Luke 9:18-27

 Who is Jesus? (2) – Peter’s Answer

Luke 9:18-20  -  Peter’s Declaration about Jesus

18 Once when Jesus was praying alone,
the disciples were there too.  
Jesus asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?"

Luke frequently mentioned the matter of prayer. Jesus prayed, alone – though the disciples were there, too.

Like his mother who taught him, Jesus treasured his experience and pondered it in his heart. From the question he asked the disciples, perhaps he wondered if he had done enough to let people know his real identity.

19 They answered, "John the Baptist,
others Elijah,
others again one of the ancient prophets come back to life." 

The disciples’ report on people’s conclusions did not differ from that given to Herod by his agents.

20 He then said to them, "You, who do you say I am?"  
Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

This would be one more piece added to the jigsaw of Jesus’ real identity. Luke added no further comment, either from Jesus or from himself. Was Peter’s answer correct? Was it adequate? Had it missed the point?

 

Who is Jesus? (3) – Jesus’ Answer

Luke 9:21-27  -  Jesus Warns of Suffering 

21 He strongly warned them
and commanded them to say this to no one.
22 He then told them that it was necessary that the son of man
suffer many things
and be rejected by the aristocrats, the high priests and the scribes
and be killed
and on the third day to be raised.

This was the first time that Jesus explicitly referred to his death. He would do so on other occasions. Luke would be silent on whether the repetition of the references reflected the relentless rhythm of Jesus’ own prayer or were triggered by circumstances.

Jesus gave no reason why he strongly warned and commanded them not to tell anyone. He may have been dissatisfied with Peter’s assessment of himself. He may have been sensitive to possible misunderstandings if others agreed with Peter’s judgment. The title used of him, however, at this juncture was Son of Man


Son of Man

As mentioned earlier in the commentary (5:23), the title referred back to a vision in the Book of Daniel. (The translation from the Hebrew Scriptures reads “one like a human being” in preference to the more literal “Son of Man”.)

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
that shall never be destroyed. (7:13-14)

Individual/Collective. Later the same “dominion” would be “given to the holy ones of the Most High”:

The kingship and dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High;
their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey them.” (7:27) 

The image of “the one like a human being” referred to both an individual and the faithful ones of the people. The faithful one, par excellence, was, of course, Jesus himself. Jesus was the one individual who became totally human, totally mature, totally actualised, perfect. 

Vulnerability. Yet the literal translation, Son of Man, seemed to carry overtones of fragility. Indeed, Jesus’ faithfulness would come to perfection in and through his human frailty and vulnerability. He became perfect through suffering (as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews wrote). Precisely through his faithfulness in vulnerability would Jesus overcome the sin of the world. Precisely through his faithfulness in vulnerability would he be raised to new life by his Father and given “a kingship that shall never be destroyed”. Disciples of Jesus who would imitate him in his faithfulness and personal integrity would in turn share with Christ in his kingship.

The title would occur frequently in Luke’s narrative, carrying consistently the sense of Jesus’ 

    • personal integrity and human perfection 
    • vulnerability in face of suffering 
    • vindication by God 

Jesus obviously judged the title appropriate for himself. His sense of future suffering may perhaps have sprung from insight gained in prayer, as he pondered people’s lukewarm acceptance of his message, and the obvious dangers posed by the Jewish establishment and Herod’s sense of insecurity. The likely outcome of his life was becoming clearer.

The aristocrats, chief priests and scribes referred to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council charged with the general administration of the Jewish state. It operated in Jerusalem. So far Jesus had engaged negatively only with some scribes.

Resurrection was an expectation of many Jews, particularly of those influenced by the teachings of the Pharisees. The priests as a whole did not believe in it. Resurrection on the third day was new, although the prophet Micah had spoken of an eventual intervention of God in terms of a third day, as would Jesus himself later in the narrative (13:32). Of course, by the time of writing, the Christian community generally had grown used to speaking of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day, and its mention here in the Gospel may well have been an unconscious factor of reading back into history.

23 He then said to everyone,
"If any wish to come after me,
let them deny themselves,
take up their cross every day
and so follow me.
24 Whoever wish to save their life will lose it;
but whoever lose their life on account of me will save it.
25 What good is it if people gain the whole world
but destroy or damage themselves?

So far in his narrative Luke had made no reference at all to the fact that Jesus would die on a cross. Gospels obviously do not provide a chronological account of events.

When Mark had written the corresponding section of his Gospel, the literal prospect of death by crucifixion was probably not out of the question for his community.  Yet it is also possible that he considered that their taking up their cross could also be interpreted metaphorically. Luke certainly understood it in a spiritualised sense, as is obvious from his addition of the phrase every day (since people cannot be literally crucified daily). This may seem a domestication of Jesus’ message, and indeed does address the differences in attitude between Mark and Luke. Luke was writing in a different context from Mark, in a world where structural change in line with the values of God’s Kingdom was for the moment quite impossible. His community faced constant harassment from the Roman administration. Their lives, and the continuation of the community, were in danger. Jesus did not hesitate to state the alternatives clearly and to spell out the cost of genuine discipleship.

However, the community’s influence on structures was non-existent. The question still remained: how to remain faithful to the spirit of Jesus? They could operate within the confines of their own inner lives; they could also determine the quality of interactions within their Christian community. Certainly fidelity in the face of oppression called for dying to self-interest.

As the story unfolded, Luke would return relentlessly to the myriad ways of dying to self as the condition for being saved.


Dying to Self in Context

Jesus was not inviting people to punish themselves. To seek suffering can be pathological; though, in the history of the Church, some Christians have seen such mortification as virtuous. Earlier in his Gospel, when discussing the question of fasting, Jesus had defended the disciples’ choice not to fast (5.34).

To die to self is not to kill the self. The Christian task is to allow the genuine inner self, made in the image of God, to arise from the unconscious and to replace the self-made self, the ego. Deliberately planned efforts to shape personality tend to be fed from the insecurity of the ego, generally originating from unrecognised pride 

First Conversion. What need to be checked if the true self is to be set free are the superficial, but strongly felt, inclinations arising from unrecognised fears and desires. Temptations to sin are certainly to be actively resisted. This resistance is what might be called the first conversion. However, since such superficial inclinations arise constantly in the course simply of living, there is little need to be diverted from the relentless task of self-discipline by deliberate but distracting focus on self-set goals that serve merely to nourish an anxious self-image and the roots of pride.

Even unsought suffering can be used to bolster low self-image. For some it can become their badge of self-worth that they surrender reluctantly, if at all. 

Some Desert Fathers thought that the only value of self-imposed works of penance was the disciples’ experience of their inability to observe them, and to direct them to the mercy of God. Even then, they insisted that no disciple take on such a penance without the consent of a wise guide experienced in the ways of spiritual growth. To succeed in self-chosen works of penance served generally to nourish pride.

Second Conversion. Given the general pervasiveness of pride, the only courses of action left to the disciple are growth in genuine self-knowledge, humble acceptance of the real situation, and patient hope and prayer for the liberating action of God. Such coming to terms with personal powerlessness, when coupled with corresponding openness to God, can be called the second conversion.

Fasting? In an earlier discussion Luke quoted Jesus as saying that “when the bridegroom will have been taken away from them, then they will fast in those days” (5.35). Jesus may have been speaking of fasting metaphorically, or Luke may have been justifying an actual practice adopted in his Christian community. Certainly the Church today asks its members to fast at certain times of the liturgical year.

It helps to see that such fasting does not come under the dynamic of dying to self to find self. Rather it is a way of affirming a common identity. It is an exercise of obedience, of consciously surrendering individual autonomy in order to strengthen a sense of belonging to community. Even the fact that the Church imposes the discipline means that it does not come under the category of being self-imposed. And while scope is allowed for individuals to choose the form of their penance: act of charity, limiting of food, solidarity with the poor, etc., the requirement is not of their own making. 


 
26 People who are ashamed of me or of my message,
the Son of Man will be ashamed of them
when he comes in his glory
and the glory of the Father and the holy angels.

The language about the Son of Man coming in his glory, and the glory of the Father and the holy angels was taken directly from the Book of Daniel, and need not be taken at face value. Nor need Jesus’ being ashamed be taken literally: the Jesus who insisted constantly that his followers be always open to forgive could not be less forgiving himself. The phrase is to be interpreted as a Semitic way of underlining the non-negotiable importance of the choice for Jesus and for his values.

27 I tell you sincerely, there are some standing here
who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God.
 

Luke left Jesus’ comment without further explanation. For Mark the coming of the Kingdom of God with power happened with Jesus’ crucifixion (in line with the thought of the Book of Daniel).  Luke probably found the saying difficult, and omitted the phrase in Mark with power. Simply referring, however, to the coming of the Kingdom took all strength from the comment, since with the ministry of Jesus the Kingdom had already begun.

Next >> Luke 9:28-36