The Gospel of Mark 8:27-38 - Treason Against Caesar, Allegiance to the True Son of God

In the previous post we talked about the Pharisee challenge to Jesus where they demanded a sign from God to prove that He is the Messiah. Jesus rejected their request and warned the Disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod (the need for a sign, unbelief). Then He traveled to Bethsaida and healed a man who was blind. Now we see Jesus walking with the Disciples in the area of Caesarea Philippi where He asks them who they believe that He is. After they tell Him what others are saying Peter finally confesses that He is the Messiah, the Son of God. The location of this event is very important and we will discuss it later. Jesus then told the Disciples of His coming death and resurrection and made it clear that they must choose the cross to follow Him.

Discussion:

“And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.”

Mark 8:27–30 (ESV)

Caesarea Philippi

Jesus came to the area of the city of Caesarea Philippi and on the way He discussed with the Disciples their view of who He is. The location of the discussion is extremely significant and if we look at the history of Caesarea Philippi we will gain some understanding of what Jesus has in mind here.

The city of Caesarea Philippi was situated in front of Mount Hermon and this mountain had a special Greek holy site known at that time for its worship of the god Pan. Long before the city was named Caesarea Philippi however, the Canaanites had already considered it a sacred site. The name “Harmon” is possibly related to the Canaanite word “herem”, which means a sacred place or thing (Phillips 2016, 288). By the time the Israelites conquered the land of Israel, the mountain was called Baal Hermon, connecting it to the worship of Baal (Phillips 2016, 288). The city in front of the mountain was called Laish, but when the tribe of Dan took it they renamed it to “Dan.” It later became one of the sites of apostacy when a golden calf was set up there by Jeroboam son of Nebat (Phillips 2016, 288). Conquered by the Greeks later we see an influx of Greek influence and culture, thus the area became known for the worship of Greek gods, like Pan (it was named Paneas after the god Pan) (Phillips 2016, 289). In 20 BC king Herod was given the city of Paneas and he rebuilt it and dedicated it to Caesar which moved the focus of worship towards the “Imperial cult”, that is, worship of Caesar (Phillips 2016, 290). Finally, Philip the tetrarch was given the city and enlarged the temple of Augustus Caesar and renamed Paneas to Caesarea (Phillips 2016, 290-291). Thus it was called Caesarea Philippi. It was this religious and cultural environment that the conversation took place. This site was a place to worship the emperor of Rome and it was around this location that Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah, with Matthew adding the title “Son of God.”

The Christ, the Son of God

The term Messiah had special significance to Jews. They were waiting for the coming Messiah. They believed he would conquer their enemies and set up a kingdom. However, Peter does not just say that Jesus is the Messiah, as Matthew adds that He is the “Son of God.” This would have been seen as treason against Rome, since it was Caesar who was the “son of god” (Culpepper 2021, 567). This was especially true considering that they were standing next to Caesarea Philippi, a location of emperor worship! In other words, the Gospels are telling you that Jesus is in opposition to Rome itself and Caesar, that He is the true Son of God deserving worship! Perhaps this treason is the reason why Jesus instructed them to be quiet about this revelation.

Once the point was made and they understood who He is Jesus began to explain that their understanding of the Messiah was flawed. He did not come to set up an earthly kingdom, He came to die and resurrect!

“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 (ESV)

Be rejected by the elders, Chief Priests, and Scribes

Jesus was going to be rejected by the elders, Chief Priests, and the Scribes but who were they? What did this mean to be rejected by them? The elders were older men who had lived a long time and were successful. Although later they would be called the Gerousia (or Senate/Council) and would form part of the Sanhedrin, during the time of Jesus they were merely older laymen (Marcus 2009, 1103). The Chief Priests (notice the plural) were the current Chief Priest as well as other members of his family who had been previous Chief Priests, who would have been the head of the Gerousia and later the Sanhedrin (Marcus 2009, 1102–1103). The Scribes (“grammata” in Greek), were professionals scribes, made up mostly of priests and Levites, who were trained as interpreters of the Torah (Marcus 2008, 523-524). Together these represent the majority of the ruling elite, those who were trusted to teach and interpret the Torah and serve at the temple. The Pharisees were not in a place of power but instead were in a place of influence. Thus, the Pharisees would not have been responsible for His crucifixion (although they may have been active and present). Jesus then is talking about a complete rejection by the ruling elite!

Now let’s connect all this. Jesus has just revealed to them that He is the Messiah, not only this but He is the Son of God, the one who is divine and an opponent of Caesar. However, with this knowledge, He then explains that He will be rejected by the rulers of their nation and be killed. This must have been very confusing to the Disciples, as it would have seemed like a contradiction. However, Jesus did not stop there, for He also explained that He was going to be resurrected.

Rise after three days

There are two ways that the Gospels present His resurrection; “on the third day” and “after three days.” This is not a contradiction. Instead, the reference in Mark here to being raised “on the third day” is a direct quote from Hosea (Septuagint) (Collins and Attridge 2007, 405)!

“After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.”

Hosea 6:2 (ESV)

Mark is not contradicting but instead connecting Jesus to Israel and Judah. Just as God promised to raise up Israel and Judah, so too He promised to raise up Jesus. This would be another instance that the Gospels are showing that Jesus is the “faithful Israel.”

“And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Mark 8:32–33 (ESV)

Get behind me Satan

Once Jesus explains to the Disciples what must take place, Peter immediately objects! Much has been said about this, with people often pointing out that Jesus calls Peter “Satan.” However, the meaning is probably more nuanced than just a reference to Satan. Instead, the term is most likely a reference to an opposer, not the name of Satan. Thus, the verse could be translated as “Get behind me, you who oppose me!” (Evans 2001, 19). To be clear, this was not a kind way to speak, it was definitely a rebuke. However, the context seems to point at Jesus rebuking Peter as someone who is opposing the plan of God, not as the great deceiver.

Jesus then explains that not only He will suffer, that those who follow Him will also suffer.

“And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?”

Mark 8:34–37 (ESV)

Take up cross and follow

We have heard this saying so often, that perhaps today it lacks the shock and disgust in us that the original hearers would have felt. We often forget that crucifixion was one of the most painful and shameful way to die (Edwards 2002, 256)! Victims of crucifixion would often hang in this state for up to a week, often being devoured by carrion eaters while they were still alive. What I find most shocking about crucifixions, is that crucifixion was so shameful that the shame suffered from such a death was considered more painful than the actual physical pain (Malina and Rohrbaugh 2003, 346–347)! But Jesus presents it not as something to avoid, but as something that must be chosen! Those who choose death will find life. Thus, it is only those who choose to lose their life who will save it.

What does it profit… give in return for his soul

There is a comparison here, where Jesus is asking the value you would place on your soul, your life, versus gaining all the world (Stein 2008, 409). There is a saying like this, “You can’t take it with you.” We might think of money here, yet this is not what Jesus is talking about. Jesus describes not wealth or riches but saving your life as “gaining the whole world.” Thus, to save your life, is to gain the world, but to lose everything!

Jesus doesn’t stop there, for He goes on to explain that we have a choice, be shamed or be ashamed of Jesus.

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 8:38 (ESV)

Whoever is ashamed of Me

Here we see a play on the idea of shame. For to be crucified was to be ashamed. Yet Jesus says that if you aren’t willing to embrace crucifixion then you are ashamed of Jesus. Either way, a Christian will endure shame, the shame of the cross or the shame of rejecting Jesus. However, there is a difference, embracing shame ends with resurrection life, being ashamed of Jesus with eternal death.

Life Application and Questions to Consider

But let’s apply this to our life today. We don’t live with the threat of crucifixion, indeed, it is hard to even imagine. However, there are many Christians around the world today who do suffer persecution. In American, there is no such threat of death, yet there are other ways we can suffer. All to often, it is easy to choose the easy way, the comfortable way. Yet the call of Christ is to reject this comfort and to choose Him.

• Are there areas in your life that you can see the temptation to reject Christ and choose to not suffer?

• Are there areas in your life today that you can make a choice to “take up your cross?”

Connections

• Matthew 16:13–28

• Luke 9:18–27

Outline

• Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah.

• Jesus tells the Disciples about His coming death and resurrection.

• Those who follow Jesus must take up their cross.

References-

• Elaine A. Phillips, “Peter’s Declaration at Caesarea Philippi,” in Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels, ed. Barry J. Beitzel and Kristopher A. Lyle, Lexham Geographic Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 288.

• Ibid

• Ibid

• Ibid, 289.

• Ibid, 290.

• Ibid, 290-291.

• R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary, First edition, The New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021), 567.

• “In the NT the latter are usually called presbyteroi = elders, a term that literally means “old men” and reflects the fact that ancient Israel, like other traditional societies, looked to elderly males for wisdom and leadership. In the OT, for example, presbyteros usually designates a rich, respected, powerful person, typically an older man (see Campbell, Elders). In the late OT book of Ezra (5:5, 9; 6:7–8, 14; 10:8) such influential personages make up a Jewish self-governing assembly that in later texts is termed the Gerousia or Senate, both of which mean “council of old men” (see, e.g., 1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10). This ruling group of “elders,” which was the forerunner of the Sanhedrin of NT times, consisted of both priests and members of the lay aristocracy (cf. 2 Chron 19:8; 1 Macc 7:33; 11:23; 14:28). By NT times, however, the term “elders” was usually restricted to the lay members. In Markan passages (8:31; 14:43, 53; 15:1), for example, the Sanhedrin consists of the chief priests, the scribes (who also were priests), and the elders (who presumably were laymen; see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 222–32; Schürer, 2.200–9; Brown, Death, 2.1428–29).”

  Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 1103.

• “In the extant sources, most importantly the NT and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, the current high priest and the other chief priests form the core of a ruling Jewish council that is known by various Greek terms such as synedrion, gerousia, and boulē all of which can be translated “council.” The commonest NT term for this body is synedrion (lit. “the group that sits together”), a word whose Hebrew form, Sanhedrin, is found in rabbinic sources from the Mishnah on. In the Mishnah, “the Great Sanhedrin” consists of seventy-one members (see, e.g., m. Sanh. 1:6), and this number basically agrees with the seventy-member ruling bodies set up during the Jewish War according to Josephus (War 2.570–71; 4.334–44). It is unlikely, however, that in Second Temple times the Sanhedrin regularly had seventy or seventy-one members, or a fixed membership at all; it seems, rather, to have been an informal advisory group that was convened by the high priest on an ad hoc basis as need arose (see Schürer, 2.199–226; McLaren, Power and Politics, passim; Saldarini, “Sanhedrin”; Sanders, Judaism, 472–88; Brown, Death, 1.339–72). Thus, it is wrongheaded to try to harmonize rabbinic traditions with the Greek evidence by postulating two or three fixed sanhedrins (one “political,” a second “religious,” a third a city council for Jerusalem), as earlier generations of scholars sometimes did (see the review of literature in Mantel, Studies); it is wiser, rather, to take our cues from Josephus and the NT and to regard the rabbinic reports as anachronisms or idealizations.

  Clearly the Second Temple Sanhedrin was dominated by sacerdotal interests. In Acts 4:5–7, for example, Peter and John are interrogated by a gathering of Jewish officials that includes four groups: (a) “rulers,” “elders,” and “scribes”; (b) the former high priest Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas, the current high priest; (c) John, who may have been Caiaphas’ son and a future high priest, and an otherwise unknown Alexander; and (d) “as many as were of high-priestly descent” (hosoi ēsan ek genous archieratikou; my trans.). The council thus seems to be dominated by men from high-priestly circles (b, d, and probably c), that is, what the NT usually calls “chief priests,” but also to contain people from outside those circles (a). But even group a probably includes priests, since the scribes were mostly likely “priests and Levites” (see the APPENDIX “The Scribes and the Pharisees” in vol. 1, pp. 523–24). Their expertise in the Jewish law was undoubtedly an invaluable asset for the council’s efforts to govern Judaea, where political power was intertwined with religious legitimacy and hence with biblical exegesis.”

  Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 1102–1103.

• “As for the scribes, literally a grammateus was a person who knew letters (Gk grammata), i.e. one who could write. The term is used in a variety of related senses in Greek, corresponding in some ways to the range in meaning of the English word “secretary,” which can denote everything from a typist to a high government official. In Greek, analogously, a scribe may be a copyist, a government official in charge of records, an official with responsibility for enforcing the law, or a sage or teacher who interprets the law (see M-M, 131–32; D. Schwartz, “Scribes,” 91–93; Saldarini, Pharisees, 241–76)…

  The combined arguments of Schwartz and Sanders add up to a compelling case for identifying most pre-70 scribes as members of the priestly orders—who might also be Pharisees (see e.g. Josephus Life 197; Josephus himself was a priest who claimed to be a Pharisee: Life 12; cf. D. Schwartz, “Scribes,” 101 n. 65).”

  Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 523, 524.

• Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 405.

• “The command to “get behind” (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω) approximates an order to fall back into line, that is, to rejoin the other disciples (similarly Gundry, 432–33). The reader would probably infer insubordination on the part of Peter. The rebuke is particularly sharp because Jesus calls Peter “Satan.” σατανᾶ transliterates the Hebrew שָׂטָן śāṭān (cf. Num 22:22, 32; Zech 3:1–2; Job 1:6–9, 12; 2:1–7; 1 Chr 21:1; 1QSb 1:8; T. Dan 3:6; 5:6; 6:1; T. Gad 4:7; T. Asher 6:4; T. Job 3:6; 4:4; 6:4; 7:1), which means “opponent.” Did Jesus really call Peter “Satan”? Many epithets were applied to Satan in the literature in circulation in the NT period (such as Belial, Beliar, Mastema, Beelzebul, or Beelzebub). Jesus’ use of σατανᾶ in his rebuke of Peter might have been adjectival rather than specifically identifying Peter with the Prince of Darkness. In other words, Jesus said, “Get behind me, you who oppose me!” This suggestion receives support from the explanation that follows: “for you are not thinking the things of God but the things of humans.” Had Jesus meant to call Peter “Satan” in the sense of the devil, then we should expect him to have said that Peter was thinking the thoughts of the evil one or something to that effect. But Jesus’ rebuke is quite serious nonetheless. Peter’s thinking is anything but inspired of God; his wisdom reflects conventional human wisdom.”

  Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2001), 19.

• James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 256.

• “The real test for the victim, in the Mediterranean context, was not in the brutal pain itself, but rather in the endurance of pain and suffering, as a mark of andreia, manly courage. Silence of the victim during torture proved his honor. And yet the loss of honor evidenced by the whole process and inability to defend one’s honor were deemed far worse than the physical pain involved.

  The Gospels quickly pass over the physical torture of Jesus (“Good Friday” is a medieval Christian invention). Rather, they focus on the various attempts to dishonor Jesus (Honor-Shame Societies) by spitting on him (Mark 14:65//Matt 26:67; see Mark 10:33–34), striking him in the face and head (Mark 14:65//Matt 26:67; John 18:22; 19:3), ridiculing him (Mark 15:20, 31; Matt 27:29, 31, 41; John 19:3), heaping insults upon him (Mark 15:32, 34; Matt 27:44), and treating him as though he were nothing (Luke 23:11; see Acts 4:11).”

  Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 346–347.

• Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 409.