Mark 8:27-34

this morning at church we were presented with the idea that jesus, the messiah, the savior, the king of the world was burdened with suffering. yes, yes, we all know jesus died on the cross. but kris made a good point when he noted that when peter called jesus "messiah" he had certain expectations that corresponded directly to that notion. It was posited that peter expected jesus, as the messiah, to have some overwhelmingly glorious victory here on earth. i can see that. perhaps it's idealistic of peter to think that, but hey, who doesn't want some unsung hero to come in and just completely obliterate the enemy camp in a burst of flames, an echoing clap of thunder, and an earth-shattering strike of lightning...all made to look like child's play as this revered king rides in upon his steed whose muscles glisten in the shadows of the fire as his nostrils flare, breathing in and out steadily...his very presence emanating an other worldly power? sounds pretty bad ass to me. ryan gosling could totally play that character in a movie.

but that isn't what happened. not at all. the one time jesus rode in anywhere on any sort of a steed, it was a donkey. granted, donkeys have sort of a quaint charm about them, but they by no means exude any sort of grandiose power. they are meek creatures, gentle, and seemingly humble. and that was jesus' preferred mode of transportation when it came time for him to make his debut as the king of the world. why? i have no idea, mostly because he's jesus and i'm not because i definitely would have had him on that horse--hair blowing in the wind, decked out in all sorts of warrior-like finery, barreling onto the scene in a blaze of glory. alas, those are the makings of a fairy tale though, and this story is nothing of the sort.

for whatever reason, jesus up and decided that there would be no blaze of glory, no horse of any kind, and, much to my dismay, no finery of any variety. instead, all of those notions were replaced with one that is completely counter intuitive to any sort of kingship i could ever dream up. jesus opted for suffering. well maybe he didn't exactly "opt" for it, but he accepted it. hell, maybe he even embraced it. i don't know. either way, jesus had a formidable future awaiting him.

my question though is quite simple. Why? why why why was suffering required? why does a "loving god" require pain and sacrifice to follow him? if i love someone, i do not ask that person to sacrifice for my sake. quite the opposite, i sacrifice for the other person, no matter the cost. so why does god ask us to sacrifice for him? why did jesus HAVE to suffer? what father asks his son to endure such excruciating pain? wouldn't a loving father instead do anything in his power to prohibit his children from being hurt? so why god? why? where is the love? why wasn't jesus all decked out and bedazzled with some lovely lady feeding him grapes and another fanning him with a banana leaf? why is it that the most kingly/servant-y event in his life was when mary washed his feet with some oil and perfume? what is there to be learned from having to endure pain in order to follow christ?