Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 8:32
And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
32. openly ] i. e. not publicly, but “ plainly ” (“ pleinli,” Wyclif) and “ without disguise ” Comp. Joh 11:14, “Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.” Before this there had been intimations of the End, but then they had been dark and enigmatical. ( a) The Baptist had twice pointed Him out as the Lamb of God destined to take away the sin of the world (Joh 1:29). ( b) At the first Passover of His public ministry He Himself had spoken to the Jews of a Temple to be destroyed and rebuilt in three days (Joh 2:19), and to Nicodemus of a lifting up of the Son of Man, even as Moses had lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (Joh 3:12-16); ( c) He had intimated moreover to the Apostles that a day would come when the Bridegroom should be taken from them (Mat 9:15), and ( d) in the synagogue at Capernaum He had declared that He was about to give His flesh for the Life of the world (Joh 6:47-51). Now for the first time He dwelt on His awful Future distinctly, and with complete freedom of speech.
And Peter ] The selfsame Peter, who a moment before had witnessed so noble and outspoken a confession to his Lord’s Divinity.
took him ] i. e. took Him aside (and so Tyndale and Cranmer render it), by the hand or by the robe, and began earnestly and lovingly to remonstrate with Him. The idea of a suffering Messiah was abhorrent to him and to all the Twelve.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 32. And he spake that saying] Concerning the certainty and necessity of his sufferings – openly: with great plainness, , confidence, or emphasis, so that the disciples now began fully to understand him. This is an additional observation of St. Mark. For Peter’s reproof, See Clarke on Mt 16:22, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It is from hence manifest, that notwithstanding the confession of Peter, that he was the Christ, yet they had a very imperfect knowledge of the business of the redemption of man by the blood of Christ, and a very imperfect faith as to the hypostatical union of the Divine and human nature in the one person of the Redeemer; for had Peter known these things he would have seen a necessity of Christs dying and resurrection from the dead, in order to the redemption and salvation of man, and would neither have dissuaded our Saviour from it, nor doubted of the truth of what was spoken by him, who was the Truth, and could not lie. Our Saviours telling him , thou savourest not, might have been more favourably translated, thou understandest not, or thou mindest not, and must not be understood of a total ignorance, or regardlessness, or not relishing, but of a partial knowledge, the want of a due regard to or saviour of the things of God. Thou preferrest thy carnal affection to me, and indulgest thine own desires, to the hinderance of the honour and glory of God, and the salvation of souls, which I came to purchase by these my sufferings, and so art a Satan; an adversary, to me, who came to fulfil the will of my Father, and must not therefore give the least ear to thee, who, in what thou sayest, dost but seek and take care to please thyself. This leadeth him to the following discourse.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And he spake that saying openly,…. Concerning his sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead. He not only spoke it before them all, but in plain words, without a figure; so that it might be, and was clearly understood by them; and he spake it as the word will also bear, not only very freely, but likewise boldly, with an undaunted courage, with intrepidity of mind; being not in the least discouraged, nor showing any concern or fear about what was to befall him:
and Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 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: the words of Peter are recorded by Matthew, [See comments on Mt 16:22].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Spake the saying openly ( ). He held back nothing, told it all (, all, , from , say), without reserve, to all of them. Imperfect tense shows that Jesus did it repeatedly. Mark alone gives this item. Mark does not give the great eulogy of Peter in Matt 16:17; Matt 16:19 after his confession (Mark 8:29; Matt 16:16; Luke 9:20), but he does tell the stinging rebuke given Peter by Jesus on this occasion. See discussion on Matt 16:21; Matt 16:26.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He spake the saying openly. Mark only. Not as a secret or mystery, as in his words about being lifted up, or building the temple in three days. Not ambiguously, but explicitly. Wyc., plainly.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) ”And He spake that saying openly.” (kai parrhesia ton logon elalei) “And He plainly, frankly, or distinctly spoke that saying,” made that prediction, prophetic statement, reaffirming it on at least eight later occasions, after His disciples had affirmed their faith in Him, as the Son of God,
2) ”And Peter took Him,” (kai proslabome nos ho Petros auton) “And Peter taking Him aside,” away from the center of the group, Mat 16:22; yet Peter’s mind was carnal, Rom 8:7; 1Co 2:14.
3) “And began to rebuke Him.” (erksato epitiman auto) “Began to rebuke, chide, or reprimand Him,” and earned a rebuke for himself, Mat 16:22-23; similar to the rebuke he later received, Joh 13:36-38.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And Peter drew him aside and began to rebuke him.’
For the use of the verb proslambano as ‘drew aside’ compare Act 18:26. Peter did not want to make an open issue of the matter, and did not want to embarrass Jesus or himself. But the word ‘rebuke’ is fairly strong. Peter clearly felt quite strongly about it.
Possibly he took Jesus aside to warn Him that He was in danger of putting people his disciples off (compare Joh 6:60), or it may have been that he may even have thought that He was being too pessimistic and was mistaken. Either way he felt that things needed putting right, and he was the man to do it. The rebuke takes us quite by surprise. No friend of Jesus had ever rebuked Him in this way over His teaching, or, as far as we know, would again. Indeed it was so presumptious that without the additional information provided by Mat 16:17-19 we would be at a loss to understand it. The words and commendation of Jesus had gone to his head and made him think very foolishly. (It has made many think very foolishly ever since. We need to especially to watch ourselves when we are being commended).
Peter’s problem may have been mainly with the idea of Jesus needing to suffer. Alternately it may have been with the idea that such suffering would be at the hands of the religious leadership of Israel, for current teaching about the Messiah did not exclude the possibility of a glorious martyrdom at the hands of Israel’s enemies, but it would never have thought of it as being at the hands of his own people. In view of what follows (the fact of Jesus’ strong rebuke and His teaching that those who followed Him must also suffer) the former seems more likely, although it may have included both.
The whole affair suggests that Peter now thought that he was at last beginning to understand things better and was becoming something of an authority. Why, had not Jesus Himself said that the Father was revealing things to him (Mat 16:17)? And that gave him false courage and a false sense of his own importance and understanding. (Let him who thinks that he stands beware lest he fall (1Co 10:12)). Along with his natural impetuosity, which comes out again and again in the Gospels and Acts, and the position of respect he held, this was in danger of becoming a problem. It was therefore necessary that he recognise immediately that he had still much to learn.
There is no doubt that Peter’s rebuke was presumptious from a disciple to his teacher, especially such a teacher as Jesus had revealed Himself to be, and when heard for the first time it comes as a distinct shock. It certainly revealed that Peter had the wrong idea of what the Messiahship he had mentioned involved for Jesus, and it equally certainly showed that he had wrong ideas of his own importance and understanding. He had overstepped the line between disciple and compatriot. He had thus to be shown that while he was beginning to have a glimmer of understanding (‘you are the Messiah’) it was not much more than that. He still ‘saw men as trees walking’ (Mar 8:24). For parallel examples of rebukes that had to be shown to be wrong compare Mar 10:13; Mar 10:48. But this is the only example we have of a disciple rebuking Jesus.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mar 8:32. And he spake that saying openly. Plainly and freely, : our Lord thought fit to foretel his own sufferings plainly, to bear down any towering imaginations which might have sprung up in the apostles’ minds from the preceding discourses; for their faith was now so confirmed, that they could bear the discovery. See Joh 10:24; Joh 11:14.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Ver. 32. See Trapp on “ Mat 16:22 “ See Trapp on “ Mat 16:23 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mar 8:32 . : He spoke the word plainly , unmistakably. This remark was rendered almost necessary by the choice of the word in Mar 8:31 . Mt.’s implies . This word (from , ) in ordinary Greek usage means frank, unreserved speech, as opposed to partial or total silence. Here, as in Joh 11:14 ; Joh 16:25 ; Joh 16:29 , it means plain speech as opposed to hints or veiled allusions, such as Jesus had previously given; as in Mar 2:20 (bridegroom taken away). In this sense St. Paul (2Co 3:12 ) claims for the Christian ministry in contrast to the mystery connected with the legal dispensation as symbolised by the veil of Moses. The term was adopted into the Rabbinical vocabulary, and used to signify unveiled speech as opposed to metaphorical or parabolic speech (Wnsche, Beitrge, ad loc. ). .: what Peter said is not given, Mk’s aim being simply to show that Jesus had so spoken that misunderstanding of what He said was impossible. That the news should be unwelcome is regarded as a matter of course.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
openly: i.e. publicly: not as in Joh 2:19-21 or Joh 3:14, in the earlier portion of His ministry.
rebuke = remonstrate with.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mar 8:32. , freely [openly]) Heretofore He had only in an indirect manner indicated it, Luk 4:23.-) .
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
openly: Joh 16:25, Joh 16:29
Peter: Mar 4:38, Mat 16:22, Luk 10:40, Joh 13:6-8
Reciprocal: Luk 9:45 – General Luk 24:44 – These
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
With that error in mind Peter spoke against the prediction of Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 8:32. And he spake the saying openly. Not necessarily in public, but rather without concealment, explicitly, not indirectly. Peculiar to Mark.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
8:32 {9} And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
(9) None are more mad than they that are wise without the word of God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Until now, Jesus had only hinted at His sufferings (cf. Mar 2:20; Mar 4:33-34; Mar 7:14-15; Mar 7:17-23). The disciples were unprepared for this clear revelation that Messiah would suffer, die, and rise again. Peter understood it but refused to accept it. He could not reconcile this view of Messiah with the popular one. The word Mark chose to describe Peter’s rebuke is a strong one (Gr. epitimao). It is the same one he used to describe Jesus silencing demons (cf. Mar 1:25; Mar 3:12). Peter reacted with "an air of conscious superiority." [Note: Swete, p. 180.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER 8:32 – 9:1 (Mar 8:32-38 – Mar 9:1)
THE REBUKE OF PETER
“And He spake the saying openly. And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him.”. . . . “But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.’ And when He had called the people to Him, with His disciples also, He said to them, Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.'”(NKJV) . . . .”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.” Mar 8:32-38 – Mar 9:1 (R.V.)
THE doctrine of a suffering Messiah was strange in the time of Jesus. And to the warm-hearted apostle the announcement that his beloved Master should endure a shameful death was keenly painful. Moreover, what had just passed made it specially unwelcome then. Jesus had accepted and applauded a confession which implied all honor. He had promised to build a new Church upon a rock; and claimed, as His to give away, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Hopes were thus excited which could not brook His stern repression; and the career which the apostle promised himself was very unlike that defense of a lost cause, and a persecuted and martyred leader, which now threatened him. The rebuke of Jesus clearly warns Peter, that he had miscalculated his own prospect as well as that of his Lord, and that he must prepare for the burden of a cross. Above all, it is plain that Peter was intoxicated by the great position just assigned to him, and allowed himself an utterly strange freedom of interference with his Master’s plans. He “took Him and began to rebuke Him,” evidently drawing Him aside for the purpose, since Jesus “turned about” in order to see the disciples whom He had just addressed.
Thus our narrative implies that commission of the keys to him which it omits to mention, and we learn how absurd is the infidel contention that each evangelist was ignorant of all that he did not record. Did the appeal against those gloomy forebodings of Jesus, the protest that such evil must not be, the refusal to recognize a prophecy in His fears, awaken any answer in the sinless heart? Sympathy was not there, nor approval, nor any shade of readiness to yield. But innocent human desire for escape, the love of life, horror of His fate, more intense as it vibrated in the apostle’s shaken voice, these He assuredly felt. For He tells us in so many words that Peter was a stumbling-block to Him, although He, walking in the clear day, stumbled not. Jesus, let us repeat it again and again, endured not like a Stoic, deadening the natural impulses of humanity. Whatever outraged His tender and perfect nature was not less dreadful to Him than to us; it was much more so, because His sensibilities were unblunted and exquisitely strung. At every thought of what lay before Him, His soul shuddered like a rudely touched instrument of most delicate structure. And it was necessary that He should throw back the temptation with indignation and even vehemence, with the rebuke of heaven set against the presumptuous rebuke of flesh, “Get thee behind Me. . . . for thou art mindful not of the things of God, but the things of men.”
But what shall we say to the hard word, “Satan”? Assuredly Peter, who remained faithful to Him, did not take it for an outbreak of bitterness, an exaggerated epithet of unbridled and undisciplined resentment. The very time occupied in looking around, the “circumspection” which was shown, while it gave emphasis, removed passion from the saying.
Peter would therefore understand that Jesus heard, in his voice, the prompting of the great tempter, to whom He had once already spoken the same words. He would be warned that soft and indulgent sentiment, while seeming kind, may become the very snare of the destroyer.
And the strong word which sobered him will continue to be a warning to the end of time.
When love of ease or worldly prospects would lead us to discourage the self-devotion, and repress the zeal of any convert; when toil or liberality beyond the recognized level seems a thing to discountenance, not because it is perhaps misguided, but only because it is exceptional; when, for a brother or a son, we are tempted to prefer an easy and prosperous life rather than a fruitful but stern and even perilous course, then we are in the same danger as Peter of becoming the mouthpiece of the Evil One.
Danger and hardness are not to be chosen for their own sake; but to reject a noble vocation, because these are in the way, is to mind not the things of God but the things of men. And yet the temptation is one from which men are never free, and which intrudes into what seems most holy. It dared to assail Jesus; and it is most perilous still, because it often speaks to us, as then to Him, through compassionate and loving lips.
But now the Lord calls to Himself all the multitude, and lays down the rule by which discipleship must to the end be regulated.
The inflexible law is, that every follower of Jesus must deny himself and take up his cross. It is not said, Let him devise some harsh and ingenious instrument of self-torture: wanton self-torture is cruelty, and is often due to the soul’s readiness rather to endure any other suffering than that which God assigns. Nor is it said, Let him take up My cross, for the burden Christ bore devolves upon no other: the fight He fought is over.
But it speaks of some cross allotted, known, but not yet accepted, some lowly form of suffering, passive or active, against which nature pleads, as Jesus heard His own nature pleading when Peter spoke. In taking up this cross we must deny self, for it will refuse the dreadful burden. What it is, no man can tell his neighbor, for often what seems a fatal besetment is but a symptom and not the true disease; and the angry man’s irritability, and the drunkard’s resort to stimulants, are due to remorse and self-reproach for a deeper-hidden evil gnawing the spiritual life away. But the man himself knows it. Our exhortations miss the mark when we bid him reform in this direction or in that, but conscience does not err; and he well discerns the effort or the renouncement, hateful to him as the very cross itself, by which alone he can enter into life.
To him, that life seems death, the death of all for which he cares to live, being indeed the death of selfishness. But from the beginning, when God in Eden set a barrier against lawless appetite, it was announced that the seeming life of self-indulgence and of disobedience was really death. In the day when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit he surely died. And thus our Lord declared that whosoever is resolved to save his life–the life of wayward, isolated selfishness–he shall lose all its reality, the sap, the sweetness, and the glow of it. And whosoever is content to lose all this for the sake of the Great Cause, the cause of Jesus and His gospel, he shall save it.
It was thus that the great apostle was crucified with Christ, yet lived, and yet no longer he, for Christ Himself inspired in his breast a nobler and deeper life than that which he had lost, for Jesus and the gospel. The world knows, as the Church does, how much superior is self-devotion to self-indulgence, and that one crowded hour of glorious life is worth an age without a name. Its imagination is not inflamed by the picture of indolence and luxury, but by resolute and victorious effort. But it knows not how to master the rebellious senses, nor how to insure victory in the struggle, nor how to bestow upon the masses, plunged in their monotonous toils, the rapture of triumphant strife. That can only be done by revealing to them the spiritual responsibilities of life, and the beauty of His love Who calls the humblest to walk in His own sacred footsteps.
Very striking is the moderation of Jesus, Who does not refuse discipleship to self-seeking wishes but only to the self-seeking will, in which wishes have ripened into choice, nor does He demand that we should welcome the loss of the inferior life, but only that we should accept it. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
And striking also is this, that He condemns not the vicious life only: not alone the man whose desires are sensual and depraved; but all who live for self. No matter how refined and artistic the personal ambitions be, to devote ourselves to them is to lose the reality of life, it is to become querulous or jealous or vain or forgetful of the claims of other men, or scornful of the crowd. Not self-culture but self-sacrifice is the vocation of the child of God.
Many people speak as if this text bade us sacrifice the present life in hope of gaining another life beyond the grave. That is apparently the common notion of saving our “souls.” But Jesus used one word for the “life” renounced and gained. He spoke indeed of saving it unto life eternal, but His hearers were men who trusted that they had eternal life, not that it was a far-off aspiration (Joh 6:47; Joh 6:54). And it is doubtless in the same sense, thinking of the freshness and joy which we sacrifice for worldliness, and how sadly and soon we are disillusioned, that he went on to ask, What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or with what price shall he buy it back when he discovers his error? But that discovery is too often postponed beyond the horizon of mortality. As one desire proves futile, another catches the eye, and somewhat excites again the often baffled hope. But the day shall come when the last self-deception shall be at an end. The cross of the Son of man, that type of all noble sacrifice, shall then be replaced by the glory of His Father with the holy angels; and ignoble compromise, aware of Jesus and His words, yet ashamed of them in a vicious and self-indulgent age, shall in turn endure His averted face. What price shall they offer then, to buy back what they have forfeited?
Men who were standing there would see the beginning of the end, the approach of the kingdom of God with power, in the fall of Jerusalem, and the removal of the Hebrew candlestick out of its place.