Jesus Predicts His Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Return

Matthew 16:21–28

From the Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, 2006, AMG Publishers.

[21] After Peter’s confession, Jesus “began to show (deiknúein, the present infinitive of deíknumi [1166]) unto his disciples.” What He taught from the beginning shows what He considered most important. And this was the fact that “He must (deí [1163]) go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

The necessity (deí) of the atonement was not moral; that is, God was not commanded to reconcile man by some higher god. The triune God had foreordained the atonement. The reconciliation, therefore, was not something He ought to have done any more than He ought to have created. Even though men secondarily caused the humiliation, suffering, and death of the Lord Jesus, the Bible teaches that they all acted under His divine permission and foreknowledge:

“The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:26–28).

The triune God permitted this suffering and death for the humanly divine Jesus because “without shedding of blood [there] is no remission [of sins]” (Heb. 9:22). Yet death would not end Christ’s purpose in coming to earth—indeed, it was only a beginning. Here He predicted not only that He would rise (egerthēnai, the aorist passive infinitive of egeírō [1453], to raise, the passive specifying the raising of the divinely human nature of Christ by the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but that He would do so on the third day.

[22] This was too much for Peter. Apparently, he could not “hear” resurrection, his thinking totally eclipsed by the irreversibility of death. We read, “Peter took (proslabómenos, the aorist middle participle of proslambánō [4355], to receive unto oneself) Him, and began to rebuke (epitimán, the present infinitive of epitimáō [2008]) Him, saying, Be it far (híleōs [2436], the masculine adjective derived from the Attic hílaos {n.f.}, to be appeased, merciful, propitious, favorable) from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.”

From all we know of the disciples’ subsequent evolution of faith, being “slow of heart to believe” even after the resurrection (Luke 24:25), these words reinforced the contention that they could not even conceive of a resurrection. After all, the referent of “be it far from thee” was not the resurrection but the death. Jesus had just said He would be raised on the third day; apparently, Peter and the other disciples either did not hear Him because of shock or they could not conceive of such a miracle, even though He had raised others from the dead. Perhaps they thought that He could not raise Himself, or that He would never allow Himself to be killed.

The verb hiláskomai ([2433], to be propitious, to show mercy) includes the idea of relieving the suffering attendant upon sin. It is so used, for example, in Luke 18:13 when the publican looked up to heaven and smote his chest, saying, “God be merciful (hilásthēti, the aorist passive imperative of hiláskomai) to me, a sinner,” that is, relieve me from the judgments you have placed on my sin. In Hebrews 8:12, híleōs encapsulates what God will be to His people: “For I will be merciful (híleōs) to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” Here, híleōs encompasses the grace (cháris [5485]) that changes a person’s heart.

[23] Jesus’ response was abrupt and sharp: “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me.” He “said unto Peter,” but addressed Satan who apparently was close enough to be spoken to and motivated Peter to discourage the atonement. Peter, wanting to protect Jesus from physical death, used words inspired by the devil to tempt Christ with self-preservation. The Greek word translated “offense” is skándalon ([4625], a trigger, a moral trap as a cause of sin).

Jesus did not impute the offense to Peter, the vehicle, but to Satan, the driver: “Thou [Satan] art an offence unto me: for thou savourest (phroneís, the present tense of phronéō [5426], to mind) not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” It is human (“of men”) to shirk death, but this was to be no ordinary death. Perhaps even Satan realized “that through death [Jesus] might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14).

 [24] From this confrontation with Satan, Jesus taught an invaluable lesson concerning self-sacrifice. “If anyone (tis [5100], anyone without distinction; “man” [KJV] is not present) wills (thélei, the present indicative of thélō [2309], to desire, choose, determine) to come after Me, let him deny (aparnēsásthō, the aorist middle deponent imperative of aparnéomai [533], to deny; from apó [575], from; arnéomai [720], to disclaim, disavow, disown) himself, and take up his cross, and follow (akoloutheítō the present active imperative of akolouthéō [190], to follow) Me” (a.t.).

Self-preservation, to which Satan appealed, is one of the most basic “things of men,” but sacrifice is one of the supernatural “things…of God.” Jesus taught this lesson in word and especially in deed, as He gave Himself up to death for the sins of the world. While the imperative aparnēsásthō is in the aorist tense, meaning to deny once-for-all, an initial decision binding for life, the imperative akoloutheítō is in the present tense, signifying a lifelong action. Denial is the first decision; following is the ongoing, subsequent process. Every believer is called to follow the Lord’s example: His choice, His self-denial, His cross-bearing, and His following after the Father.

[25] Jesus now explained further just what self-denial and cross-bearing meant, particularly with reference to Satan’s malevolent temptations of self-preservation and self-glorification. “For whosoever if he wills (thélē, the present subjunctive of thélō) to save (sōsai, the aorist infinitive of sōzō [4982], to save) his soul (psuchēn [5590]) shall lose (apolései, the future indicative of apóllumi [622], “to destroy” but here “to lose,” as contrasted with “to find”) it: and whosoever if he will lose his life for My sake shall find (heurēsei, the future indicative of heurískō [2147], to find) it” (a.t.).

In the context, Satan had just tempted Christ to save Himself from the cross. It did not work. It is interesting, however, how Jesus consequently wove together physical and spiritual lives. Shirking the cross means more than just sparing a physical body; it means defying the very plan of the triune God. It means the loss of salvation—destruction. The Lord wants His disciples to know that the person who goes through life saving himself will ultimately lose his very soul, not just his physical life. A lifestyle of self-centeredness does not represent true Christian faith or experience (see Luke 16:19–31).

By extension, losing one’s soul for Christ’s sake does not mean killing one’s body (suicide) or sacrificing the body for someone else or for God (martyrdom). Losing one’s soul means the day-by-day sacrifice of self-centeredness, of self-salvation, for the glory of Christ. Consider Paul’s words: “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:1–3).

In essence, Paul followed the example Christ set, who was “made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). The words from the cross, “Why hast thou forsaken Me?” represent a real substitutionary atonement. Jesus’ human nature endured a temporary separation from the triune God so that we might not have to experience this. By faith, we escape the forsaking He endured on our behalf! Now, would we, like Him and the apostle Paul, do the same for our “kinsmen according to the flesh?” As Jesus said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his soul (psuchēn) for his friends” (John 15:13; a.t.).

Yet we should not lay down our souls primarily for our friends. The Lord Jesus qualified the loss as “for My sake (héneken [1752]),” that is, for His glory. He is the referent or object of the denial. This means that as we stand for Him, for His cause, our opponents are ultimately opposing Him.

This is not equivalent to saying that in order to find eternal life we must first lose it. Such a possibility would deny the meaning of “eternal”. The same One who said, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” said shortly after, “It is finished” (John 19:30), even before He physically died. So the call to the destruction of our self-centeredness, to the death of our souls, extends only through this life. It is as temporary as the Father’s forsaking the divinely human Jesus on the cross. The Father did not “leave [His] soul in hell” (Acts 2:27).

[26] Always ready to appeal to the higher faculty of reason, Jesus asked, “For what does it profit (ōpheleítai, the present tense of ōpheléō [5623], to be useful) a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange (antállagma [465] from antí [473], against or instead of; and allássō [236], to change) for his soul?” (a.t.).

The only valid exchange for our souls is the divinely human soul of Christ: “when Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10). No other payment is satisfactory. Even if we could gain the wealth of the entire world, it would not be a sufficient payment to secure our eternal souls. The main point, however, is a reinforcement of the prior verse. Those who persevere in self-affirmation, in gaining the whole world for themselves will achieve eternal death. Only through self-denial and taking the cross do we “find” our souls. Before that, we’re detaching from it.

And in the second rhetorical question, the verb allássō, “to give in exchange,” presupposes the existence of something of equal value (állēs, the feminine of állos [243], another of equal value). What the Lord Jesus asked is this: What thing of equal value could we offer as an equivalent exchange for our eternal souls? The answer is nothing! No worldly equivalent can compare with the price Jesus paid for our eternal souls. No persons can earn what only God can give. His gift is of grace and therefore free.

[27] The “for” (gár [1063]) here gives the reason why we should deny ourselves. It is simply because a day of justice, a day of reckoning is coming. God will reward self-denial and punish self-affirmation. He promises this in His Word. “For the Son of man is about (méllei, the present tense of méllō [3195], to be imminent) to come in the glory of His Father with his angels” (a.t.).

Imminence characterizes “the Coming One” (see John 1:9, et al.), and the present infinitive used here implies the beginning of a series of events. “And then he shall reward (apodōsei, the future tense of apodídōmi [591], to render, repay, recompense) every man according to (katá [2596], in agreement with—not based on or because of) his works (práxin [4234], habitual practices).”

The first determination is status in the Book of Life—an either/or status as a child of God; the second is works. Note the distinction in Revelation 20:12: “The books (plural, i.e., of works) were opened: and another book (singular) was opened, which is the book of life.” Everything we do in our lifetimes is recorded in books by God. He will issue rewards in proportion to benevolent works done by His grace and punishments in proportion to self-centered works.

Katá, according to, does not mean “based on” but “correlative with (or to)”; that is, for example, reward and good works correlate. Good works do not cause rewards, but they scale with rewards, and that is all katá, best translated as “in agreement with,” means. The ultimate cause of both good works and rewards is God’s grace.

[28] The last verse of this chapter is one of the more perplexing sayings of Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. It is important that we study it carefully. Liberal theologians banter that our Lord was evidently wrong concerning the imminence of His return. However, Jesus stressed the veracity of what He was about to say: “Verily (amēn [281], truly) I say unto you.”

This phrase or a close equivalent is recorded thirty times in Matthew alone; thirteen times in Mark; seven times in Luke; and twenty-five times in John.

“There be some standing (hestēkótōn, the perfect active participle of hístēmi [2476], to stand) here (hōde [5602], in this place), which shall not (ou [3756], the absolute “not”) taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming (erchómenon, the present middle participle of érchomai [2064], to come) in his kingdom.”

Evidentially, Jesus was speaking about physical death. The present tense of “coming” points to the whole process of the arrival of His kingdom more so than to any particular event in it. The transfiguration that immediately follows was part of the fulfillment of this prophecy. It accords with “some [not all]…shall not taste of death,” specifically, Peter, James, and John. The transfiguration itself was a temporary reversal of the kénōsis (ekénōsen [2758], “He emptied [Himself]”; Phil. 2:6, 7; a.t.), an exaltation of the Son of man in which His radiant deity, veiled by his humanity, was unveiled. Similarly, Moses and Elijah appeared “in glory” (Luke 9:31) for this magnificent, unparalleled event. Later, at His trial, Jesus told the high priest that he too would “see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62), a prophecy perhaps of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

In John 14:16, Jesus said the Father would give His disciples another comforter. Yet in verse 18 He immediately qualified this event with, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” He intended, no doubt, to have them understand Pentecost as one element of His coming in the Person of the Holy Spirit to be “with [them] always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20).

When Stephen was being stoned, Luke records that he saw “the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56), willing and ready to “receive [his] spirit” (v. 59). The entire book of Revelation is a sequence of comings as well. For example, the ascended Lord warned the church at Pergamum, “Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:16).

All these events are part of that ongoing intervention of “the Coming One” in our history. None of these events precludes a rapture or a Second Coming in final judgment. But the kingdom of God and of Christ is an eternal coming in mercy and judgment (Rev. 1:4; 15:4; 17:14; 19:16).

Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (1922-2009) served as president of AMG International in Chattanooga, Tennessee for over 40 years, was the founding editor of Pulpit Helps Magazine, and authored dozens of exegetical books.