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.