Necessity of the Cross

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels    8

Necessity of the Cross

(Matt. 16:21–24; 

Mark 8:31–9:1)

When Jesus retreated with his disciples to the villages around Caesarea Philippi, it had become evident that Israel would not accept him. On the way, he questioned them about his identity:  “Who do men say that I am?” and then:  “But who say you that I am?”  Their answers summarize how matters stood.  Most people had no clue who he really was. But Peter speaks for the twelve when he acknowledges him as the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew Messiah). Jesus accepted the confession, but then charged his disciples not to broadcast their conclusion as yet. The following discussion indicates the reason.  They were not ready to proclaim the Christ. They did not really understand what was meant by the term. So in this closing period of his ministry Jesus tries to make them understand the nature of his Messiahship.

“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” (Mark 8:31). I have quoted from Mark rather than Matthew because Mark’s record is immediately plain that it is “the Son of man” who must suffer and die, a point to which we will return shortly.

The idea of a suffering, rejected, crucified Messiah did not sit well with Peter. So he endeavored to turn Jesus aside from the way of the cross. Peter had the usual Jewish view of an earthly messiah who would lead armies in battle and liberate the nation from the Romans. The disciples had not understood Isaiah’s word portrait of Jehovah’s suffering servant as a reference to the Messiah.

Peter was acting for Satan, parroting Satan’s proposal that Jesus did not have to go the way of the cross to attain the crown. It is no wonder that in Jesus’ rebuke he calls Peter “Satan.”  “Get behind me, Satan.”  Peter was doing Satan’s work. The focus of his attention was not upon “the things of God, but the things of men.” He had acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ on the basis of revelation from the Father in heaven (Matt. 16:17). But that is as far as revelation had taken him. He knew Jesus as the Christ, but did not understand what that meant. He was seeing things as a man and not as God saw them. It was God’s plan that Jesus suffer and die.

That explains what is meant by “must” in the assertion that the Son of man must suffer, be killed and then arise from the dead. It is true that Jesus’ adversaries were encircling him, so to speak. But he did not mean that the circumstances were such that his death was inevitable. He will repeat his prediction again and again in the last period of his ministry (Matt. 17:12, 22–23; 20:17–19). But when he finally explains why it had to happen, here is what he says:

At the last supper he explained: “The Son of man goes even as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24). Later, the same night, Jesus said to his disciples:  “All you shall be offended in me this night; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad” (v. 31). Then he prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will but as you will” (v. 39), and then again: “My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done” (v. 42). It was the will of God that Jesus drink the bitter cup. It was not possible to accomplish the divine purpose without it.

That purpose was revealed in Scripture. When Peter whacked off the ear of Malchus Jesus told him to put the sword away. He could call for an army of angels to defend him. It was not a case of being overpowered. But in that case “how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” he asked Peter (vv. 51–54) and then turned to the crowd: “But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (v. 56).

So when Jesus said the Son of man “must” suffer, be rejected and killed, he did not mean that he had gotten himself in trouble with the authorities and there was no escape. He had to die because it was the purpose of God, that divine purpose which had been revealed in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. We shall see that he was combining two Old Testament concepts. One related to Daniel’s vision about the Son of man. The other related to Isaiah’s writings about Jehovah’s mysterious suffering servant.


Take note. I am mostly quoting the ASV (of 1901). If you use the KJV, please take note that in the synoptic gospels many textual variations are found. Not a matter of translation, but a question of the original text.

Taking Away of Bridegroom & Sign of Jonah

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels   6

Taking Away of the Bridegroom

(Matt. 9:14f)

The first direct mention of Jesus’ death is obscure. The period of questions and controversies described in Matthew 9 gave rise to a question about fasting. Why do your disciples not fast, when John’s disciples and the Pharisees are accustomed to frequent fasting (v. 14 & parallels). The question may have come in close connection with the banquet at Matthew’s house. Perhaps Jesus and his disciples were feasting at the very time others were fasting.

Jesus replied that fasting was not appropriate to the occasion. Then he illustrated the point that fasting should fit the occasion. A wedding is not a time for fasting, which expressed sorrow, but rather for eating, drinking and making merry.  “Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast” (v. 15).

The New Testament frequently portrays Jesus as a bridegroom. The sons of the bridechamber are “companions of the bridegroom” (ASV margin), or “the friends of the bridegroom whose duty it was to provide and care for whatever pertained to the bridal chamber, i. e. whatever was needed for the due celebration of the nuptials” (GT, 430 on Grk numphon). These would rejoice to be in the presence of the bridegroom (as John 3:29) and to serve him. It would certainly not be a time for fasting and mourning, but rather for joy and celebration.

It would, however, be quite different “when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.” That would be a true occasion for fasting and expressing grief. Jesus does not say:  “when the bridegroom goes away,” as to consummate the marriage and to begin his life with his bride. That would be a time of joy and his friends would certainly share his joy. But instead, Jesus speaks of the bridegroom being “taken away from them.”

Jesus seems to refer to his death. It would be like a bridegroom being snatched away from the wedding and put to death without completing the nuptials—certainly reason for sorrow.

 No one would have to make the disciples fast then. They would be full of sorrow and have no appetite for food. Such a reference to violent death does not surprise us, given the conflict that was beginning to develop. But please notice Jesus’ early awareness that he had come to die.

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels  7

The Sign of Jonah

(Matt. 12:39f)

Another reference is equally obscure. Jesus had just performed a great miracle, casting a demon from a man who had been rendered blind and dumb by the demon (Matt. 12:22). These exorcisms more than any other miracle Jesus performed were a clear demonstration that Jesus was working for God and against Satan. Nothing else could have demonstrated it so effectively. But his brilliant opponents, unable to deny the miracle, questioned the source of the power by which he worked, and tried to discredit Jesus by claiming he was in league with Satan, casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (v. 24). Jesus’ refutation exposes the nonsense, piling up one reason after another. Read the arguments in Matthew 12:25–37. But when these smart guys demanded to “see a sign” (v. 38), it is not surprising that Jesus would not play their game, but replied:  “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:  for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the seamonster (lit. tr.); so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (vv. 39–40). He had nothing more for people who could abuse evidence as these had, except the one great sign that would vindicate and authenticate him beyond any question, his resurrection from the dead. No doubt the emphasis here is upon his triumph in coming forth from the grave. But the verses do refer to the death of Jesus and prove that he anticipated his own death. However, neither this passage nor the one previously considered provides any evidence of the reason he had to die. The next one does.

The Great Physician and the Healing of Man's Infirmities

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels 5

More on the Mission and Work of Jesus

The Great Physician and the Healing of Man’s Infirmities

 (Matt. 8:17 & 9:1–13)

Matthew 8:17 has another reference to the suffering servant:  “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases” (Is. 53:4). At first we are startled because the words are applied to the healing of the sick and casting out of demons. But in Isaiah the application is clearly to spiritual infirmities, from which we are “healed.”

But sin is the ultimate source of all suffering and grief in the world. When sin entered the world, a host of evils came with it, pain, suffering, death (Gen. 3). We live in a cursed world, a world in rebellion against its Creator. God could not curse man and leave him in a perfect world. So the whole world was affected by the sin of Adam (cf. Rom. 8:18–25). But when Jesus dealt with sin by dying on the cross, he dealt with these consequences of sin. None will be found in the new world (Rev. 21–22). “God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more” (21:4).

To be sure, Jesus did not immediately sweep away all pain and suffering. But perhaps the application of Isaiah 53:4 to the healings of Jesus is intended to say that these healings were a token of what was ultimately to be in that new world because he “bare our sins in his body upon the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24).

Matthew’s initial summary of the ministry of Jesus mentions two activities:  (1) Teaching in the synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and (2) healing all kinds of disease and sickness (Matt. 4:23). As we have seen (Matt. 8:16–17), Isaiah’s description of the vicarious suffering of Jehovah’s servant is applied to this healing activity. But when we come to Matthew 9:2 Jesus points out another, in fact the main purpose for his coming—i. e., to deal with the problem of sin. A man with paralysis was brought to Jesus on his palat. But remarkably, instead of immediately healing him, Jesus spoke to the ultimate problem behind all such ailments: “Child,” he tells the man, “be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven.” At that point an undercurrent of criticism began: “This man is blaspheming,” thought certain scribes (v. 3), reasoning that only God could forgive sins (Mark 2:7). The point they were missing (Matt. 9:6–8) is that God can give a man authority to forgive sins. Jesus first asks them to consider whether it was easier to say: “Thy sins are forgiven; or to say: Arise, and walk” (v. 5). Not do, but say! Surely it would be easier to say a person’s sins were forgiven. Who could know whether it was true? But to tell a paralyzed man: “Arise, and walk” would be much more easily detected if he could not do it. So Jesus would be discredited.

Jesus points out a relation between the two: “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he says to the man who was sick of palsy), Arise, and take up your bed, and go to your house” (v. 6). When the man complied, the crowds “were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (vv. 7–8). The ability to heal this ailment in the visible world was the proof of his ability to heal spiritual diseases that were invisible.

Then when Jesus called the tax collector, Matthew (called Levi in Mark) this man held a banquet in his house, evidently to introduce his friends to Jesus. But it gave Pharisees reason for another complaint (Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13–18)—namely, that Jesus was eating and drinking with disreputable people, tax collectors and sinners. The complaint gave Jesus occasion for further explaining his mission. “When Jesus heard it, he said to them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). Jesus was not joining with sinners in sin, but was like a physician who goes among the sick to heal, while being careful to avoid contagion himself.

According to Matthew 9:13, Jesus recommended that his critics needed to study Hosea 6:6. God says: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,” and then explained: “for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” If his critics did not understand Hosea 6:6 they would never be able to understand the mission or ministry of Jesus.

The angel had told Joseph that Jesus would “save his people from their sins.” Now two separate incidents confirm this explanation of his mission. When we eat the bread and drink the cup, we remember that he did this work by dying on the cross.

Messiah on Trial

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels 4

Messiah on Trial

The synoptic gospels record that a great trial immediately followed Jesus’ baptism. Mark’s record (1:12–13) is brief; Matthew 4:1–4 and Luke 4:1–13 much fuller.  But all agree that terrible spiritual trial followed the moment of spiritual exaltation. Even a formal link is established by two of Satan’s proposals.  “If you are the Son of God” recalls heaven’s acknowledgment of Jesus shortly before:  “You are my Son.”  The temptations recur in one form or another at various points in Jesus’ ministry. But the narrative of the temptation is not just a dramatization by the authors of trials occurring through Jesus’ ministry. It is an actual occurrence that took place immediately following Jesus’ baptism.

The account is more than a model for dealing with temptation. We can profit from it in that way. But that is not the main purpose of the temptation. Jesus’ trials are not temptations common to mankind, but trials of the Messiah. They present an alternative to the idea of the Messiah summarized in the two Old Testament prophecies cited by the Father’s voice out of heaven. It is an alternative found in the nation Israel as Jesus begins his ministry.

Jesus went into the wilderness under the influence of the Holy Spirit to be tempted of the devil. It was under divine influence that Jesus fasted and grew hungry. The proposal to turn stones into bread was a temptation to abandon God in order to save himself, a temptation to make a break with God and to act independently.

But life depends on God—not just bread; and Jesus commits himself to trust God and to eat when God orders food (Deut. 8:3).

The next temptation arises from Jesus’ answer. So Jesus will depend upon the word of God for life? Well, we shall soon see whether God’s word can be depended upon. Jesus is challenged to endanger himself for no other reason than that God had given his word that he would protect the righteous man. Thus he could soon see whether God’s word would sustain him. It was a trial of God’s word, playing upon Jesus’ trust in that word.  But Jesus saw that the experiment would not show trust in God, but the opposite, a trial of God. He would not treat God’s word as something yet to be proved. He trusted it, and would not insult God in  that way.

The third temptation seems to offer what the Messiah would rightfully have, and what Jesus came to get, authority over all the world (cf. esp. Luke 4:5–8). Had not Jehovah promised his Messiah the nations for his inheritance? (cf. Psalm 2:8). It was an effort to turn Jesus aside from the way of the cross. The devil suggests that he could have the crown without the cross. Jesus could have authority over all the kingdoms of the world simply by acknowledging the devil as his overlord.

But the words quoted at the baptism, “You are my son,” were followed by others:  “Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance” (Psalm 2:8). Furthermore, the other quotation (Isaiah 42:1), “my beloved in whom I am well pleased,” was from one of Isaiah’s great passages about Jehovah’s servant who was to be exalted, but at the cost of suffering and death (Isaiah 52:13–53:12).

Jesus refuses. The quotation (Deut. 6:13) sends the adversary away with words indicating he would not give Satan the homage that belongs only to God. He would not be Satan’s messiah. He would get his crown from God, even if it meant the cross.

Satan left, but only “for a season” (Luke 4:13). He would return. A materialistic people tries to make him a king (John 6:15). His own brothers urge him:  “Manifest yourself to the world” (John 7:4). His leading disciple tries to turn him from the cross (Matt. 16:21–23). Even on the cross he is taunted:  “Let him come down from the cross, and we will believe on him” (Matt. 27:42).

But the records of the temptation show that the cross was not the tragic end of some other failed mission, but itself the mission of Jesus as he understood it from the beginning. He knew the options that lay before him and made his choice at the outset. He kept to the path of the cross despite a terrible spiritual ordeal, and rejected Satan’s compromises and the false concept of the kingdom Satan had planted in the nation. He saw himself as Jehovah’s servant portrayed in Isaiah, and he knew that his destiny was the cross.  He understood it from the beginning, and would not be turned from it. Not by anything Satan could offer.