22<\/strong>. <\/strong> The Son of man must suffer many things<\/em> ] It was necessary at once to dissipate the crude Messianic conceptions of earthly splendour and victory in which they had been brought up, and to substitute the truth of a suffering for that of a triumphant Messiah.<\/p>\n be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes<\/em> ] i.e. by each of the three great sections which formed the Jewish Sanhedrin; by all who up to that time had been looked upon as religious authorities in the nation.<\/p>\n and be slain<\/em> ] The mode<\/em> of death, and the delivery to the Gentiles, were culminating horrors which He mercifully kept back till the last journey to Jerusalem, Mat 20:19<\/span>. Hitherto He had only spoken of His death in dim and distant intimations, Joh 2:19<\/span>; Joh 3:14<\/span>; Joh 6:51<\/span>. His revelation of it was progressive<\/em>, as they were able to bear it. Mat 9:15<\/span>; Mat 10:38<\/span>; Joh 3:14<\/span>; Mat 16:4<\/span>; Mat 16:21<\/span>; Mat 17:22<\/span>; Mat 20:18<\/span>; Mat 26:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n be raised the third day<\/em> ] In Luk 9:45<\/span> St Luke shews us (as events proved)<\/p>\n Luk 9:22<\/span><\/p>\n The Son of Man must suffer many things<\/em><\/p>\n Christ foreseeing the Cross<\/strong><\/p>\n We have here set forth in the first place our LORDS ANTICIPATION OF THE CROSS. Mark the tone of the language, the minuteness of the detail, the absolute certainty of the prevision. That is not the language of a man who simply is calculating that the course which he is pursuing is likely to end in his martyrdom; but the thing lies there before Him, a definite, fixed certainty; every detail known, the scene, the instruments, the non-participation of these in the final act of His death, His resurrection, and its date–all manifested and mapped out in His sight, and all absolutely certain. <\/p>\n On the humiliation and sufferings of Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n Why does the Saviour say He must suffer? <\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> This doctrine concerning Christs dying for our sins is a strong argument for the indispensable necessity of our own repentance and reformation of life. <\/p>\n 2.<\/strong> The consideration of Christs giving Himself a sacrifice for our sins is, to them who truly repent, an encouragement to approach with confidence to the throne of grace in our prayers to God through Him (Rom 8:32<\/span>). <\/p>\n 3.<\/strong> The death of Christ is a great example to us of patient suffering at any time in well-doing, when the providence of God shall call us to bear testimony in that manner to His truth (1Pe 3:17<\/span>). (S. Clarke, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Saying, the son of man must suffer many things<\/strong>,…. In his person and character, in his soul and body, at the hands of God, and of men, and devils:<\/p>\n and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests, and Scribes<\/strong>; who made up the grand sanhedrim of the nation: by these he was to be, and was rejected as the Messiah; and when put up with another which should be released, that other should be preferred, and he rejected; and which was done at the instigation of these men, who were the builders; of whom it was foretold that they should reject the head stone of the corner, Ps 118:22<\/span><\/p>\n and be slain<\/strong>; or put to death, with the death of the cross:<\/p>\n and be raised the third day<\/strong>; according to the types and prophecies of the Old Testament. This he added for the comfort of his disciples.<\/p>\n Rejected <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist passive infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to reject after trial.<\/P> The third day <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Locative case of time as in Mt 16:21<\/span>. Here in the parallel passage Mr 8:31<\/span> has “after three days” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) in precisely the same sense. That is to say, “after three days” is just a free way of saying “on the third day” and cannot mean “on the fourth day” if taken too literally. For discussion of this plain prediction of the death of Christ with various details see discussion on Matt 16:21<\/span>; Mark 8:31<\/span>. It was a melancholy outlook that depressed the disciples as Mark and Matthew show in the protest of Peter and his rebuke. <\/P> <\/p>\n Be rejected [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The verb means to reject on scrutiny or trial, and therefore implies deliberate rejection. <\/P> Of the elders [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit., from the side of; on the part of.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n JESUS FORETOLD HIS OWN DEATH AND RESURRECTION V. 22<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things,” <\/strong>(eipon hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou polla pathein) “Saying that it was necessary that the Son of man suffer many things,” to fulfill prophecy, Mat 16:21<\/span>; Mar 8:31<\/span>. He would therefore neither hasten nor avoid His death, 1Co 2:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And be rejected of the elders and chief priests,” <\/strong>(kai apodokimasthenai apo ton presbuteron kai archiereon) “And to be rejected from and by the chief priests and elders,” Mat 16:21<\/span>; Mar 8:31<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And scribes, and be slain,” <\/strong>(kai grammateon kai apoktanthenai) “And scribes and to be killed,” Mat 16:21<\/span>; Mar 8:31<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And be raised the third day.” <\/strong>(kai te trite hemera egerthenai) “And on the third day to be raised,” Mat 16:21<\/span>; Mar 8:31<\/span>.<\/p>\n PERIOD SIXTH.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n TRANSFIGURATION, AND MINISTRY OF SORROW AND STRUGGLE.<\/p>\n From Luk 9:22<\/span> to Luk 10:42<\/span>.<\/p>\n Historical Synopsis (vol. 1.) 74 101.<\/p>\n 74.<\/em> JESUS FORETELLS HIS DEATH AND EXHORTS TO SELF-DENIAL, Luk 9:22-27<\/em><\/span><\/em> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n (Mat 16:21-28<\/span>; Mar 8:31-38<\/span>.)<\/p>\n ‘Saying, “The Son of man must (it is necessary) suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.”<\/p>\n Now He feels it important to make clear to them the deeper truths concerning His coming. They must recognise once and for all that He was not here to lead them to victory against the Romans. He was here to suffer many things, as the Son of man had suffered in Daniel 7<\/span> (as ‘the saints of the Most High’) under the depredations of the beasts, which represented empires like Rome. And this must be so because godly people must always suffer (Act 14:22<\/span>). Let them consider the Psalms. Let them consider what had happened to the prophets. Let them consider the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 50, 53. It was the nature of the world that those who followed God would suffer (compare Hebrews 11<\/span>). And thus He, Who as the Son of Man was representative man, must also ‘suffer many things’ including scorn, rejection, tears, scourgings and death. (Compare Luk 17:25<\/span>; Luk 22:15<\/span>; Luk 24:7<\/span>; Luk 24:26<\/span>; Luk 24:46<\/span>; Mar 9:12<\/span>; Mar 10:45<\/span>; Joh 3:14<\/span>; Joh 10:15<\/span>; Joh 10:17<\/span>; Act 1:3<\/span>; Act 3:18<\/span>; Heb 2:18<\/span>; Heb 5:8<\/span>; Heb 9:26<\/span>; Heb 13:12<\/span>; 1Pe 2:21 ; 1Pe 2:23<\/span>; 1Pe 3:18<\/span>; 1Pe 4:1<\/span>)<\/p>\n ‘And be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes.’ The elders were the prominent lay people on the Council (Luk 7:3<\/span>; Luk 20:1<\/span>; Luk 22:52<\/span>; Luk 22:66<\/span>; Mar 11:27<\/span>; Mar 14:43<\/span>; Mar 14:53<\/span>; Mar 15:1<\/span>), the chief priests were the hierarchy who regulated Temple affairs, and the scribes were the Teachers of the Law (Luk 5:21<\/span>; Luk 5:30<\/span>; Luk 6:7<\/span>). He was already rejected by many of them and He recognised that it was to be expected that almost all of them would turn against Him (Psalms 118<\/span> (LXX 117).22), for He knew what was in man (Joh 2:25<\/span>), and He was hardly ensuring His popularity by tearing down their structures and their hypocrisy. He was no different in this respect than the previous prophets. He was here to be ‘rejected’ (literally ‘rejected after scrutiny with regard to office’) by the great Jewish religious leaders of the day, as the great prophets had always been, and necessarily must be (compare Luk 6:23<\/span>; Luk 13:33-34<\/span>; Luk 20:10-12<\/span>; Mar 12:5<\/span>; Mat 23:35<\/span>; Mat 23:37<\/span>). In His view this was inevitable. Had He not Himself declared, ‘Woe to you when all men speak well of you’? (Luk 6:26<\/span>). It was of false prophets that men spoke well (Luk 6:26<\/span>). They had rejected Jeremiah. Would they not do the same to Him?<\/p>\n We can consider here God’s complaint against the Jewish leaders in Jer 2:8<\/span>, of whom He says, “the priests did not say ‘where is the Lord’ and they that handle the Law knew Me not.” They had long ago turned against God. Compare in this regard Jer 18:18<\/span> where Jeremiah too was rejected by those who handled the Law and Luk 20:1-2<\/span> where he was smitten by ‘the priest who was the chief officer in the house of the Lord’. See also Jer 26:7-8<\/span>; Jer 26:11<\/span> where ‘the priests and the prophets’ sought his death. Jeremiah would be especially significant to Jesus as he too prophesied the destruction of the Temple (Jer 7:14<\/span>), calling it a ‘den of robbers’ (Jer 7:11<\/span>). And now a greater than Jeremiah was here saying the same things. So it would be nothing new for the religious leaders of Israel to condemn such a prophet ‘for the sake of the nation’ (Joh 18:14<\/span>). This rejection by the Jewish leaders is further based on the pattern of such Scriptures as Zechariah 11<\/span> where the true shepherd who had fed the flock was rejected by the false shepherds of Judah and Israel, and was dismissed for thirty pieces of silver, the value of a slave, which he cast to the potter in the house of the Lord as a sign that it was rejected by him and was insufficient. Thus rejection by the elders, and chief priests and scribes must not be seen as anything unusual.<\/p>\n ‘And be killed.’ He had no doubts about what lay ahead. It is not really surprising that Jesus saw His future in terms of suffering. He had witnessed what had happened to John the Baptiser (Luk 9:7<\/span>; Luk 9:9<\/span>), He knew of the growing antagonism against Him (Luk 6:11<\/span>; Mar 3:6<\/span>; Mar 3:22<\/span>), He knew of the career of the Suffering Servant in Isa 51:4-11<\/span>; Isa 52:13<\/span> to Isa 53:12<\/span>, and of the Smitten Shepherd in Zec 13:7<\/span> (consider Joh 10:11<\/span>). He knew of the references to the suffering of the godly in the Psalms (e.g. Psalms 22<\/span>; Psa 118:10<\/span> on) and He knew that the Son of Man in Daniel as the representative of God’s people would come out of suffering into the presence of God, as ‘the beasts’ attacked the true people of God (Dan 7:13-14<\/span> with Dan 7:22<\/span> and Dan 7:25-27<\/span>). He had no Messianic delusions. Unlike the disciples He knew what was in store. And He knew that His death was necessary so that He could be a ‘ransom for many’ (Mar 10:45<\/span>)<\/p>\n Strictly speaking the disciples should also have been prepared for this, but like us they had the ability to make words mean what they wanted them to mean. Some of them had been disciples of John the Baptiser, and they had been shocked when he had met a violent end. Then they had been told that the Bridegroom was to be ‘snatched away’ from them (Luk 2:20<\/span>), and then they would fast. It had further been inferred that the temple of His body would be destroyed, and in three days raised again (Joh 2:19<\/span>). And Jesus had clearly stated that He was giving His flesh for the life of the world (Joh 6:51<\/span>) and that men would ‘eat and drink’ of Him (Joh 6:56<\/span>), a clear reference to His being put to death according to Old Testament passages such as Psa 14:4<\/span>; Psa 53:4<\/span>; Mic 3:3<\/span>; Isa 49:26<\/span>; Zec 9:15<\/span> LXX; compare Mat 23:30<\/span>. But in the way men have they had refused to accept the unpalatable truth and had ignored it. Now they were being faced up with it in a way that they could not ignore.<\/p>\n Interestingly we have here an evidence of how carefully the actual words of Jesus were preserved. It would have been so easy to alter it to read ‘crucified’, especially in the light of Luk 9:23<\/span> (and see Luk 24:7<\/span>) and the fact that crucifixion was the normal death under the Romans for high treason, but they did not.<\/p>\n ‘And the third day be raised up.’ But on the third day He would rise again. He may not have intended ‘the third day’ literally. ‘Three days’ indicated a relatively short period of time and could mean ‘within days’ (compare the ‘three days journey’, a standard phrase in the Pentateuch indicating a shortish journey compared with the longer ‘seven days journey’ – Gen 30:36<\/span>; Exo 3:18<\/span>; Exo 5:3<\/span>; Exo 8:27<\/span>; Num 10:33<\/span>; Num 33:8<\/span>; Jon 3:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n This idea of a third day resurrection is finally taken from Hos 6:1-2<\/span> (Luke, like Matthew, interprets the ‘three days’ of Mark as ‘the third day’) interpreted in the light of the suffering Servant of Isaiah. It was initially spoken of Israel, (God’s vine). But Jesus was here as in Himself representing the true Israel, the true Vine (Joh 15:1<\/span>). As the Servant He was Israel (Isa 49:3<\/span>). Thus he could apply it to Himself.<\/p>\n Note the context in Hosea. God will wait ‘in His place’ until Israel acknowledge their guilt and seek His face, and in their distress seek Him and say, ‘come let us return to the Lord’. But this will not be until ‘He has torn that He may heal them, He has stricken and will bind them up’. These last words could well have been spoken looking at the Servant. For as Isaiah has made clear (Isa 53:3-5<\/span>) this was what first had be played out on the One Who has come as the representative of Israel. We have here a clear picture of the Servant in Isaiah 53<\/span>. It is in Him finally that He has torn them, it is in Him that He has stricken them, for He has borne for them all that they should have faced. And the result will be a reviving and a raising up on the third day, first for Him (Isa 53:10<\/span>; Isa 53:12<\/span>) and then for them. For He will have gone before them in order to be a guilt offering and make it possible for all. It could all only be because their representative had first gone through it for them that they could enjoy it.<\/p>\n So as the One Who saw Himself as suffering for Israel, in their place as their representative, Jesus also saw Himself as being raised again like them, on the third day.<\/p>\n Indeed the fact is that the Servant’s task could only be fulfilled by resurrection. How else could He see His offspring, prolong His days and receive the spoils of victory (Isa 53:10<\/span>; Isa 53:12<\/span>)? (Compare also Isa 52:13-15<\/span>). And how else could the Son of Man come triumphantly out of suffering into the presence of the Ancient of Days to receive the everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:13-14<\/span>)? And unless He was raised how could the Holy One ‘not see corruption’ (Psa 16:10<\/span>)? Resurrection was required as God’s vindication in a suffering world (Isa 26:19<\/span>). And it is also constantly implied by such statements as Luk 9:24-26<\/span>. All this was clear from the Scriptures (Luk 18:31<\/span>).<\/p>\n That Jesus spoke of Himself as the Son of Man is almost indisputable. The title was of no interest to the early church, only ever being used by Stephen, for they did not understand it and were at a loss what to make of it. After the resurrection it was the titles of Messiah and Lord which were clearly applied to Him. Its constant appearance on the lips of Jesus can therefore only really be due to the fact that it was well recognised that He used it in preference to other titles. And this is especially so in view of the fact that it is so applied in all four Gospels without exception, and almost always on His lips.<\/p>\n Note on Dan 7:13-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n In the Book of Daniel the empires (e.g. Luk 7:23<\/span>) of the Mediterranean world are likened to rapacious beasts because their behaviour is seen as like that of beasts who conquer and ravage and destroy (Dan 7:1-8<\/span>; Dan 8:1-14<\/span>). These beasts also represent their kings (Luk 7:17<\/span>), and their horns represent later kings and kingdoms (e.g. Luk 8:20-23<\/span>). In contrast the people of God are seen as a ‘son of man’ (Luk 7:13-14<\/span> with Luk 9:18<\/span>; Luk 9:25-27<\/span>). In their obedience to God they are human in contrast with the bestial empires. Because they are God’s people they will be subject to suffering and tribulation (Luk 7:25<\/span>). But finally they will triumph when ‘the thrones are placed’ (Luk 7:9<\/span>) and their kingly representative (Luk 7:13<\/span>) will come on the clouds of heaven into the presence of God, ‘the Ancient of Days’, to receive the everlasting dominion and glory and kingdom (Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I.<\/strong><\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>OUR LORDS RECOGNITION OF THE NECESSITY OF HIS SUFFERING. He does not say shall, but must. His suffering was necessary on the ground of filial obedience. The Fathers will is the Sons law. But yet that necessity grounded on filial obedience, was no mere external necessity determined solely by the Divine will. God so willed it, because it must be so, and not it must be because God so willed it. That is to say, the work to which Christ had set His hand was a work that demanded the Cross, nor could it be accomplished without it. For it was the work of redeeming the world, and required more than a beautiful life, more than a Divine gentleness of heart, more than the homely and yet deep wisdom of His teachings, it required the sacrifice that He offered on the Cross. <\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Now, note further, HOW WE HAVE HERE ALSO, OUR LORDS WILLING ACCEPTANCE OF THE NECESSITY. It is one thing to recognize, and another thing to accept, a needs-be. This must was no unwelcome obligation laid upon Him against His will, but one to which His whole nature responded, and which He accepted. No doubt there was in Him the innocent instinctive physical shrinking from death. No doubt the Cross, in so far, was pain and suffering. But that shrinking might be a shrinking of nature, but it was not a recoil of will. The ship may toss in dreadful billows, but the needle points to the pole. The train may rock upon the line, but it never leaves the rails. Christ felt that the Cross was an evil, but that never made Him falter in His determination to hear it, His willing acceptance of the necessity was owing to His full resolve to save the world. He must die because He would redeem, and He would redeem because He could not but love. So the must was not an iron chain that fastened Him to His Cross. Like some of the heroic martyrs of old, who refused to be bound to the funeral pile, He stood there chained to it by nothing but His own will and loving purpose to save the world. And oh I brethren; in that loving purpose, each of us may be sure that we had an individual and a personal share. He must die, because He loved me, and gave Himself for me. <\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>Lastly, notice here our LORDS TEACHING THE NECESSITY OF HIS DEATH. This announcement was preceded by that conversation which led to the crystalizing of the half-formed convictions of the apostles in a definite creed–Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. But that was not all that they needed to know, and believe and trust to. That was the first volume of their lesson-book. The second volume was this, that Christ must suffer. And so let us learn the central place which the Cross holds in Christs teaching. (A. Maclaren, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>It was at that time, and in the sense our Saviour then spake it, necessary for this reason, because otherwise the prophecies that went before concerning Him could not have been fulfilled. This reason our Saviour Himself gives (Mat 26:53<\/span>; Mar 14:48<\/span>; Luk 24:26<\/span>; Luk 24:44<\/span>). The same reason is alleged also by the apostles in their preaching (Acts 1Pe 1:10<\/span>). <\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The death of Christ was necessary to make the pardon of sin. But the death of Christ was necessary, at least in this respect, to make the pardon of sin consistent with the wisdom of God in His good government of the world, and to be a proper attestation of His irreconcilable hatred against all unrighteousness. <\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The practical inferences from what has been said are as follows. <\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n