Not Just a Last Name

Not Just A Last Name:

Jesus as Christ

Doctrinal Sermon

By

Amber Julia Bergeron

Grace be to you and peace from God, our Father, and from our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. Amen.

Our text on this 17th Sunday after Pentecost[1] is the confession of Peter of Jesus as Christ or Messiah.[2] This passage is considered the watershed or turning point of the gospel of Mark. It has been said that Mark is merely a passion narrative with an extended introduction. This is the point in which the gospel shifts from stories Jesus’ miracles and ministry and we see the beginning of the road to Jerusalem.[3] I find it interesting the way Mark combines Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah with the prediction of his death and resurrection. This morning, I want to argue that these two points (that Jesus is the Messiah and the prediction of his death and resurrection) NEED to be placed together to show just what Jesus’ Messiahship means for Himself, for his disciples, for us, and for the sake of the world.

In the very beginning, Jesus poses a question, “Who do people say that I am?” in true rabbinic form. Everybody jumps in as if they’re contestants on Family Feud and Jesus is doing a survey on the crowds’ perceptions. “John the Baptist! Elijah! One of the prophets!” They had great enthusiasm, but they missed the point. So, Jesus tries again, asking, “Who do you say that I am?” And Peter comes up with the correct answer! He replies, “You are the Messiah.”

What I love about this passage is that Peter comes out with this announcement seemingly out of nowhere. In all of the stories leading up to this, nowhere does it give the impression that Jesus in any way fit the description of what the 1st Century Jews thought the Messiah would be.[4] They were expecting another king from David’s line, who would restore Israel to her former glory. First, there would be a time of travail for Israel. Next would come the return of Elijah to prepare the way. Then the messiah would come in glory, the nations would ally themselves against the messiah, and the messiah would destroy those nations. Jerusalem would be restored and all those affected by the Diaspora would return. Finally all nations would be subdued and peace and tranquility would last forever.[5] In light of those assumptions of what a messiah was to be, this confession comes completely out of left field. Jesus had done none of those things. Matthew, in his telling of this story, drives this home by adding this comment by Jesus: “Flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven (16: 17).”[6] Peter’s claim is completely unwarranted at this juncture. Jurgen Moltmann highlights this in his book The Crucified God where he says, “Whereas according to the expectation of the Jews the Son of Man was to appear at the last judgment only as the judge of sinners and the redeemer of the righteous, Jesus actually turned towards the sinners and the lost. But anyone preaching and acting this way was abandoning the role attributed to the figures of the messianic hope.”[7]

My Jewish friend, Randee, was over at my house visiting this past weekend and we were teasing each other back and forth about our faiths or having ecumenical dialogue, if you will. At one point of the evening, we got to talking about her disdain for groups like Jews for Jesus. She said, “If you’re really Jewish and you seriously look at the predictions of the Messiah in our Scriptures, you see that this Jesus guy didn’t fit the bill.” Of course, I pointed to this passage of Mark and said, “That’s the point. Jesus didn’t fit the bill, not in the way you expected.” So, what can this mean?

Donald Juel writes in his Augsburg Commentary on this passage that “we do best to understand Peter’s confession as anticipatory.” Even though Jesus hadn’t revealed himself to be all that regal, Peter anticipates that it’s coming. Peter is announcing the hope of the disciples that Jesus was born to be king and will come to power eventually.[8] I disagree. I think that his announcement is much more than merely wishful thinking on Peter’s part.

I relate a little more with Juel’s article in Word and World entitled “The Way of the Cross: Markan Texts for Late Pentecost.” In this article, Juel points out that no one in the gospel has referred to Jesus as Messiah yet, except in Mark’s introduction; not God, not disciples, not even demons. They recognized him as Son of God, but not as the Messiah. In this article, he argues that this passage juxtaposed with the following verses act as a Christological affirmation that can lead to instructions about discipleship.[9] As Harold Buls put it, “They had just confessed His Person, now He informs them as to His crowning Work.”[10]

After this amazing announcement, Jesus then ordered everyone to be silent about what had been revealed. Again, one is caught up thinking, “Why? Wouldn’t things be a lot easier for Jesus if people knew the truth? Shouldn't people get the chance to know Jesus for who he really is? Surely they wouldn’t kill him if they knew he was God!” Morna Hooker pursues this question in chapter four of her book, The Message of Mark. What is the reason for the messianic secret?[11] She concludes that the messianic secret is first of all concerned with who Jesus is. Secondly, only through faith can people know who Jesus is. Finally, the secret needs to remain secret until the end of the story, the resurrection. She compares Peter to the blind man earlier in Mark who saw people but they looked like trees walking around. Peter kind of saw it, but not fully. I like William Barclay’s answer. His response to the question of the Messianic secret is that “first and foremost, Jesus had to teach Peter and the others what Messiahship really meant” over and above the traditional Jewish views of what a Messiah should be.[12] Jesus is in effect saying, “Yes, I am the Messiah, but you are not ready to proclaim this until you understand what being a Messiah means.”

Jesus tackles that very question in the other half of the story. He foretells his own death and resurrection and uses the Greek word - It is necessary. It is necessary that the Son of Man undergo great suffering. Again, we ask, “WHY?!” Juel points out that “Jesus’ ministry stands under the constraint of God’s will.”[13] God could choose any means God wants to save humanity. Why must Jesus suffer? Well, the cop-out answer is to say, “Why, in accordance with the scriptures, of course!” To quote the song Jesus Loves Me, “for the Bible tells me so!” Obviously, Jesus must be rejected and later vindicated according to Psalm 118: 22-23, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” Mark himself later quotes this exact passage in 12: 11. This isn’t quite satisfying, though, because it still doesn’t get to the WHY. As a mother, I use the “because I said so” response often and expect that "because I said so” will suffice as an answer. But the problem with such a response is that not only does it lead to discontent and more questions, it pretends to be an answer when it isn't really an answer at all.

Athanasius and Anselm of Canterbury offered two explanations of why God became man and died on our behalf, using different methods. Athanasius used scripture and Anselm used reason, yet despite some differences, they came to pretty much the same conclusions. They argue that we were created in God’s image until the Fall. We therefore owe God either a debt (Anselm) or punishment (Athanasius). Because humanity is at fault, redemption must come through a human. However, redemption can only come from God because only the creator can renew God’s image in man (Athanasius) and no one but God can repay God for the debt incurred since the debt is greater than anything that exists (Anselm). Both of them then come to the same conclusion that God had to become man through the incarnation through Mary because redemption had to come from a God/Man. Jesus died to make satisfaction for our sin. This was done on our behalf. Anselm is very concerned with the ‘necessity’ of God to fulfill God’s nature.[14][15]

Juel points out the vast difference between this kind of substitutionary atonement understanding and what is implied in this passage in Mark. “No speculations locate the ‘necessity’ in a system of law to which God is bound. The need arises not from God’s obligations but from the human plight… There is a barrier, manifested in a variety of ways, that has come to serve as a defense of ‘human things.’ Humans are powerless to break through the barrier… For God to reclaim a captive creation, there must be a battle. And Jesus will be the casualty.”[16]

Peter, like us, doesn’t like this. He doesn’t want Jesus to have to suffer. He doesn’t understand why the suffering is necessary, especially considering his notions of what a messiah was supposed to be. Jurgen Moltmann discusses this in his book The Crucified God. In thinking about the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus after the crucifixion, he says “For the disciples who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem, his shameful death was not the consummation of his obedience to God nor a demonstration of martyrdom for his truth, but the rejection of his claim. It did not confirm their hopes in him, but permanently destroyed them. Nor had they any examples from the tradition which might have suggested to them a ‘dying Messiah,’ or a bringer of salvation condemned by the law as a ‘blasphemer,’ to explain to them the fate of Jesus and give them comfort.”[17] So when Peter hears Jesus telling them that he must suffer and die, he responds by rebuking Jesus. This makes me feel better about not quite “getting it.” Even Peter, who just a few verses before, made a revelation more powerful than all of the people, the demons, even God Himself up to this juncture in the gospel, didn’t get it!

Jesus replies, “Get behind me, Satan!” How quickly did Peter fall from glory! Jesus’ rebuke of Peter is harsh, to say the least. Jesus calls Peter, the Rock on which he will build his church,[18] “Satan”! Why is Jesus so harsh with him? William Barclay describes the reasoning for such a severe response in a touching way. He argues that Peter was merely “putting into words the very temptations which were assailing Jesus. Jesus did not want to die. He knew that he had powers which he could use for conquest. At this point he was refighting the battle of temptations in the wilderness.”[19] In this way, the tempter was speaking in the voice of a friend. Peter was trying to spare Jesus the suffering of the crucifixion, but Jesus knew that “,” it is necessary. “The tempter can make no more terrible attack than in the voice of those who love us and who think they seek only our good. That is what happened to Jesus that day; that is why he answered so sternly. Not even the pleading voice of love must silence for us the imperious voice of God.”[20][21]

Now, if Peter thought that the idea of Jesus having to suffer was distasteful, what came next must have been an even more bitter pill to swallow. Jesus moves into a discussion of discipleship, pointing out that not only was Jesus to suffer but his disciples are also to “take up their crosses” (8: 34)! You’ve got to appreciate his chutzpa, as my friend Randee would say. Like any great leader, Jesus certainly didn’t take the easy way or sugarcoat things, nor did he ask them to do anything that he wasn’t willing to do himself. Jesus warns his disciples that things are not going to be easy for them and that they also would have to suffer for the sake of the gospel. Peter himself quite literally had to take up his cross.

Jesus’ command to anyone who is to follow is to “let him deny himself” (8:34). “Nothing short of total devotion will suffice.”[22] The follower of Christ must say “no” to herself and “yes” to Jesus. Saying yes to Jesus means following Jesus’ example of self-sacrifice. It is not a call to seek out suffering, but rather, to quote Dr. Jim Boyce, to “look for the ones who are in pain. The suffering will be provided.”[23] The call to carry one’s cross now becomes life giving. “Taking up one’s cross” is not a project or something we do, but something that defines us as disciples. As Juel writes, “ ‘Losing one’s life’ means life can be used up, spent, on others. And if our vocation is to carefor the neighbor, Luther insisted, we will not need to seek out suffering. It willcome routinely, as any parent will attest.For most of us, following Jesus will involve a cross not of our choosing—andit promises deliverance that is likewise not the result of any grand project.”[24] Paul would call this faith active in love.[25]

Mark 8: 27-35 captures the heart of the Christian message, giving us insight into just who Jesus is and we see that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, albeit in a different form than expected. As Messiah, Jesus suffers for our sake to redeem us from our human plight. Finally, just as Jesus gives us life through his suffering, our suffering produces life for the sake of the world. Amen.

Bibliography

Anselm of Canterbury. “Cur Deus Homo?” In A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham. Fairweather, Eugene R. ed. Philadelphia: Westminter Press, 1956. pp. 100-183.

Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladamir’s Seminary Press, 1996.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975

Buls, Harold H. Gospel Texts, Series B- Mark-John, Sundays after Pentecost.

Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press: 1981, pp. 55-57

Hall, Douglas John. God and Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the Cross. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Hooker, The Message of Mark. London: Epworth Press, 1983.

Juel, Donald. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. pp. 118-124

Juel, Donald. “The Way of the Cross: Markan Texts for Late Pentecost,” Word and World, Vol. 14, Num. 3, Summer 1994. Pp. 353-354.

Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth. Moltmann, Jurgen. “Who Do You Say that I Am: (Mark 8: 27-35) Joint Bible Study.” Reformed World 40 no 8 D 1989, pp. 179-194.

O’Collins, Gerald. Christology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Collin’s, 1989.

1

[1] The Revised Common Lectionary uses this passage for the 17th Sunday after Pentecost in Year B.

[2] I will intentionally be using the terms Christ and Messiah interchangeably throughout this sermon to bring home the point that when we call Jesus, Jesus Christ, we are making a theological affirmation of his Messiahship.

[3] I don’t know who to cite here. I learned this from Dr. Boyce in my Mark class.

[4] Gerald O’Collins would and does deny that there was a set notion of what the Messiah would look like in OT thought. He writes, “One cannot speak, for example, of clear-cut messianic ‘titles’ emerging and simply holding their ground in the OT.” He prefers to look at Jesus’ roles as prophet, priest, and king when determining his role as Messiah. I, obviously, have a different opinion.

O’Collins Christology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. p. 24.

[5] Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975 pp. 194-199.

[6] All Scriptural Citations are taken from The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Collin’s, 1989.

[7] Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. p. 129.

[8] Juel, Donald. Mark:Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. p. 119.

[9] Juel, Donald. “The Way of the Cross: Markan Texts for Late Pentecost,” Word and World, Vol. 14, Num. 3, Summer 1994. Pp. 353-354.

[10]Buls, Harold H. Gospel Texts, Series B- Mark-John, Sundays after Pentecost.

Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press: 1981, pp. 55-57

[11] Hooker, The Message of Mark. London: Epworth Press, 1983. Pp. 51-63.

[12] Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark. p. 193.

[13] Juel, Donald. Mark: Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. p. 120.

[14]Anselm of Canterbury. “Cur Deus Homo?” In A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham. Fairweather, Eugene R. ed. Philadelphia: Westminter Press, 1956. pp. 100-183.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladamir’s Seminary Press, 1996.

[15] I could also have considered Jurgen Moltmann’s assertions about why God became man in The Crucified God. E.g. “God did not become man according to the measure of our conceptions of being a man. He became the kind of man we do not want to be: an outcast, accursed, crucified. Ecce homo… is a confession of faith which recognizes God’s humanity in the dehumanized Christ on the cross.”
Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. p 205.