SEE (head)
Once again Jesus is confronted by a crowd of hungry would-be followers. As on an earlier occasion, here he decides to miraculously provide more than enough food for all of them. 

Out of food again (v. 1). "Many commentators suspect that the two feeding stories are in fact versions of one original episode in the life of Jesus." [ref]  However, such a theory goes far beyond mere differences of detail to be expected when the same stories are told by the different gospel writers. In point of fact, there are noteworthy similarities between many of Jesus' miracles: large crowds; Jesus touching the sick; faith commended; etc. That said, there are quite a number of noteworthy contrasts between the two feeding stories:

• Matthew and Mark. Both Matthew and Mark recorded two different miraculous feedings (Matthew 14:13-21 = Mark 6:30-44; Matthew 15:32-39 = Mark 8:1-10).

• Eyewitness testimony. "Matthew and Peter (Mark's source) were present in person at both miracles and are reliable authorities." [ref]  

• Number fed. Whereas the first miraculous feeding involved 5,000 people, the second involved 4,000 - not including women and children. [ref]

• Another miracle. Mark seems to identify this as a second miracle: "In those days, when there was again a large crowd and they had nothing to eat ... " (v. 1).

• Initiative. Whereas in the first feeding the disciples asked Jesus to send the people away so they could find something to eat, in the second feeding Jesus was the first to mention the peoples' need for food (v. 2). Were the disciples merely waiting patiently for Jesus to act? [ref] Or was the possibility of a second miraculous feeding more than they could comprehend? [ref] Or did the disciples discount the possibility of a second miraculous feeding because of what had happened the last time when, following the miracle, the crowd had tried to make Jesus king by force? [ref] [ref]  

• Time. Whereas the feeding of the 5,000 appears to have taken place on the same day the crowds had gathered, the feeding of the 4,000 took place after they had been with Jesus for three days (v. 2).

• Surroundings. Whereas the first miracle took place in an area surrounded by villages and farms, the second was in a "desolate place" (v. 4, NASB).

• The crowd. Whereas the first miraculous feeding involved mostly Jews, it seems likely that because of its location this one involved many, if not mainly, Gentiles. [ref] [ref] [ref] (There is some dispute over this point, however, since Mark did not specifically mention Gentiles. [ref]) That being the case, this miracle can be understood as "an acted parable of the Gentile mission that prefigures the mixed nature of the church." [ref] Jesus thus demonstrated that his mission was not exclusively for the Jews. Citizenship in God's kingdom is a matter of faith, not race; and Jesus came to save people around the globe, not just around Galilee.

• Food. Whereas the 5,000 started with five loaves of (flat) bread and two fish, the 4,000 started with seven loaves of (flat) bread and "a few small fish" (v. 7). [ref] (The number seven may have both a literal and a symbolic meaning, since it was often associated with the Gentiles. "In Jewish tradition, Gentile nations numbered seventy [from Genesis 10:1-32], and Gentiles were sometimes said to be bound, not by the Israelite covenant, but by God's covenant with Noah that is said to have seven commandments [Genesis 9:1-17]. In Acts 6:1-7, seven leaders were chosen for the Greek-speaking Christians." [ref])

• Leftovers. Whereas the 5,000 ended with the disciples gathering "twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish" (Mark 6:43), the 4,000 concluded with the disciples picking up "seven large baskets full of what was left over of the broken pieces" (Mark 8:8). Because of the types of baskets used to gather up the scraps, apparently there were more leftovers following the second miraculous feeding: compare "basket" in Mark 6:43 (kophinos), Mark 8:8 (spuris), and Acts 9:25 (spuris). [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref]

• Jesus. Above all else, we should remember that Jesus himself specifically referred to the two different miraculous feedings: " ... when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand ... When I broke the seven for the four thousand ... " (see Mark 8:18b-20; compare Matthew 16:9-10). [ref] (all NASB)

HEAR (heart)
What, Me Worry?

Do you ever feel as though God is so busy with important concerns that he couldn't possibly be aware of your needs? Just as Jesus was concerned about these people's need for food, he is concerned about our daily needs. At another time Jesus said, "Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' … Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things" (Matthew 6:31-32 NKJV). Jesus knows that you have come a long way or that you may be at the point of collapse. Do you have concerns that you think would not interest God? There is nothing too large for him to handle and no need too small to escape his interest. [ref] (quoted verbatim)

Stingy Saints

They were satisfied. Jesus had provided enough to fill everyone up. Not just a taste, not merely a helping, but more than required. Because Christ has abundant compassion, his work on our behalf satisfied our needs superabundantly. Because Christ has given so much to us, we should have compassion toward others that reflects God's gracious provision. When we have the means, we should err on the side of generosity. Those under our care should say, "I have had plenty!" Let Jesus' generosity encourage you to give big portions to needy people. [ref] (quoted verbatim)

Can you imagine the disciples trying to horde the bread and fish during Jesus' miraculous feedings? "One for you, two for me. One for you, three for me. ... " Of course not. In the same way, God blesses us abundantly not so that we can keep it all for ourselves but, rather, so that we can share it with those all around us who have little or nothing.

DO (hands)
??? How can this passage help us better understand Jesus' mission to save the lost?

SEE (head)
Following the miraculous feeding of the mostly Gentile crowd, Jesus is confronted by a group of Pharisees demanding he produce for them "a miraculous sign from heaven" to verify his authority. Jesus refuses to give them any such sign, and he departs with his disciples. They, in turn, show a similar lack of recognition regarding Jesus' true identity.

A miraculous sign (v. 11). "The rabbis were splitting hairs over the miracles of Jesus as having a possible natural explanation (as some critics do today) even if by the power of Beelzebub, and those not of the sky (from heaven) which would be manifested from God. So they put up this fantastic test to Jesus which he deeply resents." [ref] In demanding a miraculous sign from Jesus, the Pharisees were seeking "unmistakable proof that He and His mission were authorized by God" [ref] - perhaps something on par with the miracles performed by Moses during the Exodus. [ref] (While Jesus had miraculously multiplied earthly bread on two different occasions, Moses [actually, God] had provided bread from heaven [manna] on a daily basis for 40 years. [see John 6:30-35] [ref] But of course such reasoning completely ignores the fact that, as God incarnate, Jesus was/is greater than Moses, manna, and all the Bible's  miracles combined.) "The reasoning seems to be that, since the Messiah will be greater than all the prophets and even than Moses, he will prove it by doing at least one sign which in outward grandeur will exceed all other signs that have ever been wrought." [ref] (Of course, Jesus' resurrection was/is such a sign [see Matthew 16:4] - but only for those willing to believe.)

I will not give ... any such sign (v. 12). Why did Jesus refuse to grant the religious leaders' request for a sign? Because there had already been signs aplenty for anyone willing to see: the handicapped had been restored; the sick had been healed; lepers had been cleansed; waves had been stilled; the hungry had been fed; and the dead had been raised back to life. [ref] [ref] Moreover, the religious leaders' demand actually represented a temptation. [ref] Like Satan in the wilderness at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the Pharisees wanted Jesus to provide a miracle or wonder [ref] that would convince them he was sent from God.

Several points are worth noting:

• Authority. The Pharisees already knew that Jesus could perform the supernatural; they wanted Jesus to prove to their satisfaction that his miracles and wonders were from God. [ref] [ref] Just as the apostle Paul signed his letters as a way of guaranteeing their authenticity (see 2 Thessalonians 3:17), the religious leaders demanded to see God's signature, so to speak, as a guarantee of Jesus' ministry. [ref] If Jesus had given in to their demand, he would in effect have been declaring that the Pharisees' self-appointed (= illegitimate) authority was greater than his God-given (= legitimate) authority. "The frustrated Pharisees tried a tactical maneuver with Jesus called 'control by demanding proof.' ... If they could raise doubts and thus get Jesus to do miracles at their command, then he would literally be under their control. ... They had already seen and heard about many miracles, but that was not enough for them. They wanted Jesus to answer to them." [ref]  

• Insincerity. The Pharisees were not sincere. "They had already decided not to believe. Hearts can become so hard that even the most convincing facts and demonstrations will not change them." [ref] Their true intent "was to embarrass Jesus, either because God would not perform the requested sign, or that the sign itself would fail to impress and persuade." [ref] Hence their aim was to "discredit [Jesus] completely with the people." [ref]

• Skepticism. No miracle can convince a die-hard skeptic. "Unbelief can be a mind-set against God, a willful rebellion of the intellect such that no amount of evidence will overcome it." [ref] While Jesus always welcomed sincere seekers, the Pharisees had already proved themselves to be hardcore skeptics of Jesus by charging that his many marvelous miracles were not from God (see Mark 3:20-30). [ref] Although a miraculous sign may serve as "a guarantee of the authenticity of the Sent One and of the truth of the teaching, it has demonstrative power only for souls that are well-disposed or believing. It can provoke astonishment or emotion, even admiration (John 2:23; 6:26; Acts 8:9, 13) without adherence: 'Even though he had done so many signs in their presence, still they did not believe in him' (John 12:37)." [ref] As one source puts it: "An appeal for a miracle can be a legitimate expression of one's faith (e.g., Mark 5:23; 7:26, 32). But such an appeal is illegitimate if it arises out of unbelief, as was true of the Pharisees." [ref]

• Resurrection. At his resurrection from the dead, Jesus would be "declared the Son of God with power" (Romans 1:4, NASB). But even that incredible miracle would not be enough for anyone adamantly refusing to believe. Here we might note Matthew's fuller version of this episode, in which Jesus declared: "'Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah'" (Matthew 16:4, NLT).

Yeast (v. 15). What did Jesus mean by "the yeast [/leaven] of the Pharisees and of Herod"? Jesus lumped together two opposing factions - "the very strict Pharisees" and the "pro-Roman Herodian dynasty" - in an apparent warning against any popular but dangerous movement that "oppose[s] Jesus' ministry." [ref] When we factor in the Sadducees that are mentioned in Matthew's account, it is possible to see a warning against: traditionalism (Pharisees); secularism (Herod and the Herodians [= influential Jewish supporters of Herod who worked to keep his dynasty in power [ref] [ref]); and skepticism (Sadducees). [ref] No matter how fashionable it may be, any movement that openly opposes Jesus has the dire potential to lead many people astray. [ref] When presented with clear and compelling evidence that Jesus was the promised Messiah of God, the religious and political leaders chose to reject him. In turn, their "heart-heartedness ... permeate[d] and contaminate[d] the entire society and [made] it rise up against Jesus." [ref] [ref]

"Leaven is used in making bread. It passes secretly, silently, but certainly through the mass of dough." [ref] Yeast, or leaven, is used most often in the NT "metaphorically of inveterate [= 'firmly established by long persistence' [ref]] mental and moral corruption, viewed in its tendency to infect others." [ref] In that respect the "yeast" represents unbelief as evidenced by the religious leaders' demand for a spectacular sign (the Pharisees refused to believe Jesus; Herod had refused to believe John the Baptist). [ref] And so Jesus "is appealing to [his disciples] to understand that the authority he possesses cannot be proved by a sign. Only by faith [/belief] can they recognize him as the bringer of God's salvation." [ref] We should also understand "yeast" in the sense of "evil teaching, considered as a very powerful, increasingly corrupting influence" [ref] (see Matthew 16:12). [ref] The religious leaders were not content to keep their unbelief to themselves; they worked it into the lives of others in the form of false teaching. Not even committed followers of Jesus are immune to this yeast - hence Jesus' warning to be on guard against it. [ref]   

The disciples thought that Jesus was rebuking them for not bringing along enough food to eat. And so Jesus reminded them of the two miraculous feedings in which he had not only met the need of thousands but also provided extra for his disciples in the form of leftovers. "[T]he point of this remembrance is not that so many were miraculously filled, but that the disciples themselves received plenty." [ref] Jesus' gentle scolding was a memorable way of reminding his disciples that he was the divine Son of God who could/would meet all their needs, whether physical or spiritual. [ref]  

HEAR (heart)
Giving It All Away

The story is told of a man who was lost in the desert. Dying of thirst, he came across an old shack inside of which was an old, rusty water pump. He immediately grabbed the handle and vigorously pumped up and down, up and down. But there was no water.

That's when he noticed an old jug off to the side on which was written a note instructing the reader to prime the pump with all the water in the jug, and then be sure to refill the jug before leaving.

For a moment the man was utterly confused. Should he believe the note and pour out all the water? Or should he drink all the water from the jug and then move on?

In an act of faith, he decided to follow the instructions. He poured all the water into the old, rusty pump and once again began pumping the handle up and down. At first nothing happened. But then, before he knew it, fresh, cool, life-giving water was gushing from the pump!

He drank until he could not hold another drop. Then he refilled the jug and added a little note of his own: "Believe me, it really works. You have to give it all away before you can get anything back." [ref] (paraphrased)

As God's never-ending supply of life-giving water, Jesus calls everyone everywhere to come and have their spiritual thirst satisfied in him (see John 4:5-14). There is, however, one condition: we must first empty ourselves of all our stubborn pride and arrogance before we can humbly receive this life-giving water. This is something the Pharisees refused to do. But it is something that must be done - not one time only, but on a daily basis.

DO (hands)
??? What can this passage teach us about what it takes to see Jesus for who he really is?

SEE (head)
A blind man is brought to Jesus and, in a manner reminiscent of the deaf mute, Jesus leads the man away from the crowd and restores his sight in stages. He then sends the man home, telling him to avoid the village. 

A blind man (v. 22). What makes this miracle so unusual is the fact that it occurred in stages. [ref] Beyond demonstrating Jesus' obvious compassion, this miracle seems intended to teach that: 1) "no matter how complete the blindness, Jesus [is] able to give (in)sight," [ref] and 2) "spiritual truth is not always perceived clearly at first." [ref] (The next incident recorded in Mark's gospel [vv. 27-33] bears this out: In his limited understanding of Jesus and his mission, Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ but then tried to prevent Jesus from suffering and dying. [ref]) This ties into Jesus' warning his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah/Christ (Mark 8:30): the disciples'  limited understanding of who Jesus was could/would be cleared up only after Jesus died, rose again, returned to Heaven, and established his Church via the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. [ref] [ref] Then the disciples would be free to do as they, in fact, did do: take the Gospel to the entire world. 

Why did Jesus tell the man to avoid the village as he returned home? Perhaps in order to encourage the man to meditate on the tremendous blessing he had received before sharing it first of all with his family and friends. [ref]

See (vv. 23, 24, 25). Like Jesus' miracles in general, this one in particular was intended as an acted parable, a real life illustration of what it means to follow Jesus. We should note the fact that this story contains several different forms of the word "see" (Greek blepo). Besides referring to physical sight, this word is used "frequently in the sense of becoming aware of or taking notice of something." [ref] It is probably not too much of a stretch to find in this story a reminder that it is only as we take our eyes off ourselves and direct our vision/attention upward to Jesus that we are able to see/understand clearly and to plainly distinguish God's will for our lives.

"Sight was a widely used metaphor for understanding. This miracle depicts the correct but incomplete understanding of the disciples." [ref] [ref] Points of comparison between the blind man and Jesus' disciples include:

Blind Man: Physical blindness prior to meeting Jesus.
Disciples: Spiritual blindness prior to meeting Jesus.

Blind Man: Led away from the crowd.
Disciples: Called out of the crowd.

Blind Man: Touched by Jesus.
Disciples: Taught by Jesus.

Blind Man: Like a baby, he could see only shapes.
Disciples: Like spiritual babes, they had only a partial understanding of who Jesus was.

Blind Man: Sight fully restored after a second touch by Jesus.
Disciples: Full understanding after the resurrection (and Pentecost).

Blind Man: He was not to tell others what had happened.
Disciples: They were to keep Jesus' identity secret until after the resurrection. [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] (paraphrased)

HEAR (heart)
As recorded in John 8:31-32, "Jesus said to the people who believed in him, 'You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'" Noted Bible teacher William Barclay finds in these words "a complete picture of discipleship":

1. True discipleship starts with belief.
2. Next comes remaining in Jesus' word, which includes: listening, learning, penetrating, and obeying.
3. It leads to a knowledge of what is most important in this life.
4. And it brings freedom from: fear, self, other people, and sin. [ref] (paraphrased)

"The Gospels reveal three stages in the development of a disciple": 1) the curious, 2) the convinced, and 3) the committed. [ref] The curious never do see Jesus for who he truly is. The convinced recognize and accept Jesus as the Messiah. The committed see Jesus for who he is and ache with the longing to share that vision with others.

DO (hands)
??? What can this passage teach us about our own spiritual growth and development?

SEE (head)
Jesus inquires of his disciples concerning public opinion regarding himself. The general consensus is that Jesus is a prophet. When he presses them for their opinion, Peter acts as spokesman for the group and confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, or Christ.

People say (v. 27). Public opinion held that perhaps Jesus was John the Baptist returned to life "to continue the work of preparation for the kingdom," [ref] or perhaps a prophet like Moses (see Deuteronomy 18:15-18), or perhaps even the great prophet Elijah who had been taken alive up into heaven via a chariot of fire and a whirlwind, and who was to be sent by God "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD" (see Malachi 4:5, NASB; compare Mark 6:14-16). [ref] These responses reflect the fact that "there was considerable messianic speculation among Jews in late antiquity ... There were anticipations of a coming prophet, or priest, or king - all based on prophecies and/or typologies in Scripture." [ref]

The Messiah (v. 29). Jesus asked the disciples: "'But who do you [plural [ref]] say that I am?'" (NASB). Speaking for the group, Peter confessed Jesus as "the Messiah" ("the Christ" NASB) (Greek Christos: "literally, 'one who has been annointed' [ref]). As rendered by the NASB: Matthew: "the Christ, the Son of the Living God"; Mark: "the Christ"; Luke: "the Christ of God." [ref] "Messiah" (Hebrew) and "Christ" (Greek) carry the same meaning. "This affirmation of faith in Jesus was the anchor of their discipleship despite their temporary failures and defections." [ref] Although true, this confession placed the disciples squarely in the minority, and thus illustrates the fact that "a true believer is one who is willing, whenever necessary, to fly in the face of popular opinion and openly to express a conviction that is contrary to that of the masses. In the best sense of the term, the believer is willing to come forth boldly in the interest of the truth." [ref]

Most notably in the OT, prophets, priests, and kings were all anointed. "In such settings the anointing signified that the person was commissioned and approved (by God and the people) for the special office or task." [ref] By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, there was much anticipation regarding God's specially Anointed (= Messiah/Christ) to deliver and restore Israel. The NT writers consistently present Jesus as the Christ or Messiah, with expectation having given way to fulfillment. [ref] Here we might note that: "Anointed as prophet, [Jesus] leads us into all truth (John 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Hebrews 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Philippians 2:9–10)." [ref]  

"Every aspect of the salvation which God has intended for and bestowed upon the world is, for the whole of the NT, bound up in Jesus, in so far as he is the Christ." [ref] While "Christ" eventually "became part of the name-formula for referring to Jesus, for the Evangelists [= Gospel writers] the term retained a connection with ancient visions of God's decisive eschatological intervention on behalf of his people. For the Evangelists the Jewish rejection of Jesus was their rejection of Israel's Messiah. As perhaps no other christological title, the Evangelists' use of 'Christ'" testifies to the Jewish roots of the Christian faith while simultaneously asserting its universal character. [ref]  

Not to tell anyone (v. 30). Why did Jesus not openly claim to be the Messiah? For two reasons, really. First of all, the disciples had only a partial understanding of who Jesus was. [ref] [ref] "The fulness of what 'the Christ' meant was not yet revealed to them." [ref] Secondly, Jesus was not the type of Messiah the people were seeking. People simply were not looking for "a humble, patient, loving, peaceful Messiah, God's suffering servant as pictured in Is. 53." [ref] As one source puts it: "[T]he dominant popular hope was of a king like David, with a role of political liberation and conquest. ... Jesus' conception of his Messianic role was so much at variance with the popular connotations of christos that he preferred to avoid the title." [ref] By the time Jesus came on the scene, the expectation for a national deliverer who would restore Israel to greatness had reached fever pitch. In the gap between the last OT prophet and John the Baptist, the OT prophecies concerning Israel's renewal were used as the groundwork for apocalyptic writings depicting Israel's complete triumph over her enemies. By brute force and bloody determination, the Messiah would crush the Gentiles and reestablish Israel as God's chosen people. "These are the Messianic ideas which were in the minds of men when Jesus came. They were violent, nationalistic, destructive, vengeful. True, they ended in the perfect reign of God, but they came to it through a bath of blood and a career of conquest. Think of Jesus set against a background like that. No wonder he had to re-educate his disciples in the meaning of Messiahship; and no wonder they crucified him in the end as a heretic. There was no room for a cross and there was little room for suffering love in a picture like that." [ref]

HEAR (heart)
An Honest Confession

The story is told of a German prince who was traveling through France during the reign of Louis XVI. The prince visited Toulon and was told by the commandant there that he could set free one galley slave.

The prince interviewed several of the prisoners, all of whom complained of injustices and mistreatment. All, that is, except for the one prisoner who admitted he had been nothing short of a wicked and desperate wretch deserving of death.

The prince "scolded" the man and said that he would not be allowed to remain another day in the company of all the other honest and upright prisoners.

And the prince set him free. [ref] (paraphrased)

The first step in confessing Jesus as the Anointed One of God who came to set us free, is to acknowledge that we in no way deserve the freedom he offers us. To see Jesus for who he really is, we must first see ourselves for who - and what - we really are.

DO (hands)
??? What does it mean to "confess" something? What does it mean to confess Jesus as Messiah?

SEE (head)
After Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus proceeds to inform his disciples exactly what that means. Far from the picture of military might and victory they have in mind, in the very near future Jesus will suffer and be put to death. This is simply too much for Peter to take in, and so he rebukes Jesus. Jesus then explains that a similar fate awaits those who follow him.  

Son of Man (v. 31). Notice Jesus' use of "Son of Man," a title he would employ with increasing frequency in the days leading up to his crucifixion (Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62). "The title 'Son of Man' emphasized Jesus as the vindicated, authoritative, and powerful agent of God." [ref] As one source notes: "This title especially suited Jesus' total mission. It was free of political connotations, thus preventing false expectations. Yet it was sufficiently ambiguous (like a parable) to preserve the balance between concealment and disclosure in Jesus' life and mission (cf. Mark 4:11-12). It combined the elements of suffering and glory in a way no other designation could. It served to define His unique role as Messiah." [ref] 

Elders ... priests ... teachers of religious law (v. 31). Jesus entered "a turning point to new content in His teaching" [ref] [ref] with his announcement that he, the Son of Man, would be rejected by the Sanhedrin ("the elders and the chief priests and the scribes" v.31, NASB), [ref] [ref] be executed, and rise from the dead three days later - thus predicting "a trial and a formal condemnation." [ref] The trial and execution would be an unjust attempt to get rid of Jesus, to put him out of the way. [ref] The Sanhedrin was "[t]he council or governing body that met in Jerusalem in NT times and that constituted the highest Jewish authority in Palestine prior to A.D. 70." [ref] Its 71 members "were drawn from the three classes named in Matthew 16:21; 27:41; Mark 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1; Luke 9:22; 22:26: 'the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law.' By the chief priests is meant the acting high priest, those who had been high priests, and members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken. The priestly aristocracy comprised the leading persons in the community, and they were the chief members of the Sanhedrin. The teachers of the law (KJV scribes) formed the Pharisaic element in the Sanhedrin, though not all Pharisees were professional scribes. The elders were the tribal and family heads of the people and priesthood. They were, for the most part, the secular nobility of Jerusalem." [ref] The Sanhedrin was "[h]eaded by the high priest of Israel ... [and it] was granted limited authority over certain religious, civil, and criminal matters by the foreign nations that dominated the land of Israel at various times in its history." [ref]

Peter ... began to reprimand him (v. 33). Jesus' open talk of betrayal and death was simply too much for Peter and the other disciples to take in; it was beyond their capacity to accept. "The report of Peter's rebuke of Jesus is not meant to discredit Peter, but to underscore the surprising nature of Jesus' prediction." [ref] Why did Peter rebuke Jesus? Simply put, it was because to his way of thinking a martyred Messiah was no Messiah at all. [ref] "Peter's opposition rests on human ideas which cannot combine messiahship and suffering. But Jesus thinks the thoughts of God. His sense of his messiahship and messianic mission does not follow traditional patterns. He has a different understanding which he believes to be consonant with God's own thinking and purpose." [ref]  

We should note that "in Jesus' statements about his suffering, the announcement of his death is always accompanied by that of his resurrection" [ref] (see Matthew 12:40; 16:21; 17:9; 17:22-23; 20:18-19). This is because his death and resurrection is a twofold event - like two sides of the same coin - that declares Jesus to be the Christ/Messiah. Jesus' resurrection proved "his messiahship, which seemed to be disproved by his death on the cross." [ref] And so we should not be surprised to find "Peter say[ing] he was 'made' both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus' resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Romans 1:4)." [ref]  

Jesus said that he would not remain dead but would be resurrected on the third day. Did his disciples not believe him? It may well be that Peter and the other disciples (mis)interpreted Jesus' words as being a figure of speech  - meaning "in a little while" - along the lines of Hosea's usage in referring to the nation of Israel's returning to God: "'Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him'" (Hosea 6:1-2). [ref] (It may well be that Jesus had this passage, along with several others from the OT, in mind when making his prediction. [ref]) This would explain why Jesus' clear and repeated references to his own resurrection (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33) fell on deaf ears: the disciples simply did not take Jesus' words literally.

Satan (v. 33). Was Jesus really calling Peter "Satan?" Since Peter was the group spokesman, Jesus' rebuke would have applied to the other disciples, as well. [ref] Hence we see Jesus turning and looking at his disciples prior to issuing his rebuke (v. 33). Besides that, however, since "satan" (Greek satanas) means "opponent" or "adversary," [ref] [ref] [ref] it may be in this sense that Jesus was applying it to Peter, hence communicating something like: "Get behind me, you who oppose me!" [ref] But while Jesus may not have been literally calling Peter "Satan," he was very literally calling out the satanic opposition he recognized in Peter. [ref] "In his wilderness temptations, Jesus had been told that he could achieve greatness without dying (Matthew 4:8-9). Peter, in his rebuke of Jesus' words about dying, was saying the same thing." [ref] Among the practical lessons to be learned from this incident is the fact that many times "our most difficult temptations come from those who want to protect us from suffering." [ref]  

When we look at this incident as recorded by both Matthew and Mark and across several Bible translations/versions, we find that Peter's rebuke of Jesus represented a focus, concern, or mindset that values human thoughts, concerns, workings, and interests over those of God, and that such is nothing less than an obstacle, a danger, a hindrance, an offense, and a stumbling block to Jesus. Thus Peter was indeed serving as "an unwitting spokesman for Satan." [ref] Jesus used the term/title "Satan" because, like the Devil, Peter was "opposing the divine plan of man's redemption through Christ's sufferings and death." [ref] While it is true that "from the human point of view being subjected to suffering and being killed is unacceptable ... [f]rom God's point of view" it was "absolutely necessary." [ref] Jesus' rebuke helps drive home the fact that there is only one way of salvation and anything or anyone who opposes it, regardless of good or bad intentions, is in league with the Devil. "What a warning to watch our love, our good intentions, our best acts, lest perhaps they after all agree with Satan and not with Christ." [ref] While the disciples loved and admired Jesus, their "job was not to guide and protect Jesus but to follow him." [ref]  

"Peter wanted Christ to be king, but not the suffering servant prophesied in Isaiah 53. He was ready to receive the glory of following the Messiah but not the persecution." [ref] While doubtless Peter was trying to protect Jesus, his concern was not entirely selfless. Peter and the other disciples would have been very well aware of the fate awaiting the followers of anyone executed by the Roman government. Having pinned all of their hopes and dreams on Jesus, they literally could not bear the thought of his being put to death as some sort of dangerous criminal and then, as if to add insult to injury, his followers being hounded out of existence. Forget about lost (earthly) glory, "grandeur and triumph" [ref] - the disciples would be fortunate if they could escape with their lives. Thus it is small wonder they could not bring themselves to understand/believe that Jesus was going to be put to death - despite his clear and repeated warnings (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34).

Your cross (v. 34). Living for God is in many ways more difficult than dying for him. Jesus' call to take up the cross is rich in meaning:

• Self-Denial. "Deny" (Greek aparneomai) means "to deny utterly," and is the same word Jesus used when predicting that Peter would deny him (see Matthew 26:34-35; Mark 14:30-31; Luke 22:34, 61). [ref] It means "refus[ing] to give thought to or express concern for." [ref] Denying self "means self altogether, not merely some portion, some special habit or desire, some outward practice." [ref] Much more than mere self-reform, it "means to renounce self - to cease to make self the object of one's life and actions. This involves a fundamental reorientation of the principle of life. God, not self, must be at the center of life." [ref] In negative terms, self-denial involves letting go "of selfish desires and earthly security" [ref]; stated positively, it calls for a daily commitment to trust Jesus, walk in his footsteps, and gratefully obey his commands. [ref]  

• Suffering. In a time and place where crucifixion was a very common occurrence, the cross became a poignant symbol for absolute commitment to a cause - even to the point of physical death. [ref] Jesus' call to take up one's cross recalls, but goes beyond, the typical Jewish rabbi's injunction "to take up the yoke of Torah, or the yoke of the commandments." [ref] The cross is a sobering symbol of the suffering - including possible martyrdom - that lay in store for anyone choosing to follow Jesus. [ref] [ref] While only Christ's suffering and death has the power to atone for sins, we nonetheless have fellowship in his sufferings and follow in his steps as we too experience the cross before the crown. [ref]  

• Submission. The cross was also a piercing symbol of submission. "The underlying figure [of taking up one's cross] is that of a condemned man who is forced to take up and carry his own cross to the place of execution." [ref] A condemned criminal was made to carry his own cross-beam as he was paraded through the streets of Jerusalem on his way to die a public, painful, and prolonged death. "Death came slowly to a crucified person, through exhaustion or by suffocation. And it came with great pain. Death by crucifixion was also considered a great disgrace." [ref] For all to see, the crucified person was forced to submit to the very authority against which he had rebelled. [ref] [ref] "Those who follow [Jesus] must take up their (not His) cross, whatever comes to them in God's will as a follower of Jesus. ... [This means being obedient] to God's will as revealed in His Word, accepting the consequences without reservations for Jesus' sake and the gospel (cf. Mark 8:35). For some this includes physical suffering and even death, as history has demonstrated (cf. Mark 10:38-39)." [ref] Christ "used the image of carrying a cross to illustrate the ultimate submission required of his followers. He is not against pleasure, nor was he saying that we should seek pain needlessly. Jesus was talking about the heroic effort needed to follow him moment by moment, to do his will even when the work is difficult and the future looks bleak." [ref]  

• Rejection. "To bear the cross means to accept the rejection of the world for turning to Jesus and following him. Discipleship involves a death that is like a crucifixion" (see Galatians 6:14). [ref] Along these lines, saving versus losing one's life can be seen as a stark reminder "that if one comes to Jesus then rejection by many will certainly follow. If self-protection is a key motivation, then one will not respond to Jesus and will not be saved. One who is willing to risk rejection will respond and find true life." [ref]  

• Right Priorities. Verses 35-38 actually begin with the word "For" (see NASB), and so represent an extended definition of discipleship. [ref] It involves 1) losing (but not hating [ref]) one's life "in loyalty to Jesus and the gospel" (v. 35) [ref] - that is, faith as evidenced by faithfulness [ref] , 2) valuing eternal life with God more than the passing pleasures of the world, including "possessions, position, or power" [ref] (vv. 36-37), and 3) embracing rather than rejecting Jesus (v. 38). [ref] [ref]

The last point is worth emphasizing. What we do with Jesus in the present will determine what he does with us in the future. "We can reject Jesus now and be rejected by him at his second coming, or we can accept him now and be accepted by him then. Rejecting Christ may help us escape shame for the time being, but it will guarantee an eternity of shame later." [ref] What does it mean to reject/disown Jesus? Put simply, it means doing the opposite of what Jesus said: "'If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me'" (v. 34). Thus to reject/disown Jesus means: to have no desire to follow him, to continue in our selfish ways, to refuse to submit and suffer for our faith, and to follow anyone and anything other than Jesus. Notice, too, the link between Jesus and the Gospel: "' ... if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News ... '"  (v. 35). Because Jesus cannot be separated from his message, to reject Jesus is to reject the Gospel, and to reject the Gospel is to reject Jesus. [ref]  

HEAR (heart)
The Cross Before the Crown
Bible commentator Albert Barnes offers several poignant remarks regarding cross-bearing:

When persons were condemned to be crucified, a part of the sentence was that they should carry the cross on which they were to die to the place of execution. Thus, Christ carried his, until he fainted from fatigue and exhaustion. ... [The cross] was an instrument of death. ... To carry it was burdensome, was disgraceful, was trying to the feelings, was an addition to the punishment. So "to carry the cross" is a figurative expression, denoting that we must endure whatever is burdensome, or is trying, or is considered disgraceful, in following Christ. It consists simply in doing our duty, let the people of the world think of it or speak of it as they may. It does not consist in making trouble for ourselves, or doing things merely "to be opposed"; it is doing just what is required of us in the Scriptures, let it produce whatever shame, disgrace, or pain it may. This every follower of Jesus is required to do. [ref] (quoted verbatim)

Peter "was ready to receive the glory of following the Messiah, but not the persecution. The Christian life is not a paved road to wealth and ease. It often involves hard work, persecution, deprivation, and deep suffering. Satan wants to deter us from sacrifice and service by telling us that our difficulties are meaningless, our pain is futile, and that evil will win anyway. Instead [of listening to Satan, we need to] focus on the good that God can bring out of suffering and on the resurrection that follows crucifixion." [ref]  

DO (hands)
"True wealth is, above all else, having eternal life. People will die in their sins if they reject Christ, because they are rejecting the only way to be rescued from sin. Sadly, many are so taken up with the values of this world that they are blind to the priceless gift Christ offers. Where are you looking? Don't focus on this world's values and miss what is most valuable - eternal life with God." [ref]

??? A popular but extremely dangerous teaching today is that Jesus came so that we can have health and wealth. How does Jesus' words regarding following him help to correct such a notion?