Mark 8 27-38

Well, we have a great deal of ground to cover this morning. This morning we will be Mark chapter eight, verse twenty seven through the end of chapter eight in Mark, and we're looking quite simply at the identity of Jesus, the identity of Jesus now. In order for us to grasp this, we have to understand what's going on in Mark. And there are some incredible subtleties that are happening here in the Gospel of Mark. And if you look with me for a moment, we'll see some of those subtleties. First of all, in chapter eight and verse twenty seven, you see that Jesus now is in Capernaum. I mean, Sayesria Philippi. Excuse me, He's in the north at Cyesria Philippi. And from now until chapter ten and verse fifty two, he is on what I like to refer to as the Middle passage in the Gospel of Mark. From this point on, g Esus will make his move from the north down to the South, down to Jerusalem. Not only is he moving from north to south, but he is moving from miracle worker to martyr. He is on the way to Jerusalem to die. And in fact, the phrase on the way is used five times in the Book of Mark, all of them in this section. Only nineteen verses in the New Testament contain the Greek phrase in tehoto or on the way nineteen times. Nineteen verses. That's it. Five of those occur right here in Mark, and every one of them occurs between eight twenty two and ten fifty two, because that's the theme of the Middle passage. He is on his way to Jerusalem. Now, if you'll look with me, we can see that happens first of all in eight twenty seven. Secondly, it happens in nine thirty three A twenty seven. We'll look at it in a minute, But look at nine thirty three with me. They came to Capernaum, and when he was in the house, he began to question them, what are you What were you discussing? Where in Tehoto? On the way? It's the second time he uses that phrase. Next time he uses it is in the next verse, verse thirty four. They kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another, which one of them was the greatest. The next time we see it is down in ten thirty two. Look with me in ten thirty two, and they were on the road going up to Jerusalem. The same Greek phrase is used there in Tehote on the Way, and at ten fifty two, ten fifty two, Jesus said to him, this is blind Bartimaeus. Go your faith has made you well. Immediately he regained his sight and began following him on the road. On what road ten fifty two. He's on the road back to Jerusalem from Jericho. It's the only time this Greek phrase shows up in the Book of Mark. And in the Book of Mark right here between eight twenty two and ten fifty two, where we have five statements of on the way. This middle passage where the entire gospel changes, where everything in Mark moves from the first half, where we see the identity of Jesus as the miracle worker and the great Teacher, to the second half, where we see Jesus moving purposefully down to Jerusalem where he will be crucified. There's a frame. Last week we saw the first part of the frame. The first part of the frame was the healing of a blind man. The last part of the frame, in chapter ten, verse fifty two is the healing of blind Bartimaus. Now why does Mark frame the middle passage with the healing of two blind men. By the way, if you remember, the first healing of the blind man was the only progressive miracle that we see. He touches him and says, what do you see? I see men, but they look like trees walking around. Touches him again, and he finally sees what's that about. Well, we don't know exactly because the text doesn't tell us. But when you put it together with the fact that we are now on the way, that we are now moving toward Jerusalem, and that one more thing happens here three times between eight twenty two and ten fifty two, three times in eight twenty seven and nine thirty and in ten thirty two, Jesus does what he foretells, his death, his crucifixion, and his resurrection to whom, to the disciples. What's the purpose of the middle passage. The purpose of the middle passage is this Jesus is revealing to his disciples and to you and to me that he's not just a miracle worker. He came to do something greater than performed these miracles. So at the beginning of the frame there's a blind man. At the end of the frame there's a blind man. In the middle, there are the disciples who are told three times in this one middle passage the same thing, I am going to be crucified. The chief priests and the elders and the teachers of the law are the ones who are going to do it, But I am going to rise again on the third day. Not only do we see that three times, but we're about to look at Peter's great confession of who Jesus is right before he tells them that he must be crucified. And next week we are going to look at the miracle of the transfiguration, which is what Jesus opening their eyes, almost a direct repeat of what he did with the blind man. Touches him the first time, he doesn't quite see perfectly, so he touches him again and he sees it even better. We're going to see in our passage today he tells them who he really is and they don't see perfectly, and then next week we'll see him show them again on the amount of transfiguration. So we're on the move. We're on the way. We are in Tehudel. We're on the road from the north furthest point of his ministry, to the south in Jerusalem, the endpoint of his ministry. We're on the road from the miracle worker to the martyr, and we're on the road that will open the eyes of the disciples, and that will open the eyes of you and of me to the true ministry and mission of Jesus. Look with me, if you will, beginning in verse twenty seven, and the first thing that we see is that the identity of Jesus has always been a source of debate. Jesus went out along with his disciples to the village is successory of Philippi, and on the way he questioned his disciples, saying, who do people say that I am? They told him saying John the Baptist, Others say Elijah, and others one of the prophets. Who do men say that I am? Have you googled me? Guys, what's out there about me? And they got answers? Did they not? Because everybody had an opinion about who Jesus was. He's doing these miracles. Everybody hears about the miracles. Everybody understands that the miracles are happening. But what do the miracle mean? That's the ultimate question. Some say the miracles mean that John the Baptist has actually come back. John the Baptists now reincarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. Others say that the miracles mean he's one of the prophets. Some have different ideas of what the miracles mean because they have to debate the identity of Jesus. We know he's not just a regular man, but who is he? These debates raged and they continue to rage on even today. For example, there's a group called the Ebionites. The Ebionites denied that Jesus was actually divine. The Ebionites made this argument that what happened was at his baptism, the Spirit the Christ came on Jesus and took over him. But on the cross, when he cries out, Sabachthani, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That that's when the Christ, the Spirit actually left him. That's the Ebionites would argue. Now this has been revived in our times in New Age teaching. New Age teaching is actually that Jesus was a man, but what happened was as a man, he got in touch with the divine part of him better than any other man in history, and that's why he's worthy of mention, and that's why he's worthy of note, because he got in touch with the Christ's spirit. So the Ebionites believe this is early second century. Now late first century. The Docetists actually believed the opposite. They denied the genuine humanity of Jesus. And so in docetism what you have is people who say they're gnostics. Remember, Gnostics believe that matter is bad, matter is evil. So God would never touch matter, God would ever inhabit matter. So Jesus was actually never fully human, he was always just fully divine. And so they would say that when he walked, he didn't really leave footprints because he wasn't a human being, he just appeared to be a human being. Then you also have arianism. Arianism is a little bit late, a couple of centuries later, early fourth century, and arianism goes back to the Ebionites and actually denies the fact that Jesus is genuinely divine. The Arians argue that Jesus is actually the first created being and that after he was created, he created everything else. Now this has been revived in our day in the nineteenth century in the religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses. How so well. The Jehovah's witness movement is built on the heresy of arianism and the idea that Jesus is not fully divine. This is the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures Jehovah's Witnesses Bible. Listen in Colossians chapter one, the enning of verse fifteen. Here's the image of the Invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Because by means of him, all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships, or governments or authorities, all other things have been created through him and for him also. He is before all other things, and by means of him, all other things were made to exist. Notice a word, deard, it's not in your Bible other all other things? Why do they need that word other? And by the way, I will give him this. They're honest because they put it in brackets. And when you see something in that means it's not in the original, but you need it in order to understand what's being said there. And so they realize that the Bible, if left by itself, teaches that Jesus is God. The Creator. So they have to put that in brackets because you can't be left by yourself to read that part of the Bible, because you'll never get to arianism that way. So they add the word other. Not only that, but perhaps the most famous thing that the Job's witnesses do and their Bible is in John one. In the beginning, the word was and the word was with God, and the word was a god, little g not God. The word was a God. There's a small problem though, And here's the deal. If you ever want to start a cultic religion that shoots off of Christianity and you're going to change the Bible, here's my piece of advice for you do a thorough job. The Jeovah's witnesses didn't because look at what comes after this after they refer to Jesus as a god. Here's the first problem. Okay, And I know you didn't come here for a Greek lesson, and I usually we don't do all of this stuff. But in the Greek John one sounds like this and r k and ho logoski holgos and prostne theon kai FAOs and holgos. Now why is that important? It's important because literally in the Greek and r k in ho logos in the beginning was the word coi ho logos. In Prostone theon and the word was with God, not a God, not be God. It was with God kai theos and ho logos, and God was the word literally in the Greek. That's what it says, God was the word. The reference is immediately after the last reference to God. So that's problem number one. But most people are not going to read that from their Greek Bibles. That's okay, you don't have to because look at what they do after they doctor up the scriptures there. And the word was a god verse three, all things came into existence through him, and apart from him, not even one thing came into existence. Well, that didn't match the lie they told in Colossians one because they didn't insert other Did you see that? So Jesus created being, And in Colossians one they make that clear because he was created, then he created all other things. Then they get to John one and they just stopped. They didn't complete the job, and they let John one three say what John one three says, and it messes up their whole entire argument. This is an ancient heresy it's not new, not by a long shot. In fact, these heresies have been dealt with. Listen to this, and then I seeing creed that condemned arianism, and a lot of people wonder all these diff creeds it was getting together with all these different creeds and things like that. Listen to the Nicene Creed, the first few lines of the Nicene Creed, and see if you understand exactly to whom they are referring. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all the worlds, God of God, Light of light, very God of very, God begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made. When did that happen? Three twenty five? When's arianism popular? Early fourth century, early three hundreds. The Nicene Creed was written to directly refute Arianism, which would directly refute the Jehovah's witnesses. It is clearly put forth as heresy the symbol of Chalcedon in four fifty one. Remember, we had some of those that were actually later. Listen what they say. We then, following the Holy Fathers all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with Us according to the manhood. Why are they writing that to refute the ancient heresies about the identity of Jesus. Listen to this and the Athenatian Creed early fifth century. They get a little bit more specific. Whoever will be saved before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Now by Catholic, they're going to define what they mean, not talking about Rome, which faith except one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt, he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this They define what they mean by that word Catholic, which means universal, that we worship one God in trinity, trinity and unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory, equal, the majesty, co eternal. Such as the Father is, such as the as is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. It's the doctrine of the Trinity. Folks early on in the Church, third century, fourth century, fifth century, they're dealing with these early heresies about who Jesus is. Why, because the identity of Jesus has always been a source of debate. Here in this text, what's going on. There's a debate about who Jesus is. Everybody has a different explanation of why Jesus is able to do what he is able to do, and the debate rages on. What do we do about the debate? How do we answer the question? Secondly, not only has the identity of Jesus been a source of debate since the beginning, the identity of Jesus can only be discerned spiritually. Look at what he says here in the next verses, and he continued verse twenty nine by questioning them. Notice that them. He's speaking to the group, who do you the group say that I am Peter. Again, this is on behalf of the group answered and said to him, you are the Christ. And he warned them to tell no one about him. Now we know as we look at the parallels. He says, you're the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus commends him because of this confession and refers to this confession and saying that Peter will be the rock, or not Peter, but this confession will be the rock, and upon this rock you will build his church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against this confession. And so Jesus looks at him and says that he is the Christ. But what does Jesus say in our parallels, you're a blessed man, Peter. Flesh and blood didn't reveal that to you. The identity of Jesus can only be understood or discerned spiritually. You can't figure out who Jesus is with a protractor and a slide rule and a calculator. That's not how you figure out who Jesus is. It can only be discerned spiritually. Which is interesting. There is a phrase and tewod Peter chapter one, in verse nineteen where Peter says this, but now we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. That interesting, Now, guess what Peter references right before verse nineteen of tewod Peter Chapter one, in verses seventeen and eighteen, he makes reference to Jesus on the mount of Transfiguration and that we were witnesses when we heard this voice on the holy mountain, saying this is my beloved son and whom I'm well pleased. So what's happening in this middle passage. Jesus is opening the eyes of the disciples as to who he really is. And when Peter is making a defense of the revelation of Jesus Christ, he refers to the middle passage. The next passage after Hours, and he says, you do well to hang on until the day dawns, in the morning star arises in your hearts, until you see, like I did in the middle passage, on the way from Cesarea Philippi down to Jerusalem. That's what Peter writes about. In two Peter chapter one. It's discerned spiritually. We look at what Jesus does and we draw some conclusions, But our conclusions are only based on the information that we have. I cannot draw those spiritual conclusions if I don't understand spiritual reality. Who have we seen already that knows exactly who Jesus is? Several times? Who demons? Why? Spiritual beings they know exactly who he is? Because the reality about Jesus and his identity has to be discerned spiritually. Our eyes have to be opened spiritually. A lot of people, you know it, will ask, you know, why is it that we are so committed to not baptizing little kids? We don't practice infant baptism here, and we don't practice practice what I like to call toddler baptism here, you know, the four or five six year olds and something. We don't practice that here. Why Because the identity of Jesus can only be discerned spiritually? Anybody compare it? The right answer to the questions, but where do we understand the spiritual identity? I'm sorry, I'm just not going to baptize somebody because I ask him where Jesus is and they say in my heart, because I can turn right around on December twenty sixth and say, where was Santa Claus last night in my house day after Easter? Where's the Easter bunny yesterday in my backyard hiding eggs? Where's Jesus again? In my heart? You see what I'm saying. These are truths that can only be discerned spiritually. In my flesh. I don't get it. I don't understand it. And Peter in his flesh, he's looking at what Jesus does, and he's realizing what he has read in the scriptures. And he knows that Messiah is coming. He knows it. He knows that Jesus is Yeshuahamashiah, Jesus the Messiah. However, in his mind, Messiah equals ride in on your horse, whip the Romans and re established the dividic throne here on earth. Right now, that's all he sees. He didn't get it beyond that until his eyes were open in the middle passage. How do I know he doesn't get it? Well, look at the next part of this verse thirty one, and he began to teach them that the son of Man must He might want to circle that word 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 was stating the matter plainly, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning around and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, get behind me, Satan, for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but on man's. What happened that quickly? Did Peter forget what he knew? No, Peter just finished confessing what he thought. You are the Christ. That's great, Peter. We hear that and we go, Yeah, Peter understands that Jesus is the Massa, the savior of the world. He's gonna die for our sins and resurrect. Peter doesn't understand that because Jesus says, son, a man must suffer and be killed. And Peter's sitting there going, oh ho, whoa time out, Jesus, what are you talking about? They kill you, they kill us? No huh, repeat after me. I'm going to be the king. Peter's gonna be my boy. Messiahs supposed to defeat the Romans. Messiah is supposed to set up the divided kingdom. If you get killed, where's the kingdom? Jesus? And besides, I have seen what you can do. They can't whip you. I mean, think about it, folks. They've seen him feed five thousand. They've seen him feed one thousand. They've seen him with the withered hand. They've seen him with a legion of demons. It only took two demons to destroy Sodom and Gomour. There's a legion of demons in this man. He wipes them all out. Certainly with a word. He can defeat the Romans and put them to flight. Jesus, what are you talking about. They can't kill you. The identity of Jesus must be understood in the context of his nature, his words, and his works. They have to be understood in that context. Jesus says he must do this. Now. It's interesting. There's a Greek word that's used here. It's the word day that's used here one hundred and two times. We find that Greek word in the New Testament three different ways. That day he is used. That word that's translated must number one is used as scatally. Now. Eschatology is a study of last things, and so that word is used for things that must happen in the end, that must come to past, that will come to pass. Secondly, it's used of believers and what believers must do, how we must live, Like when Paul says that he must go to Rome, he uses that Greek word day I must. Thirdly, it's used in relation to Jesus and salvation history, things that must be done. Now that's how it's used this third way. Here in this passage, when Jesus says, my page flipped on me, like why am I looking at something? He began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things. Notice that he speaks of himself using a title and speaking in third person, and talking about what he must do. He speaks of himself using a title. He speaks of himself in third person, and he speaks about what he must do. You ever seen that before? Yeah, you probably see it regularly in your home, and it looks something like this. Daddy told you not to do that, and you did it now, Daddy third person using a title, Daddy, my office now must do something, not vote, he must do something, but in my office as father, because of what just happened. I now they e. I now must My position and the title that I bear demands that I now do something because of what just happened. That's what Jesus is doing here in this text. I am the son of man and the son of man because of who I am, because of the title that I bear, because of the work that I came here to do. I must suffer many things. I must be crucified, I must be rejected, I must be buried, And on the third day I must rise. Why, because if he does not, we must be condemned forever. For the sake of salvation history. He must for the sake of your soul, for the sake of my soul, he must. For the sake of the justice of Almighty God. He must he day. He has to. There is no alternative, There is no other way. If there is any other way, let this bitter cut pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done. He must. In other words, Peter's understanding of the identity of Jesus cannot be allowed. That's the wrong Jesus. Any understanding of Jesus that moves away from his nature, his words, and his works cannot be allowed. And there are many in our day who have a problem with the biblical identity of Jesus. Let me read for you from a couple. Marcus Borg is the Hundar Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. State of Oregon refers to him as their principal theologian. I believe he's retiring this year from Oregon State. But listen to what he says about his time in seminary, what he learned in seminary, and how his thinking about Jesus was shaped in seminary. Now I learned and suffer myself a different explanation. The contrast between the Synoptic and Johanna in images of Jesus, so Matthew Mark and Luke's picture in John's picture is so great that one of them must be non historical. Both cannot be accurate characterizations of Jesus as a historical figure. The verdict of not historical went to John. I learned that the portrait of Jesus in John's Gospel was essentially one of the Christ of faith and not the Jesus of history. Jesus never spoke of himself as the son of God, as one with God as the light of the world, as the way of the truth and the life, and so forth. Indeed, he never spoke the words of John three sixteen, the verse from my childhood that had summed up my image of Jesus. I'm aware that this is still news for some Christians, even though it has been old hat in the seminaries of mainline denominations throughout this century. It's throughout the nineteen hundreds, this blasphemy that he's spouting. It's mainline. It's common in ninety percent of the seminaries in America over the last century. It was news to me when I heard it, and its effect on my image of Jesus as divine Savior. The popular image was dramatic. I saw that this image was basically drawn from the latter portions of the Gospel tradition, largely from John's Gospel, supplanted by the birth or supplemented rather by the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. Indeed, the linkage between John's Gospel and the popular image of Jesus was so strong that I remembered becoming angry at John when I first became aware that its accounts was not largely historical. I saw John as containing a distorted image of Jesus, an image I had spent years trying to believe in. I would have been happy to have John excised from the New Testament. The theology professor says he'd have been happy to have the Gospel of John exist from the New Testament. Well, there are two problems there. Problem number one is that that's pure blasphemy, and he has no support for his argument that the Johannah and Gospel is somehow based on material that was not historic. He has no evidence for that. He's part of the Jesus seminar. They need no evidence for that, none whatsoever. It's based on theories and presuppositions. That's all. That's problem number one. Problem number two is he says there's a different picture of Jesus as the divine Savior in John than you find in the synoptic Gospels. This again Mark, saydop the Gospels. He says, Mark was the first of the gospels, and accordingly, he argues that the Jesus in Mark is the least divine of all the jesus Is in the Bible. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes be killed, and after three days rise again. That is string to me, seems like I just saw the divine Savior of the world talk about how he's going to do it. Amen. That's the second problem with this line of argumentation. You cannot separate the words of Jesus from the works of Jesus. You cannot get rid of his work of penal substitutionary atonement, although there are some who would love to do so. One of the principal theologians in England, one of the heads of the Anglican Church, speaking of the issue of penal substitutionary atonement. A look at doctor Jeffrey John's message will reveal that he does not call for a revision of penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement. Instead, he calls for a repudiation. Here he describes what he was taught as a child, and then he describes this explanation, the explanation I was given wants something like this. God was very angry with us for sins, and because he has a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us. He sent his son Jesus as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price for our sins, and because of him, God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven provided we said that we believed in him. Flippantly refers to substitutionary atonement. But listen to what he says about this idea. Well, I don't know about you, but even at the age of ten, I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this? Getting angry with the world and the people he created, and then to calm himself down demanding the blood of his own son. And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing someone else. It was worse than illogical, It was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we'd say he was a monster. It's one of the principal theologians in the Anglican Church today. You thought gay bishops was their main problem. They repudiate the doctrine of penal substitution atonement. And notice why he repudiates it, because if any human being acted like this, so now God is just big man, mean little man. He big man. You can't separate the words and works of Jesus. You can't get around the fact that Jesus himself said this is what must be done without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Throughout history, God painted a picture of what was to come. What was the picture the picture of the sacrifices in the temple, which led up to the picture of the once for all penal substitutionary atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. That must happen. It must. The identity of Jesus has been a source of debate from the beginning. It can only be discerned spiritually. It can only be explained as we view it through his nature and his words and his works, And ultimately, the identity of Jesus requires complete submission. Look at the last part of the text. He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, if anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. Not only must you believe in my cross, you take up your own to catch that. It's an if then statement. It's a conditional statement. If anyone will come after me, he must. In other words, if you don't do this, you can't come after me. This is Jesus speaking here. What's the immediate context? The immediate context as him trying to open their eyes as to who he is. So what is Jesus saying here? If you don't receive me as the penal substitutionary atoning Lamb of God, you don't belong to me. You cannot redefine Jesus and call yourself a Christian. You can't get there from here. You can't take away his miracles, as Marcus Boorg wants to do. You can't take away penal substitutionary atonement, as Jeffrey Johns and others want to do. You can't take away his deity as the Jehovah's witnesses want to do. You can't take away his humanity as the Decettists wanted to do. You can't do that. Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Otherwise he is not the savior of man folks. If he's not completely human, he cannot die for my sin. And if he is not completely divine, he cannot atone for them, and if any man will come after him, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. To direct reference here, it's almost as though he's looking at Peter in light of what Peter just said. And Peter comes and rebukes him. Peter, if you want to come after me, you deny yourself because that's what you want. And don't you just believe in my cross? You take up yours? By the way, how's Peter killed? He's crucified upside down and you follow me? You don't think he was speaking directly to Peter and making an example of Peter to everyone else. Peter, if you want to come after me, you deny yourself. What does Peter do on the day Jesus is crucified? He denies ge Jesus three times, and then he's restored three times. You deny yourself, you take up your cross, you follow me. How does Peter die? He takes up a cross and he follows Jesus. Peter is the spokesman for all of the disciples when he says, you are the Christ, and Peter is the representative of all of those who follow when he denies himself, takes up his cross, and follows Jesus even to the point of death. But that's okay. Why three four statements? So you have an if, then statement, a conditional clause, and then three reasons to support the conditional cause. Four. Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospels will save it. It's exactly what the Apostles did for second Four. For what does it prophet a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul? Who's that? Judas thirty pieces of silver? What is it profit a man? Finally? Four, whoever's ashamed of me and my words and this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his father with the angels. You want to come after me, Jesus says. You deny yourself. You don't define Jesus. Jesus defines Jesus. You take up your cross, you follow him, He doesn't follow you. You follow him? Why because what's it going to profit you to gain the whole world and lose your soul? Why? Because you to find your life and you'll lose it. Why because if you're a shamed of him, a shamed to you when he comes. That's why learn the lesson of the inside passage or the middle passage. Learn it clearly. Here we see Peter as a representative of the disciples, just like the man who is the beginning of the frame of this story. He has his eyes touched, but he still sees, but not clearly. So what does the Lord do? Abandon him? No, just touches him again, and that's what he's going to do. We'll see that next week. He touches the eyes one more time and they see like they've never seen before. The identity of Jesus has been debated since the beginning. His identity can only be understood or discerned spiritually. Can't figure it out with a sly rule. The morning star has to arise in your heart. The identity of Jesus is defined by his nature and his words and his works. We have to have them all, and ultimately, the identity of Jesus requires complete and utter submission. When you understand who he is, it is inevitable that you understand you must be his