‘And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and after three days rise again. And he spoke the saying openly. '
We should note here that Jesus not only refers to His coming death, but actually embraces it as a part of the divine purpose. From now on it is no longer seen as something that might arise because of opposition against Him, but as something which has been in the mind of God from the beginning. For He immediately turns their attention to Himself as ‘the Son of Man' (compare Mark 2:10; Mark 2:28) Who ‘must suffer' (‘it is necessary for Him to suffer'). Here, in contrast with His desire for secrecy in respect of His Messiahship, Jesus speaks openly about His rejection and coming death as the Son of Man, to be followed by resurrection. The significance of His death will come out later (Mark 10:45; Mark 14:24).
‘The Son of Man must suffer.' Notice the ‘must'. It is seen to be a divine necessity (compare Mark 9:11; Mark 13:7; Mark 13:10; Luke 24:7; Luke 24:26; John 3:14; John 9:4; John 10:16; John 20:9; Act 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:53; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 1:1). It is not surprising that Jesus saw His future in terms of suffering. He had witnessed what had happened to John the Baptiser, He knew of the growing antagonism against Him that had probably caused Him to leave Galilee, He knew of the career of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 50:4-11; Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12, and of the Smitten Shepherd in Zechariah 13:7 (consider John 10:11). He knew of the references to the suffering of the godly, and especially of the son of David, in the Psalms (e.g. Psalms 22; Psalms 118:10 on) and He knew that the Son of Man in Daniel, as the representative of God's people, was to come out of suffering into the presence of God, as the beasts attacked the people of God (Daniel 7:13-14 with Mark 8:22 and Mark 8:25-27). So He had no Messianic delusions. Unlike the disciples He knew what was in store. And He knew that that suffering was necessary so that He could be a ‘ransom for many' (Mark 10:45; compare Isaiah 53:4-6; Isaiah 53:10-11). For ‘the Son of Man' see note on Mark 2:10.
‘And be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests and the scribes.' This description encompassed the whole Sanhedrin (the Jewish governing body). The elders were the prominent lay people on the Council (Mark 11:27; Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1), the chief priests were the hierarchy and ran the Temple and its ritual, and the scribes were the Doctors of the Law. He was already rejected by many of them and He recognised that almost all of them would turn against Him (Psalms 118 (LXX 117).22 - same Greek verb in LXX), for He knew what was in man (John 2:25). Indeed if He was to die as a ransom (Mark 10:45) it could only be through rejection at their hands. This idea would particularly have appalled the disciples. But it was firmly based on Old Testament precedent, as witness the experiences of Jeremiah and Zechariah.
‘And be killed.' Reference must mainly be to the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:8-10, as later expressed in Mark 10:45. We have here an evidence of how carefully the actual words of Jesus were preserved. It would have been so easy to alter it to ‘crucified', especially in the light of Mark 8:34 and the fact that crucifixion was the normal death under the Romans for high treason, but they did not.
‘And after three days He will rise again.' This promise is repeated in Mark 9:31; Mark 10:34. He may not have intended ‘three days' literally. ‘Three days' indicated a relatively short period of time and could mean ‘within days' (compare the ‘three days journey', a standard phrase in the Pentateuch indicating a shortish journey compared with the longer ‘seven days journey' - Genesis 30:36; Exodus 3:18; Exodus 5:3; Exodus 8:27; Numbers 10:33; Numbers 33:8; Jonah 3:3). The idea of a third day resurrection is possibly taken from Hosea 6:1-2 (both Matthew and Luke interpret the ‘three days' of Mark as ‘the third day'. To Jews both phrases meant the same thing) interpreted in the light of Jesus identification of Himself with Israel in terms of the suffering Servant of Isaiah. Indeed the Servant's task could only be fulfilled by resurrection. How else could He receive the spoils of victory (Isaiah 53:12)? (Compare also Isaiah 52:13-15). And how else could the Son of Man come triumphantly out of suffering into the presence of the Ancient of Days to receive the everlasting kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14)? Resurrection is also constantly implied by such statements as Mark 8:34-37.
It should be noted that in Mark Jesus is always depicted as actively rising again, using the active verb anistemi. The thought would seem to be that after being subjected to humiliation He will Himself take control of events and bring about His own resurrection. In the words of John 10:18, ‘no man takes it (my life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father'. Matthew on the other hand translates using the passive of egeiro where the emphasis is on God raising Him. But the difference is simply one of viewpoint. Father and Son will act together in His resurrection.
It may be asked why, if Jesus made this prophecy so regularly, the disciples were not expectant of His resurrection. But we have only to consider man's propensity for accepting what he understands to explain this. It was difficult enough for them suddenly to be faced in this way with the possibility that He would die tragically, without their taking in what His enigmatic words about His resurrection indicated. If they thought about it at all it would be in terms of some miracle of a resurrected Messiah after being put to death by his enemies. But it is more likely that they saw it in terms of Hosea 6:1-2 as a kind of national resurrection, possibly with His death being seen metaphorically as well, especially when they considered His own words about all who followed Him having to ‘die' (Mark 8:34-36).
This prophecy concerning His coming suffering and death will be repeated three times in this subsection, here, and in Mark 9:12 and Mark 9:31. Its full significance will then be brought out in Mark 10:33-34 with 45.
Note on Daniel 7:13-14.
In the Book of Daniel the empires (e.g. Mark 7:23) of the Mediterranean world were likened to rapacious beasts because their behaviour was seen as like that of beasts who range around and conquer and destroy (Daniel 7:1-8; Daniel 8:1-14). These beasts also represent their kings (Mark 7:17), and their horns represent later kings and kingdoms (e.g. Mark 8:20-23). In contrast the people of God are seen as a ‘son of man' (Mark 7:13-14 with Mark 8:18; Mark 8:25-27). As represented by their obedience to the Law of God they are human in contrast with the bestial empires. But because they are God's people they will be subject to suffering and tribulation (Mark 7:25). Finally, however, they will triumph when ‘the thrones are placed' (Mark 7:9) and their representative (Mark 7:13) will come into the presence of God, ‘the Ancient of Days', to receive the everlasting dominion and glory and kingdom (Mark 7:13-14 compare Mark 7:27).
As Himself the representative of the people of God Jesus takes to Himself the designation ‘the Son of Man' and so aligns Himself with their future suffering prior to everlasting glory. The Son of Man is thus seen as One Who comes out of earthly suffering and will enter in triumph into the presence of God to be crowned and glorified.
(End of note).
‘And He spoke the saying openly.' This is in direct contrast with Mark 8:30. There was no secrecy hinted at here. While He did not want them to spread about the fact that He was the Messiah, He had no such reservations about the fact that He was the Son of Man Who was to suffer, die and rise again. This was something that He wanted known, especially to all the disciples. Thus it was not whispered to a few. It was boldly declared before all.
Strictly speaking the disciples should have been prepared for this, but like us they had the ability to make words mean what they wanted them to mean. They had been told that the Bridegroom was to be ‘snatched away' from them (Mark 2:20), and that then they would fast. It had been inferred that the temple of His body would be destroyed, and in three days raised again (John 2:19). And Jesus had clearly stated that He was giving His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51) and that men would ‘eat and drink' of Him (John 6:56), a clear reference to His being put to death according to Old Testament passages such as Psalms 14:4; Psalms 53:4; Micah 3:3; Isaiah 49:26; Zechariah 9:15 LXX; compare Matthew 23:30. But in the way men have they had refused to accept the unpalatable truth and had ignored it. Now they were being faced up with it in a way that they could not ignore.