunication.

Let the reader fix the solemn and awful fact in his mind matized by a so-called infallible Pope, claiming to be God’s viceregent, and delivering himself ex-cathedra in a sentence of condemnation which) according to the Vatican Council, is irreformable.

3. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX, issued ex-cathedra, the bull entitled Ineffabilis Deus , declaring it to be a divinely revealed fact and dogma, which must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful on pain of excommunication, “that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.” The reader will understand that this Romanist dogma of “the immaculate conception” has no reference to our Lord’s immaculate conception referred to in Luk 1:35 , but to Mary’s own conception and birth, concerning which the Scriptures are entirely silent. And to further show what is meant by this unscriptural and antiscriptural dogma, I now cite a paragraph of an encyclical letter, dated February 2, 1849, and sent out to the world by Pope Pius IX:

You know full well, venerable brethren, that the whole ground of our confidence is placed in the most holy Virgin henceforth, if there be in us any hope, if there be any grace, if there be any salvation, we must receive it solely from her, according to the will of Him who would have us possess all through Mary.

4. On December 8, 1864, Pope Pius IX, issued another encyclical letter, entitled Quanta Cura, and a Syllabus of Errors which he anathematized. It was this Syllabus that roused Mr. Gladstone to issue his pamphlet entitled “Vaticanism.”

As an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI, in 1831, condemned the liberty of the press, so this encyclical letter, together with the Syllabus condemns liberty of conscience and worship, liberty of speech, free schools under secular control, the authority of the state to define the civil rights of the church, the binding force of any marriage not performed by Romanist authority, the right of a state called Catholic to tolerate any religion but the papal system. Not only are these and many like things condemned, but there are affirmed: The union of church and state, provided it be the Romanist church only; the right of the Romanist church to employ force. Those also are condemned who hold that Roman pontiffs have ever transgressed the limits of their lawful power. Hence I say that these four things, to wit: The bull Unum Sanctum, 1320; the bull Unigenitus, 1713; the bull Ineffabilis Deus, 1854; the Syllabus of Errors, 1864, serve as well as a thousand things to show what papal infallibility, decreed in 1870, means and involves. The dogma certainly places any Pope, however ignorant or immoral, in the place of God to the whole world, and substitutes a sinful and fallible woman for the immaculate Son of God.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the scene and who are the historians of the great confession of Peter at Philippi?

2. What three general observations on these accounts?

3. Give the outline submitted for the whole of sections 64-65.

4. What question arose in the minds of the people from Christ’ Galilean ministry?

5. What were the various answers and how do you account for the divergent answers to this question? Illustrate each.

6. What, probably, was our Lord’s prayer on this occasion, and what occasion, what Peter’s answer and what elements of his answer?

7. What was our Lord’s question addressed to the disciples on the meaning of the terms used?

8. What was Christ’s response to Peter’s answer and what is the inference to this effect?

9. What does Christ’s answer to Peter reveal and what other pas sages show the same thing?

10. Indicate the beginning and growth of the disciples’ faith in bin as the Messiah up to this time.

11. What important questions arise from this passage?

12. Who founded the church and when?

13. Upon what did Christ found his church and what is the scriptural proof?

14. What is the import of Deu 32:4 ; Deu 32:15 ; Deu 32:31 ; 1Sa 2:2 ; 2Sa 22:2 ; 2Sa 22:32 ; Psa 18:2 ; Psa 18:31 ; Psa 61:2 ; Psa 89:26 ; Psa 92:15 ; Psa 95:1 ; Isa 7:10 ; and 1Co 10:4 ?

15. How may faith in Christ be the foundation also? Proof.

16. What do the majority of Protestant scholars regard as the “rock'” here and in what sense is it true?

17. In what sense are the apostles the foundation and what is the scriptural proof?

18. In what sense may the church be founded on Peter?

19. What is the doctrinal foundation? Proof.

20. What is the Roman Catholic position on this question and on what scriptures do they rely to prove it?

21. What are the names of their various arguments? Explain each.

22. What is the resultant jurisdiction of the Pope?

23. What have the Romanist authorities cited here?

24. What four propositions of the Vatican Council? Explain each.

25. What proof is necessary to support these stupendous claims?

26. What was the author’s reply to Cardinal Wiseman’s contention?

27. Give a summary of Bishop Kenrick’s speech combating the papal argument.

28. What was the nature of the pronunciamento of the Vatican Council in 1870?

29. How does the author illustrate its awful significance?

30. What is the sum total of such dogma?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?

Ver. 27. See Trapp on “ Mat 16:13 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

27 30. ] CONFESSION OF PETER. Mat 16:13-20 . Luk 9:18-21 . With the exception of the introduction in Luke, which describes the Lord to have been alone praying, and joined by his disciples , and the omission of the praise of and promise to Peter by both Mark and Luke, the three are in exact accordance. On this latter omission no stress must therefore be laid as to the character of Mark’s Gospel , as has been done. (Thl. in 1. cited by De W.)

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mar 8:27 . : the connects very loosely with what goes before, but presumably refers to Bethsaida. They leave it and go northwards towards Caesarea Philippi, up the Jordan valley, a distance of some twenty-five or thirty miles. : that Jesus is here expressly named is a hint that something very important is to be narrated, and the mention of the disciples along with Him indicates that it closely concerns them. . . ., to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, not to Caesarea Philippi itself. Mt. has . Apparently they did not enter the city itself. Jesus seems to have avoided the towns in which the Herodian passion for ambitious architecture was displayed. Besides at this time He desired solitude. , on the way, probably when the city of Caesarea Philippi came into view. Vide on Mat 16:13 . But conversation leading up to the critical subject might begin as soon as they had got clear of Bethsaida. No time to be lost now that the Master had got the Twelve by themselves. Or was the Master, very silent on that journey, preparing His own mind for what was coming? , imperfect, because subordinate to the reply of the disciples, the main thing. , etc.: on the form of the question vide on Mat 16:13 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1 . At Caesarea Philippi (Mat 16:13-28 , Luk 9:18-27 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mark

CHRIST’S CROSS, AND OURS

Mar 8:27 – Mar 9:1 .

Our Lord led His disciples away from familiar ground into the comparative seclusion of the country round Caesarea Philippi, in order to tell them plainly of His death. He knew how terrible the announcement would be, and He desired to make it in some quiet spot, where there would be collectedness and leisure to let it sink into their minds. His consummate wisdom and perfect tenderness are equally and beautifully shown in His manner of disclosing the truth which would try their faithfulness and fortitude. From the beginning He had given hints, gradually increasing in clearness; and now the time had come for full disclosure. What a journey that was! He, with the heavy secret filling His thoughts; they, dimly aware of something absorbing Him, in which they had no part. And at last, ‘in the way,’ as if moved by some sudden impulse-like that which we all know, leading us to speak out abruptly what we have long waited to say-He gives them a share in the burden of His thought. But, even then, note how He leads up to it by degrees. This passage has the announcement of the Cross as its centre, prepared for, on the one hand, by a question, and followed, on the other, by a warning that His followers must travel the same road.

I. Note the preparation for the announcement of the Cross Mar 8:27 – Mar 8:30.

Why did Christ begin by asking about the popular judgment of His personality? Apparently in order to bring clearly home to the disciples that, as far as the masses were concerned, His work and theirs had failed, and had, for net result, total misconception. Who that had the faintest glimmer of what He was could suppose that the stern, fiery spirits of Elijah or John had come to life again in Him? The second question, ‘But whom say ye that I am?’ with its sharp transition, is meant to force home the conviction of the gulf between His disciples and the whole nation. He would have them feel their isolation, and face the fact that they stood alone in their faith; and He would test them whether, knowing that they did stand alone, they had courage and tenacity to re-assert it. The unpopularity of a belief drives away cowards, and draws the brave and true. If none else believed in Him, that was an additional reason for loving hearts to cleave to Him; and those only truly know and love Him who are ready to stand by Him, if they stand alone- Athanasius contra mundum . Mark, too, that this is the all-important question for every man. Our own individual ‘thought’ of Him determines our whole worth and fate.

Mark gives Peter’s confession in a lower key, as it were, than Matthew does, omitting the full-toned clause, ‘The Son of the living God.’ This is not because Mark has a lower conception than his brother Evangelist, for the first words of this Gospel announce that it is ‘the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God.’ And, as he has identified the two conceptions at the outset, he must, in all fairness, be supposed to consider that the one implies the other, and to include both here. But possibly there is truth in the observation that the omission is one of a number of instances in which this Gospel passes lightly over the exalted side of Christ’s nature, in accordance with its purpose of setting Him forth rather as the Servant than as the Lord. It is not meant that that exalted side was absent from Mark’s thoughts, but that his design led him rather to emphasise the other. Matthew’s is the Gospel of the King; Mark’s, of the Worker.

The omission of Christ’s eulogium on Peter has often been pointed out as an interesting corroboration of the tradition that he was Mark’s source; and perhaps the failure to record the praise, and the carefulness to tell the subsequent rebuke, reveal the humble-hearted ‘elder’ into whom the self-confident young Apostle had grown. Flesh delights to recall praise; faith and self-knowledge find more profit in remembering errors forgiven and rebukes deserved, and in their severity, most loving. How did these questions and their answers serve as introduction to the announcement of the Cross? In several ways. They brought clearly before the disciples the hard fact of Christ’s rejection by the popular voice, and defined their own position as sharply antagonistic. If His claims were thus unanimously tossed aside, a collision must come. A rejected Messiah could not fail to be, sooner or later, a slain Messiah. Then clear, firm faith in His Messiahship was needed to enable them to stand the ordeal to which the announcement, and, still more, its fulfilment, would subject them. A suffering Messiah might be a rude shock to all their dreams; but a suffering Jesus, who was not Messiah, would have been the end of their discipleship. Again, the significance and worth of the Cross could only be understood when seen in the light of that great confession. Even as now, we must believe that He who died was the Son of the living God before we can see what that Death was and did. An imperfect conception of who Jesus is takes the meaning and the power out of all His life, but, most of all, impoverishes the infinite preciousness of His Death.

The charge of silence contrasts singularly with the former employment of the Apostles as heralds of Jesus. The silence was partly punitive and partly prudential. It was punitive, inasmuch as the people had already had abundantly the proclamation of His gospel, and had cast it away. It was in accordance with the solemn law of God’s retributive justice that offers rejected should be withdrawn; and from them that had not, even that which they had should be taken away. Christ never bids His servants be silent until men have refused to hear their speech. The silence enjoined was also prudential, in order to avoid hastening on the inevitable collision; not because Christ desired escape, but because He would first fulfil His day.

II. We have here the announcement of the Cross Mar 8:31 – Mar 8:33.

There had been many hints before this; for Christ saw the end from the beginning, however far back in the depths of time or eternity we place that beginning. We do not sufficiently realise that His Death was before Him, all through His days, as the great purpose for which He had come. If the anticipation of sorrow is the multiplication of sorrow, even when there is hope of escaping it, how much must His have been multiplied, and bitterness been diffused through all His life, by that foresight, so clear and constant, of the certain end! How much more gracious and wonderful His quick sympathy, His patient self forgetfulness, His unwearied toil, show against that dark background! Mark here the solemn necessity. Why ‘must’ He suffer? Not because of the enmity of the three sets of rejecters. He recognises no necessity which is imposed by hostile human power. The cords which bind this sacrifice to the horns of the altar were not spun by men’s hands. The great ‘must’ which ruled His life was a cable of two strands- obedience to the Father, and love to men. These haled Him to the Cross, and fastened Him there. He would save; therefore He ‘must’ die. The same ‘must’ stretches beyond death. Resurrection is a part of His whole work; and, without it, His Death has no power, but falls into the undistinguished mass of human mortality. Bewildered as the disciples were, that assurance of resurrection had little present force, but even then would faintly hint at some comfort and blessed mystery. What was to them a nebulous hope is to us a sun of certitude and cheer, ‘Christ that died’ is no gospel until you go on to say, ‘Yea, rather, that is risen again.’

Peter’s rash ‘rebuke,’ like most of his appearances in the Gospel, is strangely compounded of warm-hearted, impulsive love and presumptuous self-confidence. No doubt, the praise which he had just received had turned his head, not very steady in these early days at its best, and the dignity which had been promised him would seem to him to be sadly overclouded by the prospect opened in Christ’s forecast. But he was not thinking of himself; and when he said, ‘This shall not be unto Thee,’ probably he meant to suggest that they would all draw the sword to defend their Master. Mark’s use of the word ‘rebuke,’ which is also Matthew’s, seems to imply that he found fault with Christ. For what? Probably for not trusting to His followers’ arms, or for letting Himself become a victim to the ‘must,’ which Peter thought of as depending only on the power of the ecclesiastics in Jerusalem. He blames Christ for not hoisting the flag of a revolt.

This blind love was the nearest approach to sympathy which Christ received; and it was repugnant to Him, so as to draw the sharpest words from Him that He ever spoke to a loving heart. In his eagerness, Peter had taken Jesus on one side to whisper his suggestion; but Christ will have all hear His rejection of the counsel. Therefore He ‘turned about,’ facing the rest of the group, and by the act putting Peter behind Him, and spoke aloud the stern words. Not thus was He wont to repel ignorant love, nor to tell out faults in public; but the act witnessed to the recoil of His fixed spirit from the temptation which addressed His natural human shrinking from death, as well as to His desire that once for all, every dream of resistance by force should be shattered. He hears in Peter’s voice the tone of that other voice, which, in the wilderness, had suggested the same temptation to escape the Cross and win the crown by worshipping the Devil; and he puts the meaning of His instinctive gesture into the same words in which he had rejected that earlier seducing suggestion. Jesus was a man, and ‘the things that be of men’ found a response in His sinless nature. It shrank from pain and the Cross with innocent and inevitable shrinking. Does not the very severity of the rebuke testify to its having set some chords vibrating in His soul? Note that it may be the work of ‘Satan’ to appeal to ‘the things that be of men,’ however innocent, if by so doing obedience to God’s will is hindered. Note, too, that a Simon may be ‘Peter’ at one moment, and ‘Satan’ at the next.

III. We have here the announcement of the Cross as the law for the disciples too Mar 8:34 – Mar 8:38.

Christ’s followers must follow, but men can choose whether they will be His followers or not. So the ‘must’ is changed into ‘let him,’ and the ‘if any man will’ is put in the forefront. The conditions are fixed, but the choice as to accepting the position is free. A wider circle hears the terms of discipleship than heard the announcement of Christ’s own sufferings. The terms are for all and for us. The law is stated in Mar 8:34 , and then a series of reasons for it, and motives for accepting it, follow.

The law for every disciple is self-denial and taking up his cross. How present His own Cross must have been to Christ’s vision, since the thought is introduced here, though He had not spoken of it, in foretelling His own death! It is not Christ’s Cross that we have to take up. His sufferings stand alone, incapable of repetition and needing none; but each follower has his own. To slay the life of self is always pain, and there is no discipleship without crucifying ‘the old man.’ Taking up my cross does not merely mean meekly accepting God-sent or men-inflicted sorrows, but persistently carrying on the special form of self-denial which my special type of character requires. It will include these other meanings, but it goes deeper than they. Such self-immolation is the same thing as following Christ; for, with all the infinite difference between His Cross and ours, they are both crosses, and on the one hand there is no real discipleship without self-denial, and on the other there is no full self-denial without discipleship.

The first of the reasons for the law, in Mar 8:35 , is a paradox, and a truth with two sides. To wish to save life is to lose it; to lose it for Christ’s sake is to save it. Both are true, even without taking the future into account. The life of self is death; the death of the lower self is the life of the true self. The man who lives absorbed in the miserable care for his own well-being is dead to all which makes life noble, sweet, and real. Flagrant vice is not needed to kill the real life. Clean, respectable selfishness does the work effectually. The deadly gas is invisible, and has no smell. But while all selfishness is fatal, it is self-surrender and sacrifice, ‘for My sake and the gospel’s,’ which is life-giving. Heroism, generous self-devotion without love to Christ, is noble, but falls short of discipleship, and may even aggravate the sin of the man who exhibits it, because it shows what treasures he could lay at Christ’s feet, if he would. It is only self-denial made sweet by reference to Him that leads to life. Who is this who thus demands that He should be the motive for which men shall ‘hate’ their own lives, and calmly assumes power to reward such sacrifice with a better life? The paradox is true, if we include a reference to the future, which is usually taken to be its only meaning; but on that familiar thought we need not enlarge.

The ‘for’ of Mar 8:36 seems to refer back to the law in Mar 8:34 , and the verse enforces the command by an appeal to self-interest, which, in the highest sense of the word, dictates self-sacrifice. The men who live for self are dead, as Christ has been saying. Suppose their self-living had been ‘successful’ to the highest point, what would be the good of all the world to a dead man? ‘Shrouds have no pockets.’ He makes a poor bargain who sells his soul for the world. A man gets rich, and in the process drops generous impulses, affections, interest in noble things, perhaps principle and religion. He has shrivelled and hardened into a mere fragment of himself; and so, when success comes, he cannot much enjoy it, and was happier, poor and sympathetic and enthusiastic and generous, than he is now, rich and dwindled. He who loses himself in gaining the world does not win it, but is mastered by it. This motive, too, like the preceding, has a double application-to the facts of life here, when they are seen in their deepest reality, and to the solemn future.

To that future our Lord passes, as His last reason for the command and motive for obeying it, in Mar 8:38 . One great hindrance to out-and-out discipleship is fear of what the world will say. Hence come compromises and weak compliance on the part of disciples too timid to stand alone, or too sensitive to face a sarcasm and a smile. A wholesome contempt for the world’s cackle is needed for following Christ. The geese on the common hiss at the passer-by who goes steadily through the flock. How grave and awful is that irony, if we may call it so, which casts the retribution in the mould of the sin! The judge shall be ‘ashamed’ of such unworthy disciples-shall blush to own such as His. May we venture to put stress on the fact that He does not say that He will reject them? They who were ashamed of Him were secret and imperfect disciples. Perhaps, though He be ashamed of them, though they have brought Him no credit, He will not wholly turn from them.

How marvellous the transition from the prediction of the Cross to this of the Throne! The Son of Man must suffer many things, and the same Son of Man shall come, attended by hosts of spirits who own Him for their King, and surrounded by the uncreated blaze of the glory of God in which He sits throned as His native abode. We do not know Jesus unless we know Him as the crucified Sacrifice for the world’s sins, and as the exalted Judge of the world’s deeds.

He adds a weighty word of enigmatical meaning, lest any should think that He was speaking only of some far-off judgment. The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be the event intended, which was, in fact, the beginning of retribution for Israel, and the starting-point of a more conspicuous manifestation of the kingdom of God. It was, therefore, a kind of rehearsal, or picture in little, of that coming and ultimate great day of the Lord, and was meant to be a ‘sign’ that it should surely come.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 8:27-30

27Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” 29And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

Mar 8:27-30 This event is a watershed event in the Gospel of Mark. The miracle stories that affirm the power, authority, and deity of Jesus cease. From this point on the emphasis is the crucifixion. Mark’s Gospel changes from a focus on who He is to His great redemptive act (i.e., what He did).

Mar 8:27 “to the villages” Mat 16:13 has “into the district of.” Jesus wanted to do two things (1) get away from the crowds and (2) preach in all the villages. In this case reason #1 is predominate.

“Caesarea Philippi” This city is about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee in a predominately Gentile area. It was controlled by Herod Philip, not Herod Antipas.

“on the way He questioned” As they were walking Jesus began (imperfect tense) conversing with them.

“‘Who do people say that I am'” Mat 16:13 has “Son of Man,” which was Jesus’ self-chosen title. This is the central religious question.

Mar 8:28 “John the Baptist” This was Herod Antipas’ opinion, as well as some of the people’s opinion (cf. Mar 6:14; Mar 6:16; Luk 9:19).

“Elijah” This would imply that Jesus was the forerunner of the Messiah (cf. Mal 4:5).

“one of the prophets” Mat 16:14 has “Jeremiah.” All of these options involved a resuscitation and were honorific titles, but not exclusively Messianic.

Mar 8:29 “‘who do you say that I am'” This is plural and was addressed to all the disciples. “You” is emphatic in Greek because the pronoun is fronted (i.e., put first in the sentence).

“‘You are the Christ'” Peter, the extrovert of the group, answers first. This is a transliteration of the Hebrew “Messiah” (BDB 603), which means “the Anointed One.” Jesus was reluctant to publicly accept this title because of the Jews’ false political, militaristic, and nationalistic interpretations. In this private setting He accepts, even seeks this title. The parallel of Mat 16:16 has the full title, “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Mark (Peter’s recorder) omits Jesus’ praise of Peter (cf. Mat 16:17; Mat 16:19).

Mar 8:30 “He warned them to tell no one about Him” This is another example of the Messianic Secret so common in Mark (cf. Mar 1:33-34; Mar 1:43; Mar 3:12; Mar 4:11; Mar 5:43; Mar 7:24; Mar 7:36; Mar 8:26; Mar 8:30). They knew the title but not the mission!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

that I am. The second subject of the Lord’s ministry (see the Structure on p. 1383 and App-119), as to His Person, was thus brought to a conclusion; as in Mat 16:13-20.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

27-30.] CONFESSION OF PETER. Mat 16:13-20. Luk 9:18-21. With the exception of the introduction in Luke, which describes the Lord to have been alone praying, and joined by his disciples,-and the omission of the praise of and promise to Peter by both Mark and Luke, the three are in exact accordance. On this latter omission no stress must therefore be laid as to the character of Marks Gospel, as has been done. (Thl. in 1.-cited by De W.)

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mar 8:27. , on the way) He held pious discourse whilst on the way.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mar 8:27-30

3. CONVERSATION NEAR CESAREA PHILIPPI

Mar 8:27-30

(Mat 16:13-20; Luk 9:18-21)

27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi:–Cesarea Philippi is interesting to the modern world chiefly from the fact that the conversation found in this division occurred in its vicinity. It stood at the northeast corner of the upper Jordan valley, and is about twenty-six miles north of the lake of Galilee. The famous spring, which is one of the three sources of the river Jordan, bursts forth from the base of the mountain.

and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?–Christ had not a large interest in this question, but it was a convenient introduction to the one which was soon to come.

28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.–Men believed, from Mic 5:5 and other passages, that they were warranted in concluding that at the time of the Messiah different prophets would again appear. It was evident from these answers that all felt that Jesus was an extraordinary man, even though they denied him his true character. The variety of opinions shows that the people were thinking and discussing the question. It is not improper to seek to ascertain what men think of us. It may help us to correct a fault, or save us from despondency. Christ was not ignorant as to what men thought and said of him, nor did he vaingloriously inquire after the opinion of the multitude concerning himself; but with an intention more firmly to settle and establish his disciples in the belief of his being the true and promised Messiah. Jesus teaching his disciples “on the way” teaches us our duty to take advantage of all occasions and opportunities for good discourse touching spiritual things, when in the house, in the field, and when traveling.

29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am?–The emphasis is on “ye.” All that had gone before simply led up to this question.

Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.–Mark’s answer is short but inclusive. Luke (Luk 9:20) adds to it, “the Christ of God”; Matthew (Mat 16:16) gives it in full, “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The most wonderful combination of words in any language. It disposes of atheism in its final word, of polytheism in its final word with the article, of pantheism in its adjective, of unitarianism in “the Son,” of Gnosticism in “the Christ,” and of Socinianism in its completeness. It links together the human and divine, and brings to the soul comfort that could come from no other source. This truth is the bedrock of the universe of salvation, the great underlying Petra, upon which was laid the cornerstone, Jesus, as he planted himself upon this truth and died for it, and around whom was laid the foundation of apostles and prophets, from whom rise, course by course, the living stones, petroi, that from the stately temple of the Holy Spirit, the church of Christ. The Christ, the Messiah, or the anointed of God; living God. The term living was applied to the true God, to distinguish him from idols that are dead, or lifeless blocks of stone. He is also the source or life, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.–They were not to tell of the full revelation of himself which he had made in his indorsement of Peter, because they themselves were not yet prepared to be its intelligent proclaimers. They had yet no adequate conception of the kingdom of God. This restriction to tell no man he was the Christ lasted until after his resurrection and ascension (Mat 17:9; Mat 28:19-20; Mar 16:15-16; Luk 24:45-47), and the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:1-36).

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

CHAPTER 36

Get Thee Behind Me, Satan

And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

(Mar 8:27-33)

Mark has informed us of the doctrine Christ preached and the miracles he performed. Whenever we think of our Lords miracles, we must never associate them in our minds with the self-proclaimed miracle workers of our day. Our Lords miracles were numerous, well-attested, wrought in many different places, performed before countless eye witnesses who knew the people who were healed, raised from the dead and fed by his power. They were so well established as facts, that no one, not a single person familiar with his life and ministry, not a single one of his enemies and accusers ever even questioned their validity.

Having spoken so much of these things, the Holy Spirit would now have us pause to consider what they mean. Those wondrous works which our Lord would not allow his disciples to publish in the streets of Israel were recorded for us in the Book of God for our learning and admonition. These things were not written by the finger of God for our amusement, or to supply us with material for debate. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (Joh 20:31).

We have before us a conversation which took place between our Lord Jesus and his disciples as they were walking towards Caesarea Philippi. We read in verse twenty-seven that Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? There is something for us to learn even from this thing, which seems to have been just casually observed by Mark. We ought to take advantage of every opportunity to do good. Let us never behave as pretentious, religious hypocrites, who cannot talk about anything but religion, or as people who try to button hole everyone they meet. Yet, we ought to do what we can to do good to mens souls and to help one another along the way, ever watching for opportunities to speak a word in season.

Knowledge and Faith

Many confuse doctrinal knowledge with saving faith. They vainly imagine tat knowing the facts revealed in the gospel is knowing Christ, that having a good opinion of Christ is know Christ. Multitudes have a very high and good opinion of Christ and his doctrine who do not know him. That fact is evident in Mar 8:27-28.

And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

There was among the Jews a great variety of opinions about Christ. Almost everyone thought he was a very good man, a godly man, even a great man. Most considered him a great prophet, perhaps even a resurrected prophet. They compared him to John the Baptist, Elijah and Jeremiah. Almost to a man the Jews thought he was a great prophet who had come back from the dead. No one, at this time, considered him a deceiver or a wicked man. Only the Scribes and Pharisees spoke evil of him, and they did so only because of envy. Multitudes knew much about the Savior and approved of what they knew. Yet, very few knew him.

Things are pretty much the same today. Christ and his gospel are just as just as commonly misunderstood and unknown today, among religious people as they were among the Jews two thousand years ago. Almost everyone knows the name of Christ. Most of our relatives and neighbors go to church and acknowledge that Jesus came into the world to save sinners, that he died on the cross, was buried, and rose again the third day. In remembrance and honor of him, they set aside special holy days, build huge buildings, and engage in great enterprises. Yet, there are very few who know him. Vague ideas about Christ are common. Very few people know who he is, what he did, or why he did it. Those who know the Son of God are very few.

Many there are who move beyond vagueness, and have very clear, even an orthodox knowledge of gospel doctrine and of the historic facts revealed in the gospel. They readily confess that Jesus Christ is the incarnate God, that he is God the eternal Son. They understand and defend the doctrines of Substitution, Redemption, Justification, Sanctification, and Regeneration. They can accurately describe Christs resurrection, ascension and exaltation, his priestly intercession at the Fathers right hand as our Advocate, and the certainty of his glorious second coming, who obviously do not know him.

Those who know the Son of God appear to be very few. Yet, apart from knowing him there is no salvation. Without the knowledge of him, there is no eternal life. Until you know him, you are dead in trespasses and in sins (Joh 17:3); and if we would know him we must be born again (Joh 3:5-7).

Three hundred years ago, the heretic Robert Sandeman insisted that to teach (as the Scriptures demand) that in regeneration the heaven born soul is made partaker of the divine nature and that this new, righteous nature imparted to Gods elect by grace is vital to salvation, is to teach men to look for righteousness in themselves, rather than in Christ. Like his successors today, Sandeman insisted that the new birth is nothing more than giving assent to doctrinal facts. Another heretics name may be more familiar to than Sandemans. Alexander Campbell, founder of the Arminian, works denomination called the Church of Christ, wrote, Sandeman was like a giant among dwarfs. Heed Pauls warning. Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit. Any man who denies the necessity of the Spirits work in us, teaching that faith in Christ is nothing but learning doctrine, is an utter heretic, a man to be marked and avoided.

The new birth is more than a change of mind. It is more than the mere acquirement of religious knowledge. Anyone who is familiar with the Word of God knows that all men and women have some awareness of God, of sin, of life, of death, of judgment and of eternity (Rom 1:18-20; Rom 2:14-15). Man is by nature a very religious creature (Joh 5:39-40). And unsaved religious people often recognize and believe some true facts about God and Christ and salvation (Joh 3:2). But the quickening, regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit is much, much more than embracing facts about God and salvation. As John Owen wrote

Of all the poison which at this day is diffused in the minds of men, corrupting them from the mystery of the gospel, there is no part that is more pernicious than this one perverse imagination, that to believe in Christ is nothing at all but to believe the doctrine of the gospel!

In the new birth Christ is revealed in the chosen sinner (Gal 1:15-16). God the Holy Spirit gives impotent, dead sinners eternal life (Joh 3:5-8; Eph 2:1-5). And the life he imparts is Christ himself (Col 1:27; 2Pe 1:4). Revealing Christ in the heart, he convicts and convinces sinners of sin, righteousness and judgment (Joh 16:8-15; 1Co 2:7-10; Zec 10:12), and effectually draws sinners to Christ and makes them willing to come (Joh 6:44-45; Psa 110:3).

Saving Knowledge

Allow me to pointedly apply these things to the present day. In 2Co 5:14 Paul declares that all who are born of God are constrained, motivated, and ruled by the love of Christ. The love of Christ rules in our hearts, he tells us in Mar 8:15, because we have been born again. We have been born again because Christ died for us. His death as our Substitute obtained and guaranteed our new birth. And, being born of God, we live, not unto ourselves, but unto Christ, who died for us and rose again. Then, in Mar 8:16, the inspired writer tells us that our knowledge of Christ is not a carnal apprehension of the intellect, but the gift and revelation of God the Holy Spirit. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Be sure you understand what the Spirit of God tells us here. Our knowledge of Christ is not a carnal apprehension of the intellect, but the gift and revelation of God the Holy Spirit. Being born again by the omnipotent grace and irresistible mercy of God the Holy Spirit, all who are taught of God, know Christ after the Spirit, and not after the flesh.

Will worshipping Arminians have long taught that faith in Christ is nothing but and act of the will, mental assent to the historic facts of the gospel. When I was a seven year old boy, I was conned into a profession of faith by will worshipping fundamentalists, who told me that salvation would be mine if I would simply believe Gods plan of salvation. Giving assent to what I was told, a soul-winner put his arms around me, with tears in his eyes, and announced, Praise the Lord, son, youre saved! You are born again. But I didnt know God from a gourd.

Such deception is common among fundamentalists. But today there are some who claim to believe the gospel, or what we refer to as the doctrines of grace, who teach the same heresy, utterly denying the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ. Theirs is a much more subtle and dangerous heresy.

They tell us that faith in Christ is nothing but agreement with Gods testimony. They laugh at what the apostle Paul calls the mystery of the faith, asserting that there is nothing mysterious about it. Being too deceptive to openly assert what their doctrine is, they continue to use terms like regeneration, the new birth, effectual calling, the new nature, the new man, and Christ in you. Yet, everything they teach denies the work of God the Holy Spirit in chosen redeemed sinners, teaching that salvation is arrived at by acquired knowledge, not by divine regeneration, by an act of the will, not by the revelation of grace. This philosophy of vain deceit denies the necessity of the new birth, denies that the believer is given a new nature by the Spirit of God, denies that righteousness is imparted to us, and that we are made partakers of the divine nature in regeneration. These modern Gnostics speak of Gods saving grace as nothing but a principle (an accepted philosophical rule).

They look upon those of who believe Gods revelation of himself in his Word and trust Christ as their Wisdom, as well as their Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption, as poor, ignorant people, without spiritual understanding. One such deceiver has described that which the Scriptures call a God given light shining in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, a mystical, religious experience that takes place in ecstatic ignorance!

Deceivers are never honest men! The liberals of the mid 1900s, at first, were not manly enough to openly state that they did not believe in blood atonement, regeneration, and the resurrection. They made it a point to use such words frequently. But, with their enlightened understanding, they gave those clearly defined biblical terms new definitions.

Carnal Knowledge

That is exactly what is happening in our day. Many, who talk much about faith in Christ and imagine that no one possesses it except those who bow to their shrines, openly assert that, Mental assent itself is equal to faith. That is Gnosticism in its very essence. That is freewillism of the most deceptive form. It is the assertion that salvation is nothing but a mans decision to agree with irrefutable facts!

That which they have arrived at by their imaginary brilliance of intellect the Holy Spirit calls knowing Christ after the flesh, by mere carnal reason. They are people with religious knowledge, who are totally void of grace and spiritual life, groping in the darkness of their invented light.

Most people presume that knowledge is the basis of faith; but the Scriptures assert exactly the opposite. Heb 11:3 declares, Through faith we understand. Through faith we see, perceive and comprehend all things spiritual. And this faith, which gives spiritual understanding, is the result of the new birth, without which no man can see the kingdom of God (Joh 3:5-7). Faith in Christ is the basis of spiritual knowledge and understanding. Spiritual knowledge is the result of faith in Christ. As I have heard Pastor Henry Mahan say so many times, You dont get to Christ by doctrine. You get to doctrine by Christ. Saving knowledge is not what you know, but who (Joh 17:3).

Believe and Confess

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him (Mar 8:29-30).

All true Christians know, believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God. As Matthew Henry put it, To be a Christian is to sincerely believe that Jesus is the Christ.

The confession of faith in Christ that Peter here gave was remarkable. He made this confession when the Lord Jesus was in a very poor earthly condition, without honor, without power, without majesty, without wealth, without influence. It was a confession made in opposition to the opinions and thoughts of the world in which he lived. All the Jewish world, civil and ecclesiastical, refused to acknowledge him as the Christ, and the entire Gentile world laughed at him as a Jewish zealot.

Yet, Peter boldly confessed, Thou art the Christ. His faith was not shaken by opposition. His confidence did not waver before popular opinion. Peter believed that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Prophet like Moses, the Priest like Melchizedek, the King like David. He believed and confessed the Man Christ Jesus to be God the Son!

Erring and unstable as his faith sometimes was, Peter was a man of strong, exemplary faith. He believed the record God had given of his Son and boldly confessed his Master and his faith in him. Obviously, there was much that he did not know, much that had not yet been plainly revealed; but Peter was loyal to the core and confessed Christ unhesitatingly.

Let us follow this faithful disciples example. Christ and his doctrine have never been popular, especially in the religious world. We must be prepared to confess him, though, if necessary, we are compelled to do so outside the camp of the religious world (Act 2:36; Act 4:11-12; Heb 13:7-12). All true Christians know, believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God. As Matthew Henry put it, To be a Christian is to sincerely believe that Jesus is the Christ.

We should not overlook the fact that Mark, by divine inspiration, omitted the words that Matthew was inspired to include, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (Mat 16:18). Had Mark esteemed Peter as the foundation rock upon which the church is built, as papists assert, he would certainly have included those words of our Lord. Indeed, had any of the Apostles thought that our Lord was referring to Peter as the rock, surely we would have some indication of it in the New Testament. The fact is, Matthew, Mark, Peter, and all the writers of the New Testament understood clearly that our Saviors words, upon this rock I will build my church, had reference to himself as the Foundation Stone upon which we are built. That fact is so evidently stated in Holy Scripture that the delusion of papists is obviously a willful delusion (Psa 118:22; Isa 28:16; Mat 21:42; Mark 1210; Luk 20:17; Act 4:11-12; 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 2:7).

Must Suffer

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mar 8:31). Our Lord spoke these things openly. He did not preach in code. He did not wrap his message in ambiguous words. When he began to teach his disciples, he used plain, clear speech. Every true prophet does the same.

Here the Lord Jesus made a full declaration of his own coming death and resurrection as our Substitute. Can you imagine how strange this must have sounded in the ears of these disciples, these men who knew he was the Christ, but who were yet looking for him, at any moment, to establish a great Jewish empire over the world in which he would sit as King forever? Yet, he now declares that he must suffer many things, that he must be rejected of the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, that he must be killed, and that he must rise again in three days.

Why did our Lord use the term must? Why must these things be done? What was the great necessity that demanding the suffering and death of Gods dear Son? Was it because some force greater than he would compel him to endure these things? Was he saying that he would not be able to prevail over his enemies? Of course not! Was he saying he must endure these things to sit a good example of love, self-denial and self-sacrifice? Nonsense! Our Master said that these things must come to pass because they were decreed by the Father, declared in the Old Testament Scriptures, demanded by the law and justice of God for the salvation of his elect, and greatly desired by Christ himself. He said, With desire have I desired to eat this supper with you.

It was necessary for Christ to suffer and die on the cross, under the wrath of God, to save his people. He did not have to save us; but if he would save us, he could not save in any other way. Justice demanded satisfaction (Pro 16:6; Pro 17:15; Rom 4:5; 1Pe 3:18). Since it was the design, purpose, and pleasure of the Almighty to bring chosen sinners into eternal glory and happiness as the sons of God by Christ, it was necessary for Christ, the Son of God, to suffer all that the law and justice of God required for the punishment of sin, dying under the wrath of God as our Substitute.

I do not suggest that the sin-atoning death of Christ, by which justice has been satisfied, procures the love of God for us. It does not. The death of Christ is the fruit of Gods love, not the cause of it. But I am saying that it is the death of Christ and the satisfaction of justice by his death that opens the way into the embraces of Gods arms. We could never have been reconciled to God without the shedding of Christs blood.

Our Savior said, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life (Joh 3:14-15). He came into this world with a commission, on a mission of mercy, under the bondage of his own voluntary suretyship engagements, which he assumed for us as the Surety of the everlasting covenant. His death upon the cursed tree was no accident. It was not something that came to pass because of mans free will, or because the Jews would not let him be their king! The Lord Jesus died at Calvary because he must die at Calvary! Why? What necessity was there for the death of the Son of God upon the cursed tree? Why must this Holy One be made sin for us? Why must this Savior be put to death? Here are four reasons given in the Word of God why he had to die the painful, shameful, cursed death of the cross at Jerusalem.

1.The Lord Jesus Christ had die at Jerusalem as he did because God the Father purposed it from eternity (Act 2:23).

2.Our dear Savior had to die at Jerusalem, in order to fulfill his covenant engagements for us. Our Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily assumed all responsibility for our souls in the covenant of grace; but once he assumed that responsibility, he must fulfill it. He was honor bound to do so (Gen 43:8-9; Joh 10:18; Act 13:29).

3.The Son of God must die as he did because the Scriptures must be fulfilled (Psalms 22; Psalms 40; Psalms 69; Isaiah 53)

4.It was absolutely necessary for the Lord Jesus Christ to die as he did upon the cursed tree, lifted up from the earth, in order for the holy Lord God to save us from our sins (Rom 3:24-26; Joh 3:14-17). If God would save us from our sins, he could only do it this way, because righteousness must be maintained, sin must be punished, justice must be satisfied, forgiveness must be legitimate, and love must be blameless. If the holy, just and true God, would be the Savior of sinners, it must be by the satisfaction of justice; and justice could be satisfied in no other way. Now, justice being satisfied, the God of all grace declares himself to be a just God and a Savior and bids poor sinners look to him in his Son and live forever (Isa 45:20-25).

Peters Great Error

And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men (Mar 8:32-33).

As often as I read this passage, I pause, as I hear our Savior rebuke his servant Peter, and try to remind myself that there is in every true child of God a strange mixture of flesh and Spirit, grace and infirmity, strength and weakness, faith and unbelief, knowledge and great ignorance, the old man and the new.

I can almost see Peter. No doubt, he acted out of love and zeal for his Lord. It is as though, he took the Master by the arm and said, Now dont you fret about these scribes, elders, and chief priests. Were not about to let anything happen to you. But his love and zeal were misguided passions of carnal reason and ignorance. He attempted to stand in the Lords way and, in doing so, drew down upon himself the sharpest rebuke that ever fell from our Saviors lips upon one of his disciples. John Gill explained

Peter might more especially be concerned at this free and open account Christ gave of his sufferings and death, because he had just now acquainted him, that he should have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; by which he might understand some high post in the temporal kingdom of the Messiah he expected; and immediately to hear of his sufferings and death, damped his spirits, and destroyed his hopes, and threw him into such difficulties he was not able to remove; and therefore he takes Christ aside, and very warmly expostulates with him about what he had said, and chides him for it, and entreats him that he would not think, or talk of such like things.

John Trapp wrote

Peter having made a notable profession of his faith, and being therefore much commended by Christ, presently takes occasion to fall from the true holiness of faith to the sauciness of presumption, in advising his Master to decline the cross.

When he did, the Lord Jesus said to this man who had just declared, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. He called this disciple, one of his chosen Apostles, Satan, because he devil himself had taken advantage of Peters weakness and ignorance , and acting through his flesh inspired Peter to contradict and dispute his God and Savior, dissuading him from suffering and dying for the salvation of his people, urging him not to pursue his purpose and fulfill his work as Jehovahs Righteous Servant and his eternal engagements as the Surety of the covenant. Though he was a true believer, a heaven born soul, and a faithful servant of Christ, Peter was still a sinful man, just like you and me. When he spoke as he did here to the Savior, he spoke as a carnal man, savoring the things of men, not the things of God. May God the Holy Spirit teach us the things these two verses are obviously intended to teach us. May he give us grace never to forget them.

The best of Gods saints are but poor, fallible, sinful creatures.

As long as we are in this world, our highest attainments of knowledge are ignorance.

Let no child of God entertain high thoughts about himself.

Let us be charitable and gracious toward our erring brethren (Gal 6:1).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

the towns: Mat 16:13-20

and by: Luk 9:18, Luk 9:19, Luk 9:20

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Chapter 13.

Questions and Answers

“And Jesus went out, and His disciples, into the towns of Csarea Philippi: and by the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto Him, Thou art the Christ. And He charged them that they should tell no man of Him.”-Mar 8:27-30.

To Csarea Philippi.

We come now to what is in many respects the most critical episode in the life of our Lord. I have emphasized the fact that at this particular stage in His career Christ tried to escape the crowds, in order to find opportunity for quiet speech with His disciples. In view of the cross, which He could plainly see looming up on His horizon, He urgently desired to speak with His chosen Twelve about Himself, and about His passion. For this reason He sets His face northwards, to a remote and retired part of the country which He had not yet visited in the course of His ministry. “Jesus went forth, and His disciples, into the villages of Csarea Philippi” (ver. 27).

-A Pagan City.

This Csarea Philippi lay some five-and-twenty miles to the north of the Sea of Galilee. It was named Csarea in honour of the Roman Emperor Augustus, and it was called Csarea Philippi, “Philip’s Csaria,” after the Herod who had rebuilt it, and made it splendid, and to distinguish it from that other Csarea on the sea-coast, where Paul was afterwards imprisoned. This Csarea was situated in the grandest and most romantic part of Palestine. Planted on a terrace about 1100 feet above sea-level, at the foot of Lebanon, surrounded by groves of oaks and poplars, with fertile plains stretching westwards, and the snowy mass of Hermon to the north-east, it had a beauty beyond any other town in the land. It was a pagan city. Indeed, its ancient name was Paneas, and it was so called from the Pancivir, a sanctuary of the god Pan, in a deep cavern in the neighbourhood.

As showing the hold this pagan cult had of the district, it is interesting to note that the old name gradually asserted itself, and survives to this day in the name Panias. It was to this pagan and to a large extent foreign city that Jesus now travelled with His disciples. Though apparently even here Jesus did not venture into the city itself. In Csarea some one would have been sure to recognise Him. He kept Himself outside, in the country districts. “He went forth, and His disciples, into the villages of Csarea Philippi,” And there at length He seems to have gained the quietness He needed, and opportunity to speak with the Twelve about the things that lay so near His heart.

A Critical Discourse.

It is one of the conversations that took place between Our Lord and His disciples that we are to consider now. I gather myself, from a study of the various narratives, that our Lord regarded this conversation as a critical and vital one. For from Luke’s account we learn that before He asked the question with which the conversation started He spent some time in solitary prayer. That was our Lord’s habit, when any specially difficult or delicate task lay before Him. Before, for instance, He went on His first preaching journey through Galilee, He rose up a great while before day, and departed into a desert place, and there prayed. Before He engaged in the delicate and all-important task of choosing His twelve Apostles, He continued all night in prayer to God. And apparently the conversation which He was now about to hold was of such solemn moment and of such vital consequence that our Lord felt constrained to prepare for it by earnest and continued prayer. And what was the subject of this conversation to which our Lord attached such extraordinary importance? In a word, it was a conversation about His own Person.

The Place of Christ in Christianity.

And here I pause just for a moment, to say that evidently Christ attached immense importance to what men thought about Himself. Men are very apt in these days to say it does not matter very much what views we hold about Jesus, so long as we accept His teaching, and obey it. And they dismiss all attempts at defining the Person of Christ, as metaphysical and theological subtleties, which are of no importance for daily life. All I have to say is, that that is not what Jesus Himself thought. He attached the most tremendous importance to the account people gave of Him; the whole future of the Gospel depended in some vital way upon what men thought of Him. Yes, let us be under no delusion. Our Lord regarded the future of Christianity as bound up with a right understanding of His person. Those who tell us it does not matter much what views we hold, and who make that the excuse for holding inadequate and unworthy views, misread the entire Gospel. They reduce the Gospel to a new teaching, a new philosophy, a mere code of morals. But if there is one thing the New Testament makes abundantly clear, it is this-that the Christian Gospel is not a teaching merely, or a philosophy merely, or a morality merely; it is, as Dr. Van Dyke says, the Gospel of a Person. It centres not simply in what Jesus says, but in what He was and did. Indeed, that is what differentiates Jesus from every other teacher and prophet the world has ever seen. He insists upon Himself. It sounds very plausible to say, “Let theologians quarrel about the Person of Christ; let us be content to obey His teaching;” but, as a matter of fact, in the light of an incident like this, and the whole trend of the Gospel narrative, there is only one thing to be said about this Christianity without Christ-it is another Gospel, which is not another.

The Popular Verdict.

Now, passing from that broad and primary lesson of the significance of Christ’s Person, I want you to notice the first question Jesus put to His disciples, and their answer. It was this, “Whom do men say that I am?” (Mar 8:27). Or, perhaps, in order to bring out the exact shade of meaning, the question might be rendered thus, “Who do the people say that I am?” Jesus did not ask what the rulers and the Pharisees thought of Him. They had only too plainly shown what they thought. They had called Him a glutton, a drunkard, a friend of publicans and sinners, an agent of Beelzebub. What Christ wanted to know was the opinion of the people at large. For He knew that in every market and at every fireside they had discussed Him, and He wanted to know what the effect of His teaching and wonderful works had upon them, and who they said He was.

-A Favourable One.

The disciples answer quite frankly, and say, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets” (Mar 8:28). Now you will notice from this answer that, as Dr. A. B. Bruce says, “the opinions prevalent among the masses concerning Jesus were in the main favourable.” They did not make the calamitous mistake prejudiced Scribes and Pharisees did, of writing Jesus down as an emissary of Satan. There is nothing like prejudice for distorting the vision and perverting the judgment. The mass of the people, with simple and guileless hearts, recognised that, to say the least, Jesus was a specially inspired man. They felt that no one could speak as He spoke, and no one could do the work that He did, except God were with Him. They did not recognise His essential glory. They did not identify Him as their promised Messiah. And perhaps there is some excuse for them, inasmuch as Jesus was go unlike the Messiah they had been taught to expect. But they did recognise that Christ was inspired of God in an altogether unique way, and so they classed Him with the great prophets who were the glory and pride of their race. They said that He was John the Baptist, or Elijah, or One of the prophets.

Christ and the Prophets.

Will you notice further, as that same great scholar and thinker points out, that the very variety of opinion about Jesus-the fact that one saw John the Baptist in Him, another Elijah, and another Jeremiah, and another this prophet or that-is in itself proof that Jesus was greater than any of the prophets to whom they compared Him? I daresay the people themselves did not feel the force of this, but quite obviously it is so. Each of the prophets was identified in the popular mind with some one striking and predominant quality. John was remembered for his stern and strenuous call to repentance; Jeremiah was remembered for his melting tenderness and compassion. Ezekiel and Daniel for their parabolic discourses. But here was some One far greater than John, greater than Jeremiah, greater than Ezekiel, greater than Daniel; for He united John and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, all in Himself. I think I could construct an argument for the Divinity of Christ out of the opinions of the multitude, confessedly imperfect though they are. The very diversity of them, when you think of it, is proof that Jesus was more than man.

But possibly, as some commentators suggest, the first question was only asked in order to open the conversation. The second was the all-important one.

The Disciples Faith.

“But who say ye that I am?” Jesus asked (Mar 8:29). It is not the opinion of the crowd He is asking about now, but the faith of these twelve men whom He had called to be with Him, whom He had admitted to His closest intimacy, who had seen Him at close quarters. “Ye, my chosen ones, who say ye that I am?” I need not point out to any of my readers how absolutely critical this question was. For on the answer to it depended the success or failure of His work. To a large extent He had failed with the populace. Not one of them had recognised the glory. If He had failed also with the Twelve, if He were no more than a prophet to them, then He had failed utterly. Humanly speaking, if these disciples had not recognised His Messiahship, there would never have been a Christian faith or a Christendom.

Peter’s Answer.

But Simon’s answer soon dispelled all fears. In the name of the Twelve, without hesitation or doubt, Simon replied, “Thou art the Christ.” These disciples were very slow scholars, as we have had occasion to note over and over again. They had their mistakes and their misunderstandings. But let us do them fair play and bare justice, and let this be set down to their infinite credit-that, while Pharisees and Scribes denounced Jesus as having a devil, and the populace in their most exalted guesses never thought of Him as more than a great man, these humble Galileans “beheld His glory,” and beneath His lowly state recognised the majesty of the only begotten Son of God. “Thou art the Christ,” says Peter. God hid the glorious truth from the wise and prudent, and revealed it unto babes.

The Force of this Profession.

I do not say that this is a confession of the Divinity of Christ, in the sense in which the Nicene Creed is. But again, as Dr. A. B. Bruce puts it, it is a clear recognition that Jesus was more than man. “Thou art the Messiah, God’s anointed One”; that is what Peter said. That is to say, he recognised in his Master that Great One who was the hope of the Jewish nation, of whom the prophets had spoken and psalmists had sung. He applied to Jesus all the splendid predictions of the Old Testament. Jesus was a prophet like unto Moses; the promised Deliverer who would set at liberty them that are bruised, and preach the acceptable year of the Lord. He was Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace. He was the King whose kingdom was to be an everlasting kingdom, and whose name was to endure throughout all generations. All these magnificent and glowing prophecies pointed to Jesus, and found their fulfilment in Jesus. “Thou art the Christ,” said Peter. It was a noble confession. Christ had not failed. His words, His miracles, His life had not been wasted upon these disciples. This answer is the proof of it. They beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

-And its Reception.

The Significance of the Episode.

And Jesus was satisfied with their confession. With characteristic modesty, Peter omits from his account the great eulogy which our Lord, in the overflowing gratitude of His soul, pronounced upon him. But the other Evangelists have preserved it for us. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Mat 16:17-18). Here let us note-(1) that with any confession falling short of this great confession of Peter, our Lord is not satisfied. The popular verdict classed Jesus with the prophets, with the very greatest of them. It put Him on a level with the most inspired and gifted of men. It ranked Him with Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist. But Jesus declined to be so classed. He claimed a higher place. He was not Elijah’s or John’s or Jeremiah’s equal. He was their Lord. This has its special pertinency for our own day. The Person of Christ has once again become the subject of debate. And I do not think I am doing the “new theology” movement any injustice when I say that it is the view of the populace it gives as to the person of Christ, and not the belief of Peter. It is numbering Jesus Christ once more among the “prophets.” It is whittling away the difference between Jesus and the rest of humanity, and assuring us that we are all “potential Christs.” All I have to say about it is, that Christ repudiates the classification. He is not satisfied to be greeted as Teacher, Prophet, not even as the greatest of Teachers, and the greatest of Prophets. He is in a class by Himself. He is unapproached, unapproachable. Jesus is not the fine flower of the race. He is the gift of God. And no view of His Person satisfies Him until, like Peter, we are ready to say, not “One of the prophets,” but, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

A Personal Question.

But (2), after all, the important question is the personal one. I do not make light of the views and opinions the people at large hold about Christ. They are most of them hopelessly inadequate. Just at present the favourite view seems to be that Christ was principally a Social Reformer. But the important and vital question for you and me is, not what the people think, but our own answer to the Lord’s question. There must be no hesitation about our reply. There are some beliefs held and cherished by our fathers which we can, perhaps, surrender without loss. But belief in the Divinity of Christ is of the very essence of our faith. Degrade Him to a “prophet,” and you destroy the Gospel. Count Him simply as one amongst others, and upon a faith, or rather want of faith, like that Christ cannot build His Church. And so I am glad that we are confronted with this question, “Whom say ye that I am?”

For my own part, I am ready with my answer. Are you ready with yours? And will it be such an answer as will fill Him with confidence about the future of His Church? My prayer is that our studies in the life of Christ may help to stablish our faith, so that, amid all the present upheaval and distress, we may answer with quiet and settled confidence, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary

7

The origin of the name Caesarea Philippi is explained at Mat 16:13. The question Jesus asked his disciples was for the introduction to the more important subject of the faith they had in him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THE circumstances here recorded are of great importance. They took place during a journey, and arose out of a conversation “by the way.” Happy are those journeys, in which time is not wasted on trifles, but redeemed as far as possible for the consideration of serious things.

Let us observe the variety of opinions about Christ, which prevailed among the Jews. Some said that He was John the Baptist-some Elijah-and others one of the prophets. In short every kind of opinion appears to have been current, excepting that one which was true.

We may see the same thing on every side at the present day. Christ and his Gospel are just as little understood in reality, and are the subject of just as many different opinions as they were eighteen hundred years ago. Many know the name of Christ, acknowledge Him as one who came into the world to save sinners, and regularly worship in buildings set apart for His service. Few thoroughly realize that He is very God-the one Mediator-the one High Priest-the only source of life and peace-their own Shepherd and their own Friend. Vague ideas about Christ are still very common. Intelligent experimental acquaintance with Christ is still very rare. May we never rest till we can say of Christ, “My beloved is mine and I am His.” (Song of Son 2:16.) This is saving knowledge. This is life eternal.

Let us observe the good confession of faith which the apostle Peter witnessed. He replied to our Lord’s question, “Whom say ye that I am?” “Thou art the Christ.”

This was a noble answer, when the circumstances under which it was made are duly considered. It was made when Jesus was poor in condition, without honor, majesty, wealth, or power. It was made when the heads of the Jewish nation, both in church and state, refused to receive Jesus as the Messiah. Yet even then Simon Peter says, “Thou art the Christ.” His strong faith was not stumbled by our Lord’s poverty and low estate. His confidence was not shaken by the opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, and the contempt of rulers and priests. None of these things moved Simon Peter. He believed that He whom he followed, Jesus of Nazareth, was the promised Savior, the true Prophet greater than Moses, the long-predicted Messiah. He declared it boldly and unhesitatingly, as the creed of himself and his few companions: “Thou art the Christ.”

There is much that we may profitably learn from Peter’s conduct on this occasion. Erring and unstable as he sometimes was-the faith he exhibited, in the passage now before us, is well worthy of imitation. Such bold confessions as his, are the truest evidence of living faith, and are required in every age, if men will prove themselves to be Christ’s disciples. We too must be ready to confess Christ, even as Peter did. We shall never find our Master and His doctrine popular. We must be prepared to confess Him, with few on our side, and many against us. But let us take courage and walk in Peter’s steps, and we shall not fail of receiving Peter’s reward. Jesus takes notice of those who confess Him before men, and will one day confess them as His servants before an assembled world.

Let us observe the full declaration which our Lord makes of His own coming death and resurrection. We read that “He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”

The events here announced must have sounded strange to the disciples. To be told that their beloved Master, after all His mighty works, would soon be put to death, must have been heavy tidings and past their understanding. But the words which convey the announcement are scarcely less remarkable than the event: “He must suffer-He must be killed-He must rise again.”

Why did our Lord say “must”? Did He mean that He was unable to escape suffering-that He must die by compulsion of a stronger power than His own? Impossible. This could not have been His meaning. Did He mean that He must needs die to give a great example to the world of self-sacrifice and self-denial, and that this, and this alone, made His death necessary? Once more it may be replied, “Impossible.” There is a far deeper meaning in the word “must” suffer and be killed. He meant that His death and passion were necessary in order to make atonement for man’s sin. Without shedding His blood there could be no remission. Without the sacrifice of His body on the cross, there could be no satisfaction to God’s holy law. He “must” suffer to make reconciliation for iniquity. He “must” die, because without His death as a propitiatory offering, sinners could never have life. He “must” suffer, because without His vicarious sufferings, our sins could never be taken away. In a word, He “must” be delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification.

Here is the center truth of the Bible. Let us never forget that. All other truths compared to this are of secondary importance. Whatever views we hold of religious truth, let us see that we have a firm grasp upon the atoning efficacy of Christ’s death. Let the truth so often proclaimed by our Lord to His disciples, and so diligently taught by the disciples to the world, be the foundation truth in our Christianity. In life and in death, in health and in sickness, let us lean all our weight on this mighty fact-that though we have sinned Christ hath died for sinners-and that though we deserve nothing, Christ hath suffered on the cross for us, and by that suffering purchased heaven for all that believe in Him.

Finally, let us observe in this passage the strange mixture of grace and infirmity which may be found in the heart of a true Christian. We see that very Peter who had just witnessed so noble a confession, presuming to rebuke his Master because He spoke of suffering and dying. We see him drawing down on himself the sharpest rebuke which ever fell from our Lord’s lips during His earthly ministry: “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”

We have here a humbling proof that the best of saints is a poor fallible creature. Here was ignorance in Simon Peter. He did not understand the necessity of our Lord’s death, and would have actually prevented His sacrifice on the cross. Here was self-conceit in Simon Peter. He thought he knew what was right and fitting for his Master better than his Master Himself, and actually undertook to show the Messiah a more excellent way. And last, but not least, Simon Peter did it all with the best intentions! He meant well. His motives were pure. But zeal and earnestness are no excuse for error. A man may mean well and yet fall into tremendous mistakes.

Let us learn humility from the facts here recorded. Let us beware of being puffed up with our own spiritual attainments, or exalted by the praise of others. Let us never think that we know everything and are not likely to err. We see that it is but a little step from making a good confession to being a “Satan” in Christ’s way. Let us pray daily, “Hold thou me up-keep me-teach me-let me not err.”

Lastly, let us learn charity towards others from the facts here recorded. Let us not be in a hurry to cast off our brother as graceless because of errors and mistakes. Let us remember that his heart may be right in the sight of God, like Peter’s, though like Peter he may for a time turn aside. Rather let us call to mind Paul’s advice, and act upon it. “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” (Gal 6:1.)

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Mar 8:27. In the way. Luke (Luk 9:18), without naming the locality, tells that He had been alone praying; an important preparation for the important revelation which was to follow. This was not necessarily in the way from Bethsaida to Cesarea Philippi, but may have been during some journey while in those regions. Mark is less full than Matthew in Mar 8:28-30, but in exact accordance (see on Mat 16:14-16; Mat 16:20).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These verses relate to us a conference which our Saviour had with his disciples, touching their own and others opinion of his person.

Where observe, 1. The place where Christ and his disciples did confer; it was in the way as they walked together. Teaching us our duty to take all occasions and opportunities for holy conference, to good discourse touching spiritual things, when in the house, when in the field, when travelling in the way, Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another. Mal 3:16

Observe, 2. The conference itself: Whom do men say that I am? That is, What do the common people think and speak of me? Not as if Christ were ignorant what men said of him, or did vain-gloriously enquire after the opinion of the multitude concerning him; but with an intention more firmly to settle and establish his disciples in the belief of his being the true and promised Messias. The disciples tell him, That some said, He was John the Baptist, others Elias, others one of the prophets. It is no new thing, it seems, to find diversity of judgments and opinions concerning Christ, and the affairs of his kingdom. When our Saviour was amongst men, who daily conversed with him, yet was there then a great diversity of opinions concerning him.

Observe, 3. How St. Peter, as the mouth of all the apostles, and in their names make a full and oepn confession of Christ, acknowledging him to be the true and promised Messiah: Peter said, Thou art the Christ.

Whence note, That the veil of Christ’s human nature did not keep the eye of his disciples faith from seeing him to be truly and really God.

2. That Jesus the sons of the virgin Mary, was the Christ, the true Messiah, or the person ordained by God to be the Mediator betwixt God and man: the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind: Thou art the Christ.

Observe, 4. The charge and special injunction given by our Saviour to tell no man of him: that is, not commonly and openly to declare that he was the Son of God and the true Messiah: because he was now in his state of humiliation, and the glory of his divinity was to be concealed till his resurrection. Christ had his own fit-times and proper seasons, in which he revealed the great mysteries of his kingdom to the world.

Observe, 5. The great wisdom of our Saviour in acquainting his disciples with the near approach of his death and passion; thereby to prevent that scandal and offence which otherwise they might have taken at his sufferings; the better to fit and prepare them to bear that great trial, and to correct the error which they had entertained touching an earthly kingdom of Christ: that the Messiah was to be a temporal prince.

Observe, 6. St. Peter’s carriage towards Christ upon this occasion; He took him aside, and began to blame him for affirming that he must die. O how ready is flesh and blood to oppose all that tends to suffering! What need have we to be ortified against the temptations of our friends, as well as of our enemies! Satan sometimes makes use of good men as his instrument to do his work by, when they little suspect it. Little did Peter think, that Satan now set him on work to hinder the redemption of mankind, by dissuading Christ from dying.

Observe, 7. With what indignation Christ rejects Peter’s admonition; Get thee behind, me Satan. Christ heard Satan speaking in Peter; it was Peter’s tongue, but Satan tuned it, therefore Christ calls Peter by Satan’s name. They that will do the devil’s work, shall have the devil’s name too. He that would hinder the redemption of mankind is Satan, an adversary to mankind.

From our Saviour’s smart reproof given to Peter, we learn, That no respect to men’s persons, or regard to their piety, must cause us, to flatter them in their sins, or move us to speak favourably of their sins. As well as our Saviour loved Peter he rebukes him severely.

O Lord! so intent was thy heart upon the great work of our redemption, that thou couldst not bear the least word that should obstruct thee in it, or divert thee from it.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mar 8:27-30. And Jesus went into the towns of Cesarea Philippi These verses are explained at large in the notes on Mat 16:13-20. He charged them that they should tell no man of him He enjoined on them silence for the present, 1st, That he might not encourage the people to set him up for a temporal king; 2d, That he might not provoke the scribes and Pharisees to destroy him before the time, and, 3d, That he might not forestall the brighter evidence which was to be given of his divine character after his resurrection.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

LXX.

THIRD WITHDRAWAL FROM HEROD’S TERRITORY.

Subdivision B.

THE GREAT CONFESSION MADE BY PETER.

(Near Csarea Philippi, Summer, A. D. 29.)

aMATT. XVI. 13-20; bMARK VIII. 27-30; cLUKE IX. 18-21.

b27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Csarea Philippi [The city of Paneas was enlarged by Herod Philip I., and named in honor of Tiberias Csar. It also bore the name Philippi because of the name of its builder, and to distinguish it from Csarea Palestin or Csarea Strotonis, a city on the Mediterranean coast. Paneas, the original name, still pertains to the village, though now corrupted to Banias. It is situated under the shadow of Mt. Hermon at the eastern of the two principal sources of the Jordan, and is the most northern city of the Holy Land visited by Jesus, and save Sidon, the most northern point of his travels]: a13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Csarea Philippi, cit came to pass, bon the way cas he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked bhis disciples, saying, unto them, aWho do men say that the Son of man is? aWho do men {cthe multitude} say that I am? [Jesus asks them to state the popular opinion concerning himself as contrasted with the opinion of the rulers, Pharisees, etc.] 19 And they answering btold him, saying, {csaid,} aSome say John the Baptist; cbut {band} asome, bothers, Elijah; but {cand} others, aJeremiah, or cthat one of the old prophets is risen again. [For comment on similar language, see Gal 1:16] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [Peter was blessed by having a revelation from God by which facts were made known that could not be discovered by the unaided human reason. God had revealed the truth to him in the words and works of Jesus, and this revealed truth was to him a source of happiness both temporal and eternal. Like confessions as to this truth had been made before ( Mat 14:33, Joh 1:49), but they had been made under the pressure of miraculous display and strong emotion. Hence they were rather exclamatory guesses at the truth, and differed from this now made by Peter which was the calm expression of a settled conviction produced both by the character and by the miracles of Jesus.] 18 And I say also unto [411] thee, That thou art Peter [petros, a noun masculine] and upon this rock [Petra, a noun feminine] I will build my church [The tense here is future. Christ had followers, but they were not yet organized, and hence had no such structural form as to suggest a similitude to a building]; and the gates of Hades [Hades was the name of the abode of the dead. Its gate symbolized its power because the military forces of an ancient city always sallied forth from its gates] shall not prevail against it. [Death shall neither destroy the organic church which is in the world, nor the members thereof which go down into the grave ( 1Th 4:15, 1Co 15:54-56). No passage in the word of God has called forth more discussion than this and the succeeding verse, the first point in dispute being as to what is meant by the rock; i. e., whether Christ or Peter or Peter’s confession is the foundation of the church; the second point being as to the extent of the power and authority bestowed on Peter by the symbol of the keys. To aid us in reaching a correct conclusion we must note that Jesus speaks in metaphorical language. He represents: 1. His kingdom as a city about to be built upon a rock. 2. Himself as a builder of the city. 3. Simon Peter as the one who holds the keys to the gates by which egress and regress is had to the city. 4. The gates or powers of the opposing city of Hades are not able to prevail against this kingdom city. Now, since Jesus himself occupies the position of builder in the metaphor, and Simon Peter the position of key-bearer, neither of them can properly be regarded as the foundation. The foundation must therefore be the confession which Peter has just spoken, since it is all that remains that is liable to such application. The case could present no difficulty at all were it not for the unmistakable allusion to Peter (petros, a loose stone) as in some way associated with petra, the bedrock or foundation. But in the light of other Scriptures this allusion presents no difficulty; for all the apostles were such stones, and were closely allied to the foundation ( Eph 2:19-22, Gal 2:9). Compare also 1Pe 2:3-8. The Christian religion in all its redemptive completeness rests and can rest on no other [412] foundation than Christ ( 1Co 3:11). But the church or kingdom of Christ among men rests organically and constitutionally upon a foundation of apostolic authority, for the apostles were the mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit; but in this apostolic foundation the other apostles had equal rights, each one of them becoming a living foundation stone as soon as his faith led him to make a like confession with Simon Peter. Hence we find the apostle Paul asserting the superior authority of the apostles to all other Christian teachers and workers ( 1Co 12:28), and times without number asserting his apostolic office and authority– 1Co 9:1, 1Co 9:2, 2Co 12:12, 2Co 13:1-4, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:8, Eph 3:1-6, Phm 1:8, Phm 1:9.] 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys; i. e., the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense ( Rev 3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isa 22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Csarea Palestin, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms. The words “bind” and “loose” were commonly used among the Jews in the sense of forbid and allow. Abundant instances of this usage have been collected by Lightfoot. They relate to the binding and annulling of laws and rules. [413] In this sense the word for loose, is used very many times in the New Testament, but it is translated by the word break or broken ( Mat 5:19, Joh 7:23, Joh 10:35). The power here given to Peter was soon after extended to the rest of the apostles ( Mat 18:18). The apostles were to lay down, as they afterward did, the organic law of the new kingdom, defining what things were prohibited and what permitted. Their actions in this behalf would of course be ratified in heaven, because they were none other than the acts of the Holy Spirit expressed through the apostles.] b30 And a20 Then {c21 But} acharged he the disciples cand commanded them to tell this to no man; bthat they should tell no man of him. athat he was the Christ. [The people were not ready to receive this truth, nor were the apostles sufficiently instructed to rightly proclaim it. Their heads were full of wrong ideas with regard to Christ’s work and office, and had they been permitted to teach about him, they would have said that which it would have been necessary for them to subsequently correct, thus producing confusion.]

[FFG 410-414]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

CAESAREA-PHILIPPI

Mat 16:13-16; Mar 8:27-29; Luk 9:18-20. This is the northern terminus of our Saviors ministry, two days journey on horseback from the Sea of Galilee up the Jordan Valley to the foot of Mt. Hermon, where a great spring is one of the principal sources of the Jordan. This city is just over the border of Galilee in Iturea, at the time of our Savior under the tetrarchy of Philip. M.: And Jesus having come into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, asked His disciples, saying, Whom do the people say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or One of the prophets. He says to them, But whom do you say that I am? And Simon Peter, responding, said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus responding, said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon, the son of Jonah; because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but My Father who is in the heavens. About twenty-eight months have rolled away since our Lord entered upon His ministry, meanwhile He has flooded Galilee with His miracles; visited, in person or by the Twelve, nearly all the cities and villages in Israel. Despite all efforts, John the Baptist sending his disciples, with the avowed purpose of bringing Him out into an unequivocal proclamation of His Christhood, He simply sent them back, to tell John about the mighty works which they had seen.

a. Doubtless our Lord felt that it was better for His works to proclaim His Christhood than that He should publicly avow it. Here was the trouble: the prophets had wrought miracles, especially Elijah and Elisha, even raising quite a number from the dead. Consequently some, and among them King Herod, thought He was John the Baptist risen from the dead. As Elijah had wrought such stupendous miracles, bringing fire from heaven and raising the dead, on the very ground traversed by Jesus, many thought that He was some one of the old prophets who had risen from the dead. During these twenty-eight months, while the whole country has been flooded with miracles so stupendous as at once to beggar all cavil, the people have had an opportunity, by the irresistible fact of His mighty works, corroborated by His inimitable preaching, to settle down in the conclusion of His Christhood without an open proclamation.

b. The simple fact is that the Jews, having endured the galling yoke of a foreign despotism thirty-two years, and all settled in the prophetical revelation that the Christ is to be King of the Jews, are eager to crown Him the very moment that matter is settled, while the Roman soldiers were holding the gates of every city, ready to kill any man who would claim to be king, without having received the crown from the hands of Caesar. This was the very accusation written over His bead on His cross when He was crucified) This is the King of the Jews. Hence the necessity of postponing the open avowal of His Messiahship to the latest practical date.

c. I trow, this was the reason for His going away off to Caesarea-Philippi, out of the circle of His old audiences, and away from the multitude, who had crowded after Him, professing discipleship. When I visited Caesarea- Philippi, I went up on one of the peaks of Mt. Hermon, hanging over the city, where there is a great military citadel, about two thousand feet long and three hundred wide, built of solid masonry, though in ruins, the walls mainly yet intact, which had been occupied during the ages of Roman, Saracen, Crusade, and French rule, within which there is an old temple, said to have been built by Herod the Great. Tradition says that in this temple, when Jesus preached to the people, He proclaimed His Christhood, propounding the above questions to Peter, the apostolic senior, and in this, as well as other cases, the representative and speaker of the Twelve.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mar 8:27 to Mar 9:1. The Great Confession, and the First View of the Cross.Here opens a new section of the gospel. The tendency to seek retirement with the Twelve, pronounced from Mar 6:31 onwards, now dominates the story. Jesus devotes Himself to training the Twelve in the shadow of the Cross. This concentration on His disciples becomes possible when they pierce His secret. The full significance of the confession is only apparent if Jesus has not previously revealed Himself or been recognised as Messiah (cf. HNT). It constitutes a decisive development. The scene is laid near Csarea Philippi (p. 32), a largely Gentile town on the east side of Jordan, not to be confused with Csarea on the coast. The praise bestowed on Peter in Mat 16:17 f. is not recorded in Mk. If Mk.s dependence on Peter is to be proved by his showing a special regard for Peter, the proof is wanting. But Eusebius rightly suggested that Mk.s silence may reproduce the natural silence of Peter. A genuinely Petrine record might fail to praise Peter.

The charge to keep silence seems to be sufficiently explained by the intention of Jesus to await the Fathers revelation (cf. Mat 16:17) and by His unpopular expectation as to Messiahs task and end. Either from now on Jesus spoke much with the Twelve of the death He anticipated, or else the evangelist assumes that Jesus must have foreseen His fate and so boldly attributes such foresight to Him. The chief difficulty of the first alternative is found in the conduct of Jesus at Jerusalem, which makes the impression that He journeyed thither, not in order to die but to fight and conquer, and that in looking forward to the conflict His own death presented itself not as a certainty, but at the most as a possibility (Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, ii. 34f.). This assumes that Jesus must have regarded His death either as certain or as possible. But why may He not have considered it overwhelmingly probablea judgment which would not exclude flashes of hope that even now Israel might repent? The difficulty of the second alternative is that it compels us to discard so much that looks like genuine tradition, e.g. the parable of the husbandmen, the answer to the sons of Zebedee, the lament over Jerusalem, and the upbraiding of the cities of Galilee, not to mention the whole development of the ministry from public evangelization to private communion with the Twelve, as Mk. conceives it. Such a surrender of material is not defensible. The note of necessitythe Son of Man must sufferis best explained by the use of the same verb in Luk 24:26. Prophecy points this way and must be fulfilled.

Mar 8:31. The term Son of Man (p. 670) is used mainly in two connexions, (a) in predictions of Messiahs suffering, and (b) in reference to His triumphant return to judgment (cf. Mar 8:38). As a Messianic term, the latter is its original connexion (cf. Dan 7:13*, Enoch 69:26f.). In the gospels it is used only by Jesus, apparently of Himself. As it is His self-designation as Messiah, it is not to be expected in public utterances except in the record of the closing days. Consequently Mk. is probably mistaken in supposing that the sayings in Mar 8:34-38 were addressed to the crowd. This supposition conflicts with Mar 8:30 and is corrected in Mat 16:24.

Mar 8:32. openly: not publicly, as Loisy insists, but frankly, without reserve; cf. Eph 6:19 f.

Mar 8:33. Cf. Mat 4:10. Peter unwittingly becomes a tempter. There is no need to assume literary dependence of Mk. on Mt. or Q at this point.

Mar 8:34. let him deny himself: cease to make himself the object of his life and action (Gould).take up his cross: may have been added after the Crucifixion, which would certainly give it special force; but cross-bearing criminals were not unknown in Palestine, and such a phrase would be intelligible before the death of Jesus. Discipleship, Jesus says, now means immediate readiness for a criminals end. It meant later for an apostle bearing the sentence of death in ones self (2Co 1:9).

Mar 8:35-37 are primarily eschatological. He who finds martyrdom in this life will five again in the kingdom. He who avoids martyrdom . . . will lose his life in the next world (Montefiore, i. 210f.; his whole discussion of this section is admirable).

Mar 8:38. adulterous and sinful generation: the words must be interpreted from prophetic usage (cf. Isa 1:21, Hos 9:1, et passim).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 27

Cesarea Philippi; a city now desolate, situated in the extreme north of Palestine.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

8:27 {6} And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?

(6) Many praise Christ, who yet nonetheless rob him of his praise.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

6. Peter’s confession of faith 8:27-30 (cf. Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-21)

The healing of the deaf man with the speech impediment resulted in a confession of Jesus’ greatness that fell short of identifying Him as God (Mar 7:37). The healing of the blind man was the incident that God used to open the disciples’ eyes to the biblical messianic identity of Jesus that Peter articulated.

Mark further highlighted the cause and effect relationship between these last two events by structuring the pericopes similarly. First, he presented the circumstances (Mar 8:22; Mar 8:27). Second, he described partial sight and understanding (Mar 8:23-24; Mar 8:28). Third, he recorded the giving of sight and understanding (Mar 8:25; Mar 8:29). Fourth, he noted Jesus’ command to remain silent (Mar 8:26; Mar 8:30). [Note: Wessel, p. 692.]

"Mark has placed at the center of his narrative the recognition that Jesus is the Messiah. The pivotal importance of this moment is indicated by the fact that already in the first line of the Gospel the evangelist designates Jesus as the Messiah. Yet between Ch. Mar 1:1 and Ch. Mar 8:29 there is no recognition of this fact in spite of a remarkable sequence of events which demanded a decision concerning Jesus’ identity. . . .

"The recognition that Jesus is the Messiah is thus the point of intersection toward which all the theological currents of the first half of the Gospel converge and from which the dynamic of the second half of the Gospel derives. In no other way could Mark more sharply indicate the historical and theological significance of the conversation in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi." [Note: Lane, pp. 288, 289.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus and his disciples continued traveling north from Bethsaida toward Caesarea Philippi, where Herod Philip lived, that stood about 25 miles away. The disciples confessed their belief that Jesus was Lord near the place where the pagans confessed that Caesar was Lord. Jesus asked the question in Mar 8:27 with a view to asking the second question in Mar 8:29. In Mark, Jesus’ questions often led to new teaching (cf. Mar 9:33; Mar 12:24; Mar 12:35). The popular answers to Jesus’ first question all reflect an inadequate view of Him. They assigned Jesus a preparatory role but failed to recognize His consummative role. Evidently few people believed that Jesus was the Messiah, so the disciples did not even mention that possibility.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER 8:27-32 (Mar 8:27-32)

THE CONFESSION AND THE WARNING

“And Jesus went forth, and His disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and in the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? And they told Him, saying, John the Baptist: and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. And He asked them, But Who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto Him, Thou art the Christ. And He charged them that they should tell no man of Him. And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And He spake the saying openly. Mar 8:27-32 (R.V.)

WE have now reached an important stage in the Gospel narrative, the comparative withdrawal from evangelistic effort, and the preparation of the disciples for an approaching tragedy. We find them in the wild country to the north of the Lake of Galilee, and even as far withdrawn as to the neighborhood of the sources of the Jordan. Not without a deliberate intention has Jesus led them thither. He wishes them to realize their separation. He will fix upon their consciousness the failure of the world to comprehend Him, and give them the opportunity either to acknowledge Him, or sink back to the lower level of the crowd.

This is what interests St. Mark; and it is worthy of notice that he, the friend of Peter, mentions not the special honor bestowed upon him by Christ, nor the first utterance of the memorable words “My Church.”

“Who do men say that I am?” Jesus asked. The answer would tell of acceptance or rejection, the success or failure of His ministry, regarded in itself, and apart from ultimate issues unknown to mortals. From this point of view it had very plainly failed. At the beginning there was a clear hope that this was He that should come, the Son of David, the Holy One of God. But now the pitch of men’s expectation was lowered. Some said, John the Baptist, risen from the dead, as Herod feared; others spoke of Elijah, who was to come before the great and notable day of the Lord; in the sadness of His later days some had begun to see a resemblance to Jeremiah, lamenting the ruin of his nation; and others fancied a resemblance to various of the prophets. Beyond this the apostles confessed that men were not known to go. Their enthusiasm had cooled, almost as rapidly as in the triumphal procession, where they who blessed both Him, and “the kingdom that cometh,” no sooner felt the chill of contact with the priestly faction, than their confession dwindled into “This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth.” “But Who say ye that I am?” He added; and it depended on the answer whether or not there would prove to be any solid foundation, any rock, on which to build His Church. Much difference, much error may be tolerated there, but on one subject there must be no hesitation. To make Him only a prophet among others, to honor Him even as the first among the teachers of mankind, is to empty His life of its meaning, His death of its efficacy, and His Church of its authority. And yet the danger was real, as we may see by the fervent blessing (unrecorded in our Gospel) which the right answer won. For it was no longer the bright morning of His career, when all bare Him witness and wondered; the noon was over now, and the evening shadows were heavy and lowering. To confess Him then was to have learned what flesh and blood could not reveal.

But Peter did not hesitate. In answer to the question, “Who say ye? Is your judgment like the world’s?” he does not reply, “We believe, we say,” but with all the vigor of a mind at rest, “Thou art the Christ;” that is not even a subject of discussion: the fact is so.

Here one pauses to admire the spirit of the disciples, so unjustly treated in popular exposition because they were but human, because there were dangers which could appall them, and because the course of providence was designed to teach them how weak is the loftiest human virtue. Nevertheless, they could part company with all they had been taught to reverence and with the unanimous opinion of their native land, they could watch the slow fading out of public enthusiasm, and continue faithful, because they knew and revered the Divine life, and the glory which was hidden from the wise and prudent.

The confession of Peter is variously stated in the Gospels. St. Matthew wrote for Jews, familiar with the notion of a merely human Christ, and St. Luke for mixed Churches. Therefore the first Gospel gives the explicit avowal not only of Messiahship, but of divinity; and the third Gospel implies this. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” — “the Christ of God.” But St. Mark wrote for Gentiles, whose first and only notion of the Messiah was derived from Christian sources, and steeped in Christian attributes, so that, for their intelligence, all the great avowal was implied in the title itself, Thou art the Christ. Yet it is instructive to see men insisting on the difference, and even exaggerating it, who know that this Gospel opens with an assertion of the Divine sonship of Jesus, and whose theory is that its author worked with the Gospel of St. Matthew before his eyes. How then, or why, do they suppose the confession to have been weakened?

This foundation of His Church being secured, His Divine Messiahship being confessed in the face of an unbelieving world, Jesus lost no time in leading His apostles forward. They were forbidden to tell any man of Him: the vain hope was to be absolutely suppressed of winning the people to confess their king. The effort would only make it harder for themselves to accept that stern truth which they were now to learn, that His matchless royalty was to be won by matchless suffering. Never hitherto had Jesus proclaimed this truth, as He now did, in so many words. It had been, indeed, the secret spring of many of His sayings; and we ought to mark what loving ingenuity was lavished upon the task of gradually preparing them for the dread shock of this announcement. The Bridegroom was to be taken away from them, and then they should fast. The temple of His body should be destroyed, and in three days reared again. The blood of all the slaughtered prophets was to come upon this generation. It should suffice them when persecuted unto death, that the disciple was as His Master. It was still a plainer intimation when He said, that to follow Him was to take up a cross. His flesh was promised to them for meat and His blood for drink. (Mar 2:20; Joh 2:19; Luk 11:50; Mat 10:21; Mat 10:25; Mat 10:38; Joh 6:54.) Such intimations Jesus had already given them, and doubtless many a cold shadow, many a dire misgiving had crept over their sunny hopes. But these it had been possible to explain away, and the effort, the attitude of mental antagonism thus forced upon them, would make the grief more bitter, the gloom more deadly, when Jesus spoke openly the saying, thenceforth so frequently repeated, that He must suffer keenly, be rejected formally by the chiefs of His creed and nation, and be killed. When He recurs to the subject (Mar 9:31), He adds the horror of being “delivered into the hands of men.” In the tenth chapter we find Him setting His face toward the city outside which a prophet could not perish, with such fixed purpose and awful consecration in His bearing that His followers were amazed and afraid. And then He reveals the complicity of the Gentiles, who shall mock and spit upon and scourge and kill Him.

But in every case, without exception, He announced that on the third day He should arise again. For neither was He Himself sustained by a sullen and stoical submission to the worst, nor did He seek so to instruct His followers. It was for the joy that was set before Him that He endured the cross. And all the faithful who suffer with Him shall also reign together with Him, and are instructed to press toward the mark for the prize of their high calling. For we are saved by hope.

But now, contrast with the utmost courage of the martyrs, who braved the worst, when it emerged at the last suddenly from the veil which mercifully hides our future, and which hope can always gild with starry pictures, this courage that looked steadily forward, disguising nothing, hoping for no escape, living through all the agony so long before it came, seeing His wounds in the breaking of bread, and His blood when wine was poured. Consider how marvelous was the love, which met with no real sympathy, nor even comprehension, as He spoke such dreadful words, and forced Himself to repeat what must have shaken the barb He carried in His heart, that by-and-by His followers might be somewhat helped by remembering that He had told them.

And yet again, consider how immediately the doctrine of His suffering follows upon the confession of His Christhood, and judge whether the crucifixion was merely a painful incident, the sad close of a noble life and a pure ministry, or in itself a necessary and cardinal event, fraught with transcendent issues.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary