|
deeply wounding, especially after the accolade in vv. 17–19. There is no
parallel to such an address to a human being. But this is not merely
extravagant abuse; the choice of this epithet suggests rather that behind the
“human thoughts” of Peter Jesus discerns an attempt to divert him from his
chosen course similar to that which Satan himself had made in 4:1–11. The
same Peter who had just spoken what God had revealed to him (v. 17) is
now speaking for Satan. Just as the third temptation in 4:8–9 had been to
achieve worldly power by accommodating himself to Satan rather than
attacking him, so now Peter’s vision of Messiahship represents the easier
way to power and authority, the gains without the pains. As long as he holds
such a view, the “rock” on which the church is to be built proves instead to
be a stumbling-block.¹ The image goes neatly with the demand “get behind
me:” as long as Peter stands in front of Jesus he is in his way, stopping him
getting on with his mission. He gets in the way of God’s purpose for Jesus by
his unthinking acceptance of “human thoughts.” Peter has expressed only
what comes naturally to the human mind when presented with the idea of
power and authority which the title “Messiah” suggests. But human
thoughts are not God’s thoughts (Isa 55:8–9), and if they are not questioned
they can stand in the way of God’s purpose and derail it. In much of the rest
of this section of the gospel Jesus will be seen persistently trying to
undermine the “human thoughts” of the disciples so as to get them to see
things from the perspective of the kingdom of heaven (note especially 19:23–
30; 20:20–28).
2. The Disciple’s Loyalty and its Consequences (16:24–28)
²⁴Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to be my disciple,¹ they must
deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ²⁵For anyone who wants
to save their own life will lose it, while anyone who loses their life because of
me will find it. ² For what good will it be for a person to gain the whole world
but forfeit their own life? Or what can a person give in exchange for their life?²
²⁷For the Son of Man is destined³ to come in his Father’s glory with his⁴ angels,
and then he will repay every person according to what they have done. ²⁸I tell
you truly that there are some of those standing here who will certainly not taste
death before⁵ they see the Son of Man coming in his kingship.”
The explicit concern of vv. 21–23 was with Jesus’ own future suffering and
death, but now these verses draw out what is likely also to have been a
significant factor in Peter’s dismay at Jesus’ prediction: the death of the Messiah
is likely to have serious implications for those who are identified as his
followers. So a new stage direction (“Then Jesus said to his disciples”) broadens
the scene from the personal debate with Peter to a general pronouncement about
discipleship, the first part of it echoing what Jesus has already said to his
disciples in 10:38–39. Subsequent Christian use of the language of “self-denial”
(and even of “cross-bearing”) has blunted the force of Jesus’ words.⁷ They are
about literal death, following the condemned man on his way to execution.
Discipleship is a life of at least potential martyrdom. It may be legitimate to
extrapolate from this principle to a more general demand for disciples to put
loyalty to Jesus before their own interests and comfort, but that can be only a
secondary application of the passage. Jesus’ words are not to be taken as merely
metaphorical. The “cross” and the “losing life” which he speaks of are literal,
and it seems clear from v. 28 that he did expect at least some of his disciples to
be killed because of their loyalty to his cause (as indeed they were). Such a
demand only makes sense in the context of a firm expectation of life beyond
death, and the teasing word-play of vv. 25–26 explores the contrast between that
true and lasting “life” and the temporary “life” which is lost in martyrdom.
The reason why it is better to die for Jesus is then explained in vv. 27–28. The
note of judgment hinted at in v. 26 (“forfeit”) now becomes explicit, and the
judge is the Son of Man himself, that same Jesus for whom they have been
called to give up their lives. It is a judgment which takes place in a heavenly
scene, where the same Son of Man who is to die in Jerusalem will now be
vindicated and enthroned in glory. The earthly threat of suffering and death is
thus put into perspective: Jesus himself will rise above it, and his disciple too
must expect to be judged (and where appropriate rewarded) in a more solemn
and ultimate court than any earthly tribunal. It is in that context rather than in
earthly self-preservation that true life is to be found.
Jesus’ words following Peter’s declaration at Caesarea Philippi thus close on a
very different note from where they began. The prediction of his coming
rejection and death still stands, but over against and beyond it his disciples are to
set the vision of his ultimate vindication and glory, as judge and king in the
presence of his Father and the angels. To speak of “the Son of Man coming”
echoes the language of Dan 7:13–14 (as it did in 10:23), and here the added
themes of glory, angels, judgment and seeing confirm that the words are to be
interpreted in terms of Daniel’s vision. This is, then, a prediction of the
vindication and enthronement of the Son of Man after his suffering and death,
and that prediction is here given an even more explicit and emphatic time-
limitation: it will be while some of those present are still alive. This time-limit is
a remarkably persistent element in the allusions to Dan 7:13–14 in this gospel: in
10:23 this “coming” will be before the disciples have gone through all the towns
of Israel; here it will be before some of them die; in 24:30,34 it will be before the
present generation is over; in 26:64 it will be seen by those who are Jesus’
judges; and in 28:18 it is, after the resurrection, already a fait accompli. All this
weighs heavily against the traditional Christian view that such language is meant
to refer to the parousia. Indeed, we shall see in ch. 24 that when the parousia is
explicitly spoken of it will be in clear distinction from the events described as
the “coming of the Son of Man.” The “coming” is, as in Dan 7, a coming to God
to receive power and glory, not a coming to earth. See further on 10:23. We shall
consider below on v. 28 at what point before their death “some of those standing
here” may be understood to have seen the coming of the Son of Man as king.
Mark at this point speaks both of the Son of Man coming in his Father’s glory
with the angels (Mark 8:38) and also immediately afterward of some of those
present seeing that “the kingdom of God has come with power” before they die
(Mark 9:1). Luke less specifically speaks merely of their “seeing the kingdom of
God.” (Luke 9:27) In Matthew the link with Dan 7:13–14 is more consistently
maintained in that the subject of the “coming” is in both cases the Son of Man.
As a result the basileia is ascribed not to God but directly to the Son of Man
himself, enthroned and given universal sovereignty as Dan 7:14 predicts. For
Matthew, it seems, the “kingship of God/heaven” is the kingship of the Son of
Man (see further on 13:41, and cf. 19:28; 25:31–34).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
