The Great Reversal

Mark Study #35 by Michael Spencer

We are now precisely in the center of the Gospel of Mark. The first half of the Gospel has completed its task of asking the question "Who is Jesus?" and answering the question within the context of the arrival of the Kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus. The miracles, exorcisms and astonishing deeds have demonstrated the presence of God in the person of Jesus. His calling of disciples and intense training of them in these Kingdom realities has demonstrated Jesus' intention to place a lasting Kingdom movement in the world. Mark has presented Jesus living intensely and quickly, but from the divine nature of the miracles to his identification by God himself and the testimonies of demonic spirits there is no question who Jesus is or why he has come into the world.

As the pace of the narrative has slowed, the focus has come in closer on Jesus and the disciples. The disciples, despite all they have seen and heard, are still uncomprehending. Mark prepares us for this with the "stooges-like" dialogue between Jesus and the disciples in 8:14-21 and then the two-stage healing of the blind man in 8:22-26. Mark is intentionally placing these stories to move the reader to a second level of understanding, one that now begins to shed light on why Jesus has so often told people to keep quiet about his miracles, yet is obviously eager for his disciples to grasp the truth themselves. We are now prepared for what virtually all scholars believe is the key passage in Mark.

All of us have heard this passage preached and used dozens of times. Now that we have studied through the Gospel of Mark, we have some appreciation for the drama inherent in the context. Mark has been preparing us for this passage from 1:1! Each part of the Gospel has been leading us here. Something important, vital and essential is going to be revealed. We should be on the edge of our seat. And there is great drama, and a great twist in the plot waiting for us in the next few verses.

It helps to locate Caesarea Phillipi. It is as far north as Jesus ever journeyed. It is the absolute northernmost point in Israel. This is not Caeserea on the sea. The location had high associations with Pagan religions, being full of impressive temples to the Greek God pan. Herod had build a temple to the Roman Emperor there and his son Phillip had expanded the city and renamed it in honor of Caesar. What is Jesus doing here? None of the Gospel writers tell us. Certainly it was territory that underlined the power of the spiritual and political Kingdoms of this world. In Matthew's version (Matthew 16:13-20) the Gates of Hades are the spiritual strongholds that the Kingdom will defeat. For whatever reason, the disciples were presented here with a visual reminder that Jesus was in a world where other powers and systems claimed authority.

Jesus' question in 8:27 has already been hinted at several times. The disciples ask a version of it in 4:41; Herod Agrippa hears similar conjectures in 6:14ff. The public stir about Jesus has been immense. Both Jesus and the disciples must have heard opinions and conjectures about Jesus all day long most days. (Imagine if he would have had a phone, fax and e-mail! Or been profiled on local TV!) So I doubt that Jesus is actually seeking information with this question. He is asking the disciples to state the options.

Today this remains an effective way to present Jesus. Who could he be? How could we categorize him? The options are limited. He may not have existed, but there are major problems with this, notably the agreement of all the early enemies of Christianity that he did exist. He could have been an intentionally evil and deceptive person. If this is so, then we have to say that greatest force for good in history came from an evil man. And we also have to say that all those who claim to have experienced Christ are deluded or liars. He could be a sincerely wrong good man, which means all of Christianity is based on lies about Jesus. Yet it is the core of Christianity that Jesus claimed to be God over and over. How does this square with being a good man. He could have been nuts, but this has many of the same problems. Or he could be who he claimed to be, who the resurrection demonstrates him to be and who Christians experience him to be. It is still a good question.

The answer to this question is a Christian essential. Those who cannot answer this question with the Biblical answer, but substitute some other, should do Christianity a favor and repudiate any association with Christ. No Buddhist would deny Buddha and claim to be a Buddhist. No Muslim would deny the Prophet and claim to be a Muslim. But Christianity is full to the brim of those who deny the full Biblical claims of who Jesus is and yet still claim to somehow be Christians. It was Machen who observed rightly that liberal Christianity is a different religion entirely. As is Mormonism, the New Age, etc. It is a crucial and defining question which all Christians should learn to use.

The disciple's answers are those we would expect. Even though Jesus and John were contemporaries, the lapse in "news time" would explain why Jesus was associated with John. Elijah was the most powerful of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus' miracles were the core of his reputation at this point. The expectation of the return of Elijah at the end times grew out of Malachi 4:4-6 and was characteristic of the highly charged messianic mindset of the times. Of course, all these answers are inadequate. They demonstrate that the man in the street had a higher opinion of Jesus than the religious leaders, but the truth is still alluding everyone. They only lead to the key question that Jesus wants to ask: "Who do you say that I am?"

This sort of question has not been asked by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Some scholars immediately conclude the entire conversation to be legendary. But the evidence is much more likely that the conversation was a key moment for the disciples, the moment of revelation and reversal, and a moment where Jesus goes from commending Peter to rebuking him. The legendary purpose of this seems obscure and unlikely. More likely is that this was the major turning point, the dawning of the truth of not only who Jesus was, but also what he would do.

Peter's answer is a major step of faith. Matthew includes the commendation of Peter and the announcement that such a conclusion is only possible because the Father is opening eyes. We often do not appreciate the gravity of this conclusion and the faith obvious in confessing it. Though Jesus had done many miracles, the Messiah had several characteristics that were high on the minds of the Jews of Jesus day. These included:
1) Being a member of the royal family of David (and acknowledged to be so.)
2) Being an active military leader, freeing Israel from pagan domination and restoring independence.
3) Ushering in the Kingdom of God, which including judging the nations and elevating Israel.
With his reputation as large as it was, and with the expectations of his most enthusiastic followers very high, Jesus had still not done any of these things. His disciples called him "teacher" and "rabbi." So Peter is really confessing what he believes Jesus will do. The devout hope for the Messiah was strong in Peter's time, and this was the ultimate compliment and statement of devotion. It was saying that Peter believed Jesus would rule the nation, establish freedom and lead the nation into all the blessings of God's Kingdom on earth.

We should note that Peter says Jesus is the "Christ" which is the actually Greek term for anointed one, or King. We should also not what the other Gospels add at this point, particularly that Luke adds the confession that Jesus is the Son of God. Any Jew knew this from the very idea of the Messiah (See psalm 2 for instance) but Luke's gentile/Roman audience needed the clarification. We should also note that with this confession, Jesus does not tell his disciples "OK, guys you FINALLY got it!" No, there is more. Putting Jesus into the category of prophet and miracle worker was inadequate. But now we find that seeing Jesus as the messiah is even inadequate. What is going on?

The power of Mark 8:31-32a is obvious. Read it and take it in. At the point of revelation and realization, Jesus turns the whole world upside down. When they understand, they do not understand at all. When they "see" they really only see partially. Jesus is going to redefine the entire idea of the Messiah in a way that will not only return the disciples to their "clueless" state, but also completely blast apart their simple confession of faith, turning them almost against Jesus.

Jesus begins to teach that the messiah is NOT going to be the triumphant warrior, but the rejected sufferer. The leaders will not welcome him, they will kill him. He will be executed by the authorities, not put into authority. And then there is a phrase they would have never have heard before anywhere: the messiah would rise from the dead. "He spoke plainly about this…"

We of course, know that Jesus is firmly focused in Isaiah 53, a passage that generations of Jews had applied to the nation of Israel itself. But Jesus is saying that the messiah will be the rejected one, and the triumph, the victory, will be of a very different sort. This "Son of Man" (remember, another triumphant title) will die, not reign, at least in the short term. Jesus lets his disciples know that this is God's plan. These things "must" happen. This is Kingdom power and Kingdom work as well as the miracles, but an arrival of the Kingdom of a very different kind than anything the disciples have thought of before.

We do not know how long Jesus continued in this teaching line before Peter spoke up, but I assume it might have been considerable time. Peter has been the confessor, so he naturally feels it is his duty to set Jesus straight on the basics of being the Messiah. The word rebuke is strong. What Jesus is saying is virtually blasphemy to the hopeful ears of these men. Mark is as dramatic here as at any point in the Gospels. Jesus "looks" at the disciples. What a look this must have been! What must have been in Jesus heart. The irony is very heavy at this point. The disciples are mentally rejecting the very purpose of God; in fact, the very greatest love gift ever given to human beings. Why? Because they cannot fit it into their categories and into their ways of thinking. (Familiar?)

Jesus' actually rebuke is full of double meanings. In the spiritual warfare theme of the Bible, it is Satan who ultimately rejects the plans and purposes of God. Peter is not Satan, but at that moment, following his own fallen heart and mind, his purposes are at one with the prince of evil. We need not sell our soul in some occultic ritual to be exactly where Satan might want us to be.

This rebuke also teaches us that there is a human plane where everything make sense to the human mind and heart, but God's grace and gift are ignored. And the primary reason for this is the rejection of the cross, the rejection of the grace and love that are at the heart of God's dealings with a fallen world. Just imagine where we would be if the Lord left us to what seemed right and good to us. We are not to condemn Peter. At no point are we more to identify with him. (I always think of John 6:66-69, where John suspends his usual hostility towards Peter to show him in a more sympathetic light.)

But there is more to this incredible turn of events. And we will see that next time.

Back to the Gospel of Mark Homepage