The same Greek word can mean either soul or life, depending on the context; twice in this verse and once in verse 36 and once in verse 37
8:27–30 Probably near one of the three distinct sources of the Jordan, that is, the Banias Spring, Jesus sets out to teach (cf. comment on 1:21–22) his disciples that the Messiah of God must die and be raised (8:31). The more or less Hellenistic and pagan city of Caesarea Philippi was named after Philip, Herod Antipas’ brother. Together with its surrounding villages, it was associated with—and known for—the following: (1) a Herodian temple dedicated to Caesar Augustus and the goddess Roma; (2) the veneration of Pan, the Greek god of the underworld (see Jesus’ reference to the “gates of Hades” in Matt. 16:18 ESV mg.); and (3) the commemoration of the Maccabean victory over the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Now, however, a greater, nonmilitary battle with evil, death, and mankind’s sin looms on the horizon, as Jesus travels from Caesarea Philippi to meet his destiny in Jerusalem. As mentioned above, each of the major predictions of Jesus’ death and resurrection is supplemented by a teaching on discipleship (Mark 8:32–38; 9:32–50; 10:34–45).
Jesus’ two leading questions, namely, “What do people say that I am?” and “Who do you say that I am?” (8:27, 29; cf. 9:33; 12:24–25), bring to light his disciples’ half-developed grasp of who Jesus is and consequently who they perceive themselves to be. The questions also prepare for his confounding and self-disclosing instruction in 8:31 (see 9:33; 12:24, 35; cf. John 6:67). In stark contrast to popular messianic expectations, Jesus emphasizes that the Messiah of God must be humbled to the point of an atoning death (Mark 8:31; 10:45; Isaiah 53) and exalted to bodily resurrection and enthronement as King and Judge (Mark 8:38; 12:35–37; 14:62) for the sake of God’s universal people. This boldly corrects popular and widely held expectations described in 8:28 (cf. 6:14–16).
8:28 Compare this verse with comment on 6:14b–16 (cf. John 6:14).
8:29–30 Peter often speaks as a representative of the Twelve. He confesses Jesus as the Messiah, that is, the divinely anointed leader. According to Peter’s expectation, this Messiah will free the Jewish people from Roman oppression (cf. John 6:15). While Peter’s confession is indeed God-given (Matt. 16:17; contrast Mark 13:21), it is insufficient (8:31–33; cf. 15:32).
The messianic Son of Man will be much more exalted (Dan. 7:13–14; cf. Ps. 110:1, 5; Mark 8:38; 12:35–37) and much more humbled (Isa. 52:13–53:12; Mark 8:31; 10:45) than what is generally expected. This becomes fully apparent in 14:62, where Jesus fully identifies himself before the high priest (cf. comment on 14:60–62). This is why Jesus at this point enjoins his disciples to silence: “He strictly charged them to tell no one about him” (8:30). Note that epitimaō (“I rebuke,” “I charge”) is used in the following verses: (1) here in verse 30, i.e., Jesus’ injunction to silence (cf. 3:12); (2) in 8:32, i.e., Peter’s rebuke of Jesus; and (3) in 8:33, i.e., Jesus’ rebuke of Peter (cf. comments on 8:32–33 [cf. 16:14]).
8:31 Jesus corrects the limited, political-Davidic, messianic expectation of the disciples (8:29) by stressing, in accordance with the wider horizon of the OT, that God’s Messiah, as the “Son of Man” (cf. 9:12; 14:21, 49) “must . . . be killed” (cf. 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33–34, 45; 14:21, 24, 41) and “rise again” (8:31; cf. 9:9–10, 31; 10:34b; 14:28; 16:6). The resurrection is associated with three OT anticipations: (1) the vindication and resurrection of the sacrificed servant of Yahweh (Isa. 52:13; 53:7–9, 10–12; Dan. 9:26), (2) the exaltation of the Son of Man (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Dan. 7:13–14), and (3) the royal enthronement of the Lord of David (Mark 12:35–37; Ps. 110:1, 5). All of this is necessary (Gk. dei, “it must”) because the pure, eternal, and messianic rule of God begins with the sacrifice for sin, that is, the sacrificial reconciliation between God and man, as well as with overcoming the power of evil. Besides the divine necessity of the suffering and rejection of the Son of Man (cf. Mark 9:9, 12, 31; 14:21, 41; cf. 12:10), Elijah must come first (9:11).
The Jerusalem authorities mentioned in the following list all belong to various factions of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court in Israel (e.g., 10:33; 11:18; 14:1, 53; 15:1). They are “elders,” especially Sadducean priests, “chief priests” (e.g., Caiaphas and the former high priest Annas), and “scribes,” especially Pharisaic lawyers (e.g., 1:22; 7:1, 5). These chief officials will reject him (12:10). While these opponents (11:27; 14:10, 43, 53, 55; 15:31) seek to kill Jesus (2:7; 3:6, 22–30; 11:18), it is ultimately God’s declared will for the Messiah, as priest, to atone for the sins of mankind (cf. David in 1 Chron. 15:27). Jesus’ claim that he will “rise” again must also puzzle the disciples (cf. Mark 9:10). Together with their fellow Jews, they anticipate that all mankind will be raised at the end of the age, prior to judgment (Dan. 12:2; cf. also Pss. 19:9; 40:9, 11). The reference to “three days” can be a figurative reference to a brief and critical time (e.g., Gen. 42:17; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Hos. 6:2).
8:32 In contrast to earlier times, Jesus now speaks “plainly” (Gk. parrēsia, “[with] full liberty of speech, outspokenness, frankness of speech that glosses nothing”) about the suffering of the Messiah of God. Peter takes Jesus aside and issues a “rebuke” directed at Jesus (cf. comment on 1:36–39). The aorist ērxato (“he set out to”) with the durative present infinitive epitiman (“I rebuke”) is at times used as an emphatic expression instead of the durative imperfect of epitimaō. The thrust of Peter’s rebuke would then be that he “began” at length “to rebuke” or warn “him.”
8:33 Immediately Jesus turns to his disciples, looks at them, and sharply rebukes (punctiliar aorist of Gk. epitimaō; cf. 8:30, 32) their spokesman, Peter, in front of them. However, he rejects only Peter’s thought as satanic, not Peter personally. Jesus exposes Peter’s thought pattern as “not setting” his “mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Peter represents a fundamentally broken approach to life that Jesus has come to redress. Peter does not realize that the Messiah is the king of God’s eternal kingdom who has come to die for his sins. As the royal-priestly king, he has come to inaugurate new kingdom life under God (cf. Matt. 16:23; cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). He has also come to overcome Satan (Mark 3:23, 26). Autonomous human reasoning, the reduction of OT promises to a political/royal messianic expectation, and Satan’s aims (cf. 1:13; 4:15) all converge as a spear against the redemptive kingdom-purposes of the triune God. Peter must be liberated from this calamitous and God-resistant nexus.
8:34 Subsequent to the first major prediction of the Messiah’s death and resurrection, Jesus issues discipleship instructions to everyone who would follow him. Contrast this with the more narrow call extended in Mark 1:17. The aim of the call to “deny” yourself (cf. 14:30, 31, 72) and “take up” one’s “cross” has nothing to do with unhealthy self-accusation, self-abasement, self-hatred, loss of personality, or nurture of a martyrdom complex. Rather, through surrender of—and death to—self-determination and self-reliance, one becomes free from any detracting, fallen, or sinful affection, idol, or loyalty in order to “follow” Jesus’ kingdom rule in an ongoing and maturing way.
Noteworthy are the two durative present tenses at the beginning and end of the verse: thelei opisō mou akolouthein (“he/she wants to keep following behind me”) and akoloutheitō (“he/she must keep following me”). The motif of the call to “follow” (akoloutheō) Jesus arises frequently in Mark. Such a follower belongs to the Messiah wholeheartedly and persistently (1:18; 2:15). This notion echoes the calling of walking with God in the OT, which expresses itself in undivided loyalty and obedience (e.g., Ruth 1:16–17; 2 Sam. 15:21).
Self-denial means letting go of self-determination (Ps. 49:6–7) and control, replacing them with a comprehensive dependence upon and primary loyalty to the Messiah. Conceptually, it is close to Paul’s “dying and rising with Christ” (Rom. 6:3–4). Taking up the “cross,” that is, carrying especially the horizontal beam of a cross to one’s place of execution, means living in a way akin to taking one’s last journey to one’s own execution. The grace of the gospel is that one who does so discovers that the Messiah has already taken the place of punishment. By dying a substitutionary and atoning death, Jesus has, in a real sense, taken the final judgment of each disciple upon himself, thus affording the disciple unmerited mercy. Jesus speaks here of aratō ton stauron (“I carry the cross”) in a figurative way: carrying the patibulum, that is, the horizontal beam of a cross, to the place of execution daily (so Luke 9:23!). Contrast this with Simon of Cyrene, who literally and for a limited period of time carried Jesus’ cross (arē ton stauron; Mark 15:21). It all serves the purpose of living in simple submission to the sovereign lordship of Christ rather than one’s own determination. By letting go of self-determination and self-sufficiency, the disciple begins to enter into new life given by God (cf. 2 Cor. 1:9).
Such dependence begins with receiving and welcoming personally the substitutionary death of Jesus for personal sinfulness and sins. It continues with letting the love of Christ transform and mold the disciple into a new Christlike human being who uses and hones God-given abilities to the honor of God. In a secondary sense this also implies suffering for Jesus (cf. Mark 8:38) and being willing to die for him as a witness. The “yoke” metaphor employed by Jesus in Matthew 11:28–30 supplements Jesus’ teaching on bearing the cross daily. The more one is surrendered to Jesus, including in all the daily worries and concerns of life, the more one is willing and ready to obey and be guided by the facilitative light yoke of Jesus.
8:35 Mark here presents Jesus as developing the principle laid down in verse 34. The paradoxical statement favors a figurative interpretation of saving or losing one’s life: he who persists in self-determination (i.e., seeks to “save his life”) will not discover real and eternally enduring life with God (i.e., he “will lose it”). He who gives up self-determination (i.e., “loses his life”) for the “sake” of Christ and the good news (“gospel”) will find communion with God and eternally enduring life. It is possible that this verse refers to not only the “gospel” proclaimed by Jesus but also the good news about him. An example of the paradoxical principle of “letting go in order to gain” is found in 10:29–30 (cf. Luke 9:26; see comment on 1:1). Such life is marked by closeness to God in all areas of existence (i.e., one “will save” one’s life; cf. Mark 8:38). Jesus’ call to surrender and full allegiance is comprehensive: true, eternally lasting life arises from a deeply personal response to him (vv. 34, 38).
8:36–37 An autonomous self-preserving life can, for example, take the form of accumulating wealth for selfish purposes. The exaggerated, and initially paradoxical, statement of gaining “the whole world” to no avail establishes the fact that material “gain” (or any other form of selfish advancement) does not fill the soul with what it needs and is created for, namely, a true, God-congruent and God-inspired life. In fact, pursuit of any deceptive or selfish gain (e.g., Hos. 2:5) robs (“forfeit”) a person of the opportunity to cultivate a God-intended and God-filled life (cf. 1 Pet. 2:11). Since the value of a human life is immeasurably and incomparably great (Ps. 49:7–9, 15–16; Luke 12:13–21), it must not be squandered or compromised by deceptive gain. There is no recourse for regaining that which has been lost to self-determination (Mark 8:35).
Jesus’ warning does not mean that he closes the door to repentance and turning from self-determination to God-dependence at any point in life (cf. Luke 15:24, 32). It represents, however, a serious warning and a vivid promise: to surrender one’s life to the life-giver preserves, gives value, and offers true rest to the soul (cf. Mark 8:38).
8:38 To pledge loyalty to Christ (cf. Luke 12:9) and his teaching (i.e., “my words”; cf. Mark 13:31) may lead to derision and/or persecution. The follower of Christ may be liable to be “ashamed” (Gk. epaischynomai; cf. Rom. 1:16) of him “in this adulterous [cf. Mark 7:22; 8:33; 10:11, 12, 19] and sinful generation [cf. Matt. 12:39; Mark 8:12].” There is profound consequence for such a denial of Christ on earth: Jesus will likewise be “ashamed” (epaischynomai) of such a person. This will occur in his magnificent and awe-inspiring arrival for final judgment “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (cf. Matt. 7:23; 25:12) as the exalted and powerful “Son of Man” (cf. Dan. 7:13–14; Mark 13:26–27; 14:62).
The second coming of Christ is identical with his coming to judgment (13:26–27; 14:62). The second coming of Jesus means judgment for those who reject him and ultimate salvation and vindication for those who belong to him. As is the case in Daniel 7:13–14, Jesus here claims to share divine glory with God and calls him, in an exclusive fashion, his “Father.” Jesus claims divine authority by viewing himself as the appointed judge at the final judgment (cf. comment on 13:26–27; cf. Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 6:10).
9:1 The statement “Some standing here [i.e., from among the crowd and the disciples; cf. Mark 9:34] who will not taste death until . . .” may refer to the three disciples who will be with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and witness this encouraging sight. This interpretation becomes likely if the phrase “until they see the kingdom of God after it has come [note the perfect tense] with power” (cf. Luke 9:27) refers to the three disciples’ witness of the divine glory and redemptive kingdom-mission of Jesus in his transfiguration (cf. 2 Pet. 1:16–18).
The Lukan reference to exodus (Gk.) in the context of the transfiguration (Luke 9:31) probably hints at a second and greater exodus, not only at the death of Jesus (cf. Heb. 11:22; contrast 2 Pet. 1:15). The transfiguration thus proleptically prefigures the overwhelming glory (John 1:14) of Christ at his second coming (parousia; Mark 8:38; 13:26). Then they shall “see the Son of Man coming . . . with great power and glory” (13:26). In Matthew 16:28, Jesus says that they will “see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (cf. Dan. 7:13–27). If this interpretation is adopted, Mark 9:1 implies that “some are standing here who will not see death” until they see one of the powerful manifestations of the coming kingdom of God, namely, the transfiguration that prefigures future glories of Christ.
For a proper and convincing interpretation, much depends on the question of to what exactly the addition “with power” (en dynamei) refers. Concerning the precise meaning of 9:1, it must be stressed that the kingdom of God came, and is coming, in various power waves. It came with power (exousia) when Jesus proclaimed it (1:14–15), when he expelled evil powers (cf. Luke 4:36; 11:20), when he healed (cf. Luke 5:17), and when he displayed authority over nature (cf. esp. Mark 1–6; Acts 10:38). Then it came with power when the disciples did likewise (see Mark 6–7; cf. Matt. 6:10). However, these initial options cannot apply to 9:1, since this statement clearly looks forward. The coming kingdom’s king was, however, powerfully revealed and present at his transfiguration, at least in the sense that it temporarily brought to light his past and future glory. Regarding this transfiguration event, Peter later states, “We made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (2 Pet. 1:16–17). The kingdom came with power when Jesus triumphed over death (Mark 16:6) through his resurrection (Rom. 1:4). He thereby established its expansive, covenantal reach (Mark 14:24; cf. 13:10; Rev. 5:12). It came with power when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (Luke 24:49; Acts 4:33). Finally, it will come with ultimate power upon the return of Jesus to this earth (Mark 14:25; cf. 13:26).
It is also noteworthy to observe that Jesus does not use the addendum “with power” in 14:25, even though he explicitly refers in 14:25 to the future and ultimate coming of the kingdom. Contrast this with the “Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power” in Matthew 24:30 (cf. Mark 13:26). Finally, Mark 14:25 suggests that Jesus anticipates an interim period between his first and second coming (cf. 13:32; see also Acts 3:21), which opposes the notion of an imminent expectation of the second coming and speaks against various alternate interpretations of Mark 9:1.
Surrendering death-like self-determination (8:34) and catching glimpses of future splendor (9:1, 2–8) may go hand in hand. The same holds true for the death (8:31; 14:32–42) and awesome glory (8:38) of the Messiah. There is thus a pattern analogy between the experience of Jesus and the Christlike cruciform experience of his followers.