1. Selective Bibliography
2. Introduction
3. Jesus' References to His Impending Death
   3.1. Jesus' Threefold Prediction of His Death and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels
      3.1.1. Mark 8:31 = Matt 16:21 = Luke 9:22
      3.1.2. Mark 9:30-32 = Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43-45
      3.1.3. Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34
   3.2. Jesus' "Hour" in the Synoptic Gospels
   3.3. Jesus' Prediction of his Death in the Gospel of John
      3.3.1. John 2:19-22
      3.3.2. John 3:14 
      3.3.3. John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23
      3.3.4. John 7:33-36
      3.3.5. John 8:21
      3.3.6. John 10:11, 15
      3.3.7. John 12:7
      3.3.8. John 15:24-25
      3.3.9. Upper Room Discourse
4. Jesus' Interpretation of His Death
   4.1. Gospel of John
      4.1.1. John 17:1-5
      4.1.2. John 15:12-13
      4.1.3. John 12:24
      4.1.4. John 12:31-32
   4.2. The Synoptic Gospels
      4.2.1. Jesus as the Isaian Suffering Servant
         A. Ransom for Many (Mark 10:45 = Matt 20:28)
         B. Numbered with Transgressors (Luke 22:37)
         C. Son of Man Rejected (Mark 9:12)
         D. Removal of Bridegroom Mark 2:19-20
      4.2.2. Word over the Bread

1. Selective Bibliography

H. F. Bayer, Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986); M. Bastin, Jesus devant sa passion, 1976; G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels, 1929; J. Denney, The Death of Christ, 1911; G. Friedrich, Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, 2d ed., 1985; N. Füglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha, 1963; J. Gnilka, Jesu ipsissima mors: der Tod Jesu im Lichte seiner Martyriumsparänese, 1983; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament, 1952; J. Jeremias, Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45)’, in Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zietgeschichte, 1966, 216-29; id., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 3d. ed., 1966; K. Kertelge, "Die soteriologischen Aussagen in der urchristlicher Abendmahlsüberlieferung und ihre Beziehung zum geschichtlichen Jesus," TTZ 81 (1972) 193-202; E. Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu Christi, 1955; T.W. Manson, The Servant Messiah, 1953;  id., The Teaching of Jesus, 1959; I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 1980; S. McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory, 2005; B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 1979; L. Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewißheit Jesu: Zum Problem einer historischen Begrundung, 1980; L. Ruppert, Jesus als der leidende Gerechte; H. Schürmann,"Wie hat Jesus seinen Tod bestanden und verstanden?" in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker,1973, 325-363; id., Gottes Reich-Jesu Geschick: Jesu ureigener Tod im Licht seiner Basileia-Verkündigung, 1983; B. Smith, Jesus' Last Passover Meal, 1993; P. Stuhlmacher, "Existenzstellvertretung für die Viele: Mk 10,45 (Mt 20,28)," in Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsatze Zur Biblischen Theologie, 1981; V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 1939.

2. Introduction

It is historically plausible that Jesus came to terms with the ultimate "failure" of his proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his consequent execution. Only if one assumes that Jesus had no mission could one argue that he did not reflect upon the salvation-historical significance of his death. Thus, two options present themselves: Jesus could have admitted failure and abandoned his mission or he could have interpreted his rejection as part of his mission. The gospels contain numerous traditions in which Jesus interprets his death as divinely ordained and in some of them he attributes a salvation-historical significance to his death. Taken at face value, these imply that Jesus chose the latter option. Jesus interpreted his role as the messenger and mediator of the Kingdom of God in light of his rejection and what seemed to him to be the inevitability of his execution: paradoxically, his death was part of his mission. As B. F. Meyer expresses it, "Jesus understood his immediate messianic task to be the division of Israel between faith and unfaith; and he understood his messianic destiny...to be scheduled for fulfillment only as the outcome and reversal of repudiation, suffering and death" (The Aims of Jesus, 216). Even though he offered the Kingdom of God to his contemporaries, Jesus believed that his real salvation-historical role was to die. Yet his death was conditional upon the rejection of the offer of the Kingdom of God. It should be added that, if Jesus spoke of his suffering and death, surely he would also have spoken of his vindication.

3. Jesus' References to his Impending Death

It has already been shown that, in a rejection context, Jesus explains that, his generation's rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of God will lead to his suffering and death (see, for example, Luke 12:50: "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!"). There are other passages in which Jesus understands his impending death as divinely ordained, and no accident of history. In a rejection context, he interprets his death as the ultimate fulfilment of his calling as messenger and mediator of the Kingdom of God.

3.1. Jesus' Three Predictions of his Death and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels

In the triple tradition, there are three traditions in which Jesus explains privately to his disciples that he must die but be vindicated by being raised from the dead. Some scholars hold that only one of these three traditions is original, the other two being secondarily formulated on the basis of this original tradition. The criterion used to determine which of the three is more original is that the tradition that least conforms to the Passion Narrative is the more original, on the assumption that the early church had the tendency to create vaticinia ex eventu (predictions after the event) or at least to assimilate sayings of Jesus to the actual events of the Passion. Since it most conforms to the events of Jesus' passion, the prediction of Jesus' death and resurrection in Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34 is judged to be the least likely to be original (Being delivered over to the chief priest and scribes [see Mark 14:43-46; see also 14:10]; condemnation to death [see 14:64]; being handed over to the gentiles [see 15:1]; being mocked [see 15:20]; being spat upon [see 15:19]; being flogged [see 15:15]; death [15:37]; being raised [see 16]). This leaves only Mark 8:31 par or Mark 9:30-32 par as the candidates for being the original tradition; although not unanimous, Mark 9:31 is most often identified as being the original tradition. But it is unjustified to reject the historical authenticity of all three two predictions of Jesus' death and resurrection.

See G. Strecker, "Die Leidens- und Auferstehungsvoraussagen im Markusevangelium [Mk 8,31; 9,31; 10,32-34]," ZThK 64 (1967) 16-39; Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 281-82; Grundmann, Markus, 257; Hoffmann, "Mk 8,31. Zur Herkunft und markinischen Rezeption einer alten Überlieferung," in Orientierung an Jesus; Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 236-37; Kessler, Die theologische Bedeutung des Todes Jesu. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung; Grimm, Weil Ich dich Liebe 209-22; Patsch, Abendmahl, 194-95; Horstmann, Studien zur markinschen Christologie, 8-31; Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewissheit Jesu, 140-46; McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 225-37. Cranfield wisely cautions against judging Mark 10:32-34 to be ex eventu (St. Mark, 334-35). First, he points out that, "There is no feature which could not readily have been foreseen as likely to happen in the carrying out of the death sentence under the circumstances of the time" (334-35). Second, Cranfield observes that the details described in Mark 10:32-34 are not in the same order in which they occur in Mark's Passion Narrative; if the prediction in Mark 10:32-34 is a vaticinium ex eventu, one would expect perfect correspondence, extending even to the order of the events. Third, he suggests that Jesus may have been influenced by Isa 50:6; Ps 22:8(7) in his reflections about the destiny that awaited him; if so, then some of the details in Mark 10:32-34 derive from Jesus' pesher-type interpretation of these Old Testament texts and were not ex eventu. It is probable that the three predictions are three independent traditions reflecting three separate occasions on which Jesus explains to his disciples what awaits him in Jerusalem; they are not duplicates of one another but each has elements that the other two do not have (see Taylor, Mark, 377; Bayer, Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 149-218; Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, 134). Thus, Mark correctly considers these to be three separate events, each with its own historical context. For this reason it is not exegetically necessary to choose which of the three predictions is the most original and which are derivative of it.

After Peter's confession of Jesus' messiahship at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus begins (Mark / Matt) to teach his disciples that the son of man must suffer and be rejected at the hands of the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, but be raised "after three days." The fact that Jesus begins to teach his disciples implies a shift in perspective, a change of teaching context from non-rejection to rejection; in addition, what he says about the necessity of his death and his subsequent vindication by being raised from the dead is esoteric teaching, for he discloses this only to his disciples. In this context, the term "son of man" probably is a self-designation; this is how Matthew understood the term, because he changes Mark's "son of man" to "he" (autos). Jesus' statement that it is necessary (dei) that the son of man suffer many things implies that his death is divinely ordained, for Jesus sees his death as part of his salvation-historical calling.

It has been pointed out that the Greek dei probably translates the simple future in Aramaic, but with the sense of necessity. In the LXX dei is used to translate a simple future in Aramaic in Dan 2:28 and in Hebrew in Lev 5:17; Isa 30:29; in each case, however, the context implies a certain necessity qualifies the future event described. In rendering the simple future from Aramaic into Greek, however, it seems that dei was not always used. Probably, the simple future underlies the Greek of Mark 9:31, "He is delivered over," which Matthew and Luke make explicit by their change of Mark 9:31 to read "He is about to be delivered over" (melei paradidosthai) (Matt 17:22 = Luke 9:44). Luke also has the phrase dei paradidosthai in Luke 24:7, which likewise probably translates the simple future in Aramaic (see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 238-39).

Jesus says that he must "suffer many things" (polla pathei) and be rejected (apodokimasthenai) (see the same description of Jesus' fate in Luke 17:25); nevertheless, he will be vindicated by rising from the dead (Mark: anastenai) or being raised from the dead (Matt/Luke: egerthenai). Ruppert points to a possible allusion to Ps 34:20 (LXX 33:20): "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but Yahweh saves them from all of them" (Jesus als der leidende Gerechte, 65-66). (Moreover, Ruppert argues that Jesus may have been influenced by the so-called Diptychon (Wis 2.12-20; 5.1-7), which Ruppert holds as originally written in Hebrew to defend Pharisaism against its Sadduccean aggressors during the time of Alexander Jannaeus, under whose reign many Pharisees were martyred [Jesus als der leidende Gerechte, 68-70]. Ruppert's view, however, is overly speculative.) Matthew and Luke change Mark's phrase "after three days" to "on the third day." (The change of Mark's phrase "after three days rise" by the other synoptists to "on the third day be raised" produces a "minor agreement" between Matthew and Luke). There appears to be no difference of meaning, however, between the two temporal adverbs; the phrase "on the third day" seems to have been formulaic in the early church (1 Cor 15:4), which may explain the change (see Fitzmyer, Luke, 781). Josephus, similarly, uses the phrases "after three days" (meth' hemeras treis or meta treis hemeras) and "on the third day" (tê tritê tôn hemerôn) synonymously (Ant. 7.280-81; 8.214, 218). This means that Mark's phrase "after three days" does not mean "on the fourth day."

3.1.2. Mark 9:30-32 = Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43-45

While passing through Galilee, a second time Jesus tell his disciples that the son of man will be rejected, killed, and raised from the dead in three days. The disciples, however, do not comprehend his meaning. The use of the phrase "son of man" again is probably self-referential, but may have messianic undertones. The use of the present tense "is delivered over" (paradidontai) in Mark 9:31 may represent the use of the Aramaic participle (mitmesar) to express the simple future; both Matthew and Luke make this explicit by their change of "is delivered over" (paradidontai) to "is about to be delivered over" (melei paradidosthai). The use of "is delivered over" (paradidontai) should be understood as a divine passive, implying that Jesus sees his death as ordained by God (see Rom 8:31-32). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus also predicts his resurrection, which is his vindication.

As noted above, Jeremias argues for the originality of Mark 9:30-32 over against Jesus' other two passion predictions (New Testament Theology, 281-82). His criteria for this judgment are its "brevity and indefiniteness" and its "terminology." He believes that the the briefest version of this tradition is probably the most original, on the assumption that additions would be made to the original tradition; likewise, the less definite is the more original, since details would be added to these sayings in reliance upon the actual events. Moreover, the fact that the Greek can easily be translated into Aramaic suggests that this is the original tradition. According to Jeremias, the original Aramaic phrase was mitmesar bar enasha lide bene enasha. The Greek verb in the present tense (paradidontai) points to the Aramaic participle used as a future tense (Matthew and Luke appropriately change Mark's present tense to melei paradidosthai). Jeremias points to Mark 14:41 as another version of this saying. There is also an originally-intended word play between son of man (bar enasha) and sons of men (bene 'enasha), translated simply as "men" (anthropoi) in Greek; this word play is obscured in later versions of this tradition. This short statement thereby becomes a mashal, a riddle for his disciples to unravel. Jeremias has not proved, however, that the other sayings could not also be authentic; surely, Jesus explained to his disciples about the divine necessity of his death more than once.

3.1.3. Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34

On the way to Jerusalem, Jesus predicts that the son of man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, who will condemn him to death and hand him over the gentiles, who will "who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him." It is not completely clear who the chief priests were, but likely thet formed a priestly hierarchy having authority over the Temple and its operations (see Josephus, War, 2.336). (They were also members of the Sanhedrin [Mark 14:53; Luke 22:66].) The scribes ("teachers of the Law") mentioned in the passages are probably experts in the Law who reside in Jerusalem; because of their expert knowledge they carry much authority among the Sanhedrin and maybe even were members of it. As already indicated, that Jesus predicts accurately what the gentiles, i.e., the Romans, will do to him is not grounds for suspecting a vaticinium ex eventu, since this is the treatment that criminals sentenced to be crucified would typically have received. Luke says that the disciples did not understand what he was saying. Jesus also predicts his resurrection.

Source

Excavations at Sepphoris Sepphoris (Zippori), the historical capital of the Galilee, is located in the center of the lower Galilee, 5 km west of Nazareth. It is situated the crossroads of two major ancient roads, the north/south Via Maris and the east/west Acre-Tiberias road. After it was destroyed by Varus, the Roman proconsul of Syria, Herod Antipas reconstructed Sepphoris and used it as his capital city until he built Tiberias.

3.2. Jesus' "Hour" in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 14:35, 41b = Matt 26:45b; Luke 22:53)

Mark 14:35: Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." 41b The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Jesus refers to the time when he will be arrested and executed as his "hour" (hôra). He understands that God has appointed for him this salvation-historical task, but, if possible, he would prefer to be spared this fate. He describes his impending execution as a cup that he must drink; he means by this metaphor a destiny of suffering (see Ps 75:9; Isa 51:17-22; Ezek 23:32-34) (Bayer, Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 85-88).

3.3. Jesus' Prediction of his Death in the Gospel of John

In the Gospel of John, a turning point in Jesus' public ministry occurs after Jesus' Bread of Life discourse. At that time, Jesus' experiences a mass desertion among his followers because of the difficulty of his teaching (see 6:60): "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him" (6:33). Nevertheless, unlike the synoptics, Jesus speaks about the inevitability of his rejection and death from the beginning (see Mark 8:31 pars), not simply after this sudden decrease in his popularity. He does so, however, in cryptic terms, so that no one could reasonably be expected to understand him as speaking about his death. Only just before and during his last Passover meal, does Jesus attempt to explain to his disciples in clear and easily understood terms that he must die, during his so-called Upper Room Discourse. This is consistent with the synoptic portrayal of Jesus as revealing in unambiguous terms that he is destined to be rejected and executed only in the latter part of his public ministry.

3.3.1. John 2:19-22

After cleansing the Temple, Jesus says enigmatically, "Destroy this Temple and I will raise it again in three days" (2:19).  Jesus is referring to his body, but is not understood, for obvious reasons (John says that only later did the disciples understand Jesus' meaning [2:22b]). (The accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple is brought against him at his trial and probably stems from this incident [Mark 14:57-59 = Matt 26:60-61; see also Mark 15:29 = Matt 27:40; Acts 6:14].)  He refers to his body or himself as the Temple, because he see himself as the presence of God in the world, in the same way that the Temple represents God's presence to Israel.  In other words, God "dwells" in him in an unparalleled way. His point is that God will vindicate him after he has been executed by raising him bodily from the dead in three days. The phrase "in three days" could be taken literally, but also idiomatically as expressive of a "short period of time" (see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 246-47).  Incidentally, the response, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" indicates that Jesus' conversation occurred c. 26/27 since Herod began his construction project in 20/19 BCE (Ant. 15.380).

3.3.2. John 3:14  (see also John  8:28; 12:32, 34)

 Jesus says, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the son of man must be lifted up, in order that all who believe in him will have eternal life." Jesus' use of the term "the son of man" is self-referential, and his being lifted up is an oblique allusion to his crucifixion. One should note, however, that "being lifted up" can also have the meaning of "being exalted or glorified, so that ironically Jesus' death is also his exaltation.  (The Aramaic underlying the Greek psothenai is probably the Ithpeel or Ithpaal of zaqaf, which likewise has the double meaning of being hanged or crucified and being exalted [Barrett, St. John, 9, 214; Black, The Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 103].) The analogy between Jesus and the bronze serpent lifted up in the wilderness is that, like the former, Jesus' "being lifted up" will benefit all who "look" to him. Second-Temple Jewish tradition, in light of the later idolatrous use of the bronze serpent (2 Kings 18:4), emphasizes that it was not the object itself that saved from death but God, who made looking upon the bronze serpent a condition of being saved (Wis 16:6-7). In early rabbinic tradition, the looking upon the bronze serpent was interpreted as symbolic of looking towards "up" towards God in readiness to obey the Torah (m. Rosh Hash. 3.8). Jesus also indicates that his being "lifted up" is necessary (dei), implying that it is divinely ordained.

3.3.3. John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23

Jesus speaks about his "time" (kairos) (7:6, 8) and his "hour" (hôra) (12:23, 27; 17:1; see also 7:30; 8:20; 13:1 for use of "hour" by the author, John), by which he means the appointed time for him to be crucified, which he refers to ironically as his being glorified (doxasthein) (12:23) (see T. Jos. 10.3:  "exalt and glorify him" [hupsoi kai dozazei auton]).  For the se of hour to mean the beginning of his ministry see John 2:4.

3.3.4. John 7:33-36

Jesus says, "I am with you for only a short time, and then I will go to the one who sent me. You will look for me but you will not find me and where I am you cannot come." Jesus was referring to his death and resurrection, but no one understood him correctly, because his words were so cryptic.

3.3.5. John 8:21

Jesus says, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." Jesus was alluding to his death, but was not understood, since he was not explicit about what his going away meant.

3.3.6. John 10:11, 15

Jesus explains that he metaphorically is the good shepherd who will lay down his life for his sheep, intimating that he must die. In John 10:11 he says, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep," and in 10:15 he repeats, "I lay down My life for the sheep."

3.3.7. John 12:7

Mary (sister of Martha) is criticized for using expensive perfume to anoint Jesus' feet: "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?" (12:5). Jesus defends Mary's action by saying that the perfume used was intended for his burial and need not to be sold and the proceeds given to the poor: "Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of my burial" (12:7). (It was the common practice to put aromatic spices on corpses before placing them in a tomb.) Jesus' response presupposes his belief that his death is imminent and unavoidable.

3.3.8. John 15:24-25

In John 15:24b-25, Jesus interprets his rejection in spite of his works as anticipated in scripture: "But now they have seen, and hated me and my Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.' [Psalms 35:19; 69:4]." Jesus is alluding to the motif of the righteous man who suffers unjustly at the hands of the wicked, which implies that he believes that his death is unavoidable and even predestined.

3.3.9. Jesus' Upper Room Discourse

During his last Passover meal, Jesus explains to his disciples that he is leaving them; he adds that if he leaves, he will prepare a "place" (topos) for them, and will return to take them to himself (John 13:33; 14:3; 16:16-22).

Question

How does Jesus understand his death in relation to his mission as the one who proclaims the Kingdom of God?

 

4. Jesus' Interpretation of his Death

Jesus interprets his rejection and impending death as having a salvation-historical purpose; paradoxically, his death becomes part of his mission. A new dimension of God’s salvation-historical purposes is brought into existence by means of the historically-contingent event of the rejection of the offer of the Kingdom of God and its messenger. In other words, the realization of God’s salvation-historical purposes through him is causally tied to the nation’s disobedience. This insight stands behind Jesus’ interpretation of his rejection and death. Although he offered the possibility of forgiveness before his death as a benefit of the Kingdom of God, Jesus now explains that his death is the objective ground by which God can forgive human beings. Inscrutably, the temporal sequence of cause and effect was reversed: forgiveness was offered before it was a possibility. He reveals this, however, only in a rejection context. Jesus also says that his death is the means of his glorification and by which Satan is ultimately defeated.

Jesus’ interpretation of Israel’s disobedience as the condition of the realization of God’s salvation-historical purposes has scriptural precedent. The very existence of Israel’s eschatological hope is causally tied to national failure, for if it were not for the national apostasy that led to the exile of Israel and then Judah, there would never have arisen the hope of an eschatological restoration and a Davidic Messiah. In fact, if it were not for Israel’s sin of rejecting Yahweh as their king, there would have been no Israelite kings, let alone a Davidic Messiah (1 Sam. 8). God’s soteriological purposes are accomplished not only in spite of but actually by means of the history of Israel’s covenantal failure. In line with this way of interpreting history, Jesus teaches that his contemporaries’ rejection of the Kingdom of God and him actually serves to accomplish God’s salvation-historical purposes, which are only revealed in a rejection context.

4.1. Gospel of John

4.1.1. John 17:1-5: Jesus interprets his impending death ("the hour") as the means by which God (the Father) would glorify him, which in turn would lead to God's being glorified. He prays, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, in order that the son may glorify you" (17:1; see 12:23; 13:31). This glory is the same glory that Jesus the son had before there was a world (17:5; see 17:24; 12:41). To glorify means to display and demonstrate the greatness of an individual. Ironically Jesus interprets his death as the means by which he will be glorified and in turn glorify God. This is because he interprets his death as his greatest work. (John also refers to Jesus' crucifixion as Jesus' glorification [7:39; 12:16].)

4.1.2. John 15:13: Jesus speaks about his death as voluntary and vicarious. He says, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." He freely chooses to die for his disciples as an act of love and his death will benefits them in some way.

4.1.3. John 12:24:  Jesus compares his death to a seed that falls to the ground and dies, thereby producing many seeds. He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." The point of the metaphor is that Jesus' death will bring the benefits of eschatological salvation to humanity. Without his death there would be no such vicarious benefits.

4.1.4. John 12:31:  Jesus interprets his death as the means by which the judgment of the world will occur and the time of the driving out of the ruler (archôn) of this world. He says "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out" (see 14:30; 16:11). Jesus' death is the means by which judgment is executed on the world, since Jesus bears vicariously the sins of the world (see 1:29). It is also the means by which Satan is defeated. Ironically, it is Jesus' "defeat" that will lead to the eschatological overthrow of Satan. (In the synoptic gospels, Jesus' exorcism signifies his assault on Satan's spiritual rule [see Mark 3:20-27; Matt 12:22-29 = Luke 11:14-22].) What remains concealed is that the ultimate dethronement of Satan as the ruling power of this world is the result of Jesus' death on the cross. In one sense, Jesus' death could be seen as the counter attack of Satan against Jesus, the mediator of eschatological salvation; ironically, however, Satan's "victory" turns out to be his irreversible defeat.

Heel Bone of Crucified Man In 1968, construction workers in Jerusalem discovered the remains of a tomb from the first century.  In  the tomb was a Jewish ossuary with the inscription "Johohanan, son of HGQWL." The occupant of the ossuary, a man in his twenties, had been crucified--likely by the Romans; this was obvious by the fact that a nail was found piercing the heel bone (calcaneum) of the victim.  Crucifixion wa recognized in the Roman world as a cruel and ignominious method of execution.  In Josephus' writings, crucifixion is called "the most miserable of deaths" (War 7.203), while the Roman Seneca argues that suicide is preferable to crucifixion (Epistle 101).

4.2. The Synoptic Gospels

4.2.1. Jesus as the Isaian Suffering Servant

In several passages in the synoptic gospels, Jesus interprets his death as that of the suffering Servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

A. Ransom for Many

In Mark 10:35-45 = Matt 20:28b, Jesus responds to the request of James and John to be granted privileged positions of authority in the Kingdom, one sitting at the right of Jesus and the other at the left. (In Matthew’s version it is the mother of James and John who puts the request to Jesus on behalf of her ambitious sons.) The other disciples are indignant at their audacity, which leads Jesus to a discussion of servant-leadership. Jesus explains, "Whoever wants to be great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever wants to be first, let him be a servant of all" (Mark 10:44 = Matt 20:26). Following this, he says, "The son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom (lutron) for many" (Mark 10:45 = Matt 20:28). On literary grounds there is some evidence to conclude that the lutron-saying in Mk 10.45 is secondarily appended to 10.42-44. The evidence, however, is not so compelling as to preclude the possibility that 10.45 originally belongs to what precedes it.

Mark 10:45 may have been joined to Mark 10:42-44 by means of the link word diakonos ("servant") (10:43), diakonêthênai ("to be served") and diakonêsai ("to serve") (10:45) (Stuhlmacher, "Existenzstellvertretung für die Viele: Mk 10,45 (Mt 20,28)’, in Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsatze Zur Biblischen Theologie, 29; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.167; Patsch, Abendmahl, 172; Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus, 305). The connective kai gar is artificial and looks like a secondary literary connection (Arens, ELTHON-Sayings, 123). Patsch argues that Mk 10.43b-44 is a "Wanderlogion," which in different forms has parallels in Mark 9:35; Matt 23:11; Luke 9:48c; 22:26 (Abendmahl, 172). This is confirmed for him by the parallelism exhibited in 10:43b-44. This implies that 10:45 did originally belong to 10:43b-44. Similarly, it has often been pointed out that 10:45 does not belong thematically to 10:42-44, because 10:42-44 deals with the issue of servanthood whereas 10:45 with Jesus as servant; the transition from the theme of service to that of giving one’s life as a ransom for many is artificial, being a metabasis eis allo genos (see Arens, ELTHON-Sayings, 123-24; Taylor, Mark, 445). There is no unity in 10:42b-44 and 10:45; each has a parallel elsewhere in New Testament: Mark 9:33-35 = 10:42b-44; 1 Tim 2:5-6 = 10:45 (Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus, 305-306). It is also possible that the connection between diakonos ("servant") (10:43) and Jesus’ coming not diakonêthênai (‘to be served’) but diakonêsai (to serve) is original. The connection between 10:43-44 and 10:45 is not artificial, being merely verbal, as in the case of other of Mark’s sayings collections; rather, there is a thematic continuity from the one to the other, contrary to the claim that the transition represents a metabasis eis allo genos. The saying of the son of man’s giving his life as a ransom for many is a thematic expansion on the idea of service to include self-sacrifice (Taylor, Mark, 445-46). Patsch’s observation that the parallelism exhibited in 10.43a-44 is proof that it once circulated independently has some validity. But it is still not certain that originally the lutron-saying could not have been joined to 10:43-44, even going back to Jesus himself, since, as just noted, 10:45 develops and transforms theme of service (Morna Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 75).

Moreover, it is possible that 10:45 itself is composite: 10:45b, the lutron-saying, may not originally belong to 10:45a. However, it does not matter much to the interpretation of Mk 10.45b whether is it is an isolated saying or not. According to Mk 10:45a, Jesus has come as a servant, and his giving of himself as a lutron is the ultimate act of his service (Mk 10:45b).

Evidence that Mark 10:45a did not originally belong to 10:45b is as follows: 1. Mark 10:45a is an ouk-alla construction, which is usually self-contained saying that does not need a completion such as 10.45b: what is said first negatively (ouk) is reinforced by what is then said positively (alla); 2. The theme of 10:45a is service and is still connected to the concept of true greatness, which the disciples are supposed to imitate, whereas the theme of 10:45b relates to Jesus’ redemptive death and cannot be imitated; 3. The two sayings of 10:45 have different forms: 10:45a is a saying about the son of man’s activity on earth, whereas 10:45b is a passion prediction (Tödt, Son of Man, 206-207; Arens, ELTHON-Sayings, 130-32). As Schürmann suggests, Mark 10:45b, before its annexation to 10:45a, may have been something like: "The son of man came to give his life as a ransom for many" (Jesu Abschiedsrede, 91; see Lindars, Son of Man, 76-81). Contrary to Lindars, Mk 10:45a may also have begun with "The son of man came...," which provided Mark with the link by which to connect the two sayings (Son of Man, 77). But the evidence for the compositeness of 10:45 is only suggestive, not definitive.

    The case can be made that the saying in Mark 10:45b intertextually evokes the Hebrew text of Isa 52:13-53:12, in which case Jesus is interpreting his death as the death of the Isaian servant. The verb diakonêsai ("to serve") hints at an intertextual allusion to 'bdy ("my servant") in Isa 52:13 and 53:11.

Grimm proposes that lutron anti in Mark 10:45 corresponds to the Hebrew "to atone for" (kpr tcht), which is nowhere to be found in Isa 53 (Weil Ich dich Liebe, 231-62; see Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus, 302-45). (The term "many" [polloi], however, does allude to the several instances of rbym in Isa 53:11, 12bis [236-37].) According to Grimm, the scriptural passage that Jesus has in mind when he refers to the giving of himself as a "ransom for many" (lutron anti pollôn) is Isa 43:3-4 (see Prov 21:18; Ps 48:8-9; Job 33:24; 36:18). Isa 43:3 promises that God will give certain nations as an atonement or ransom for Israel. Parallel to this passage, in Isa 43:4 the prophet says on behalf of God, "I will give man in exchange for you." Grimm suggests that Jesus’ version of Isa 43:4 may have read "sons of man," which would correspond to his use of "son of man" in Mark 10:45. Or Jesus may simply have interpreted "man" in this way. In other words, Jesus sees his death as the representative death for Israel foretold in Isa 43:3-4. Grimm’s position would be convincing only if lutron anti could not be the Greek equivalent of the occurrence of asham in Isa 53:10. Maurice Casey argues that Jesus sees his death as expiatory, along the lines of the Maccabean martyrs, without any allusion to Isa 52:13-53:12 (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, 64-67).

Although diakonêsai ("to serve") does not occur in Isa 52:13-53:12, and the verb or a cognate is not used in the LXX to translate the verb 'bd ("servant"), it is probable that the two instances of the verb "to serve" in Mark 10:45b alludes to the Isaian servant. In fact, in the LXX, Targum, Peshitta and Symmachus, the verb "to serve" is used in the fourth servant song rather than the noun "servant," which supports the position that the use of the verb "to serve" in Mark 10:45 alludes intertextually to the servant. The phrase dounai tên psuchên ("to give his soul") is the equivalent of the Hebrew 'm-tsym npshw ("if he renders...his soul") in Isa 53:10, even though it is not a direct translation. The clearest connection to the fourth servant song is pollôn, which is translation of the Hebrew rbym (Isa 53:11, 12bis). The last and most important allusion to Isa 52:13-53:12 is the phrase lutron anti (‘ransom for’), which arguably is the equivalent of the Hebrew asham in Isa 53:10. Jesus interprets his impending death as a compensation paid to God, like the death of the Isaian servant, so that his death is on behalf of others. Such an interpretation of himself as the Isaian Servant is only possible, however, in a context of rejection.

There is no reason to deny the authenticity of Mark 10:45b (contrary to Tödt, Son of Man, 202-11). First, the saying contains three Semitisms: 1. The use of tên psuchên autou ("his soul") as reflexive ("himself"), including larger meaning "his life" (see 1 Macc 2:50; Sir. 29:15; Jer 45:5). This stands in contrast to the more Hellenistic use of the reflexive pronoun heauton 1 Tim 2:6; 2. The use of anti is a literal translation of Aramaic chlp and Hebrew tcht; 3. The use of polloi to mean innumerable people or "all" corresponds to the Hebrew rbym; 4. The use of a paratactic "and," used epexegetically to mean by giving his life as a ransom (Jeremias, "Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45)," 216-29; Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 117-22; Patsch, Abendmahl, 170-80; Gundry, Mark, 588). The claim that Mark 10:45 is a secondary revision of Luke 22:27 is unjustified (Jeremias, "Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45)," 224-25; Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 118). Second, the concept of dying and/or suffering for others is consistent with Palestinian religious-historical context. Third, the saying is coherent with Jesus’ teaching in a rejection context because it provides an expected datum that accounts for how he interprets his impending death. To those who claim that continuity with the early church’s theology should disqualify this tradition as authentic, it can be countered that, unless Jesus interpreted his death in this manner, it is improbable that that the early church would have begun to believe that his death was salvation-historically significant, especially given that a dead Messiah would be incongruous to a Jewish hearer.

B. Numbered among Transgressors

Jesus explicitly quotes Isa 53 in relation to his approaching death, indicating that he understands his fate as that of the Suffering Servant (Luke 22:37). This saying occurs in the context of Jesus' explanation to his disciples after the Last Supper of how matters have changed in light of his imminent arrest and execution. Contrary to his previous teaching when he sent them out to preach and heal, Jesus tells them now to carry a purse and a bag and even to buy a sword. The point is that his mission, at least from one perspective, has been a failure that his message has not been received, and now what he said previously no longer obtains. In other words, he is warning the disciples that their situation after his death will be perilous, different from when they traveled about as preachers of the Kingdom of God.  In Luke 22:37, Jesus then cites a portion of Isa 53:12 as predictive of his own imminent execution: like the Servant he is to be numbered among the lawless.

10 Yet it was Yahweh's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though Yahweh makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of Yahweh will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will make many righteous, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

    The disciples misunderstand his point, and Jesus cuts short the conversation. If he cites a Servant text as predictive of his execution, doubtless, Jesus intends that his hearers draw further parallels between himself and the Servant, especially in Isa 53:10-12; in particular, they are to understand that Jesus' death as an asham for the many.. (See France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 114-16; Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 191-94; Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 340-42.)

C. Son of Man Rejected

Jesus agrees with his disciples that Elijah must come to restore all things, consistent with Jewish eschatological belief, but then asks this question, which is really more of a statement: "How is it written about the son of man that he is to suffer many things and be rejected?" (Mark 9:12, but absent from its parallel in Matt 17:11). In other words, Jesus is asking his disciples to incorporate his death into their eschatological beliefs. Jesus' use of the term "son of man" is probably self-referential, being a circumlocution for "I." He claims not only that he must suffer and be rejected by Israel but also that this has been foretold in scripture. To which scripture he is alluding Jesus does not say, but there is a possible clue in his use of the word "to be rejected" (exoudenêthê), which could be an allusion to Isa 53:3 (nibzeh; Aramaic: yhy lbwsrn).  If so, then he is probably identifying his destiny with that of the Isaian Servant.  It is true that the LXX translates the Hebrew nibzeh as to eidos autou atimion, but, as Cranfield points out, exoud(th)êne(o)ô is used to translate the Hebrew bazah in other Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible: "Symmachus and Theodotion use it to translate bazah ('despise') in Isa xliv. 7, and Symmachus uses it twice to translate that verb in Isa liii. 3 (while Aquila and Theodotion use it once)" (St. Mark, 298).  If "to be rejected" (exoudenêthê) represents an allusion to Isa 53:3, then Jesus' is interpreting his death in terms of the fate of the Servant.

There is some evidence that the Davidic Messiah was understood as the "servant" in the second-Temple period, sometimes in dependence on a messianic interpretation of some of the Isaian servant songs. In the Old Testament, the eschatological Davidic king is called "my servant David" (Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25) and "my servant the branch" (Zech 3:8). (In 2 Sam 3:18, God calls David "my servant," and even calls The Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar "my servant" in Jer 27:6.) Not surprisingly, in the post-destruction text 2 Bar the Davidic messiah is called "my servant the Messiah" (70:9) Likewise, in 4 Ezra the Davidic Messiah is referred to as "my son" (filius), which may be a translation of the Greek pais, which may be the translation of the Hebrew word for servant (ebed) (7:28; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). In the Isaiah Targum, which may preserve Aramaic translations of the Hebrew text of Isaiah from the second-Temple period, three of the references to the servant in servant songs in Isaiah are interpreted of the Davidic messiah (Isa 42:1; 43:10; 52:13). The term "my servant" in these three passages is paraphrased in Aramaic as "my servant the Messiah." Evidence of the messianic interpretation of the Isaian servant also occurs in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37-71), where the Davidic messiah is described in terms that originate in the Isaian servant songs. In addition to being called the "son of man" and the messiah, he is called the "elect one,' which may be an allusion to a messianic interpretation of Isa 42:1. Similarly, he is called the "righteous one," which may be dependent upon Isa 53:11 "my righteous servant." Corroborative evidence of the influence of the servant songs on the depiction of the Davidic messiah in the Similitudes of Enoch is that in 1 En 48:4 the son of man is called the "light of the nations," which is an attribute of the servant of Yahweh in Isa 42:6; 49:6 and that in 1 En 48:3 the son of man is said to have been named before creation "in the presence of the Lord of the spirits," which appears to be an interpretation of Isa 49:1 "He named my name when I was not yet born." Similarly, like the servant (Isa 49:2), the son of man is also said to be hidden (1 Enoch 48:6). But it is important to note that the suffering of the servant in Isa 52:12-53:12 is not attributed to the Davidic Messiah in the extant literature of early Judaism. Some scholars have claimed to find references to a suffering messiah interpeted in light of the Isaian suffering servant in 4Q541 frgs. 9 & 24, but these are hardly convincing.

D. Removal of Bridegroom

Jesus refers enigmatically to the "removal of the bridegroom," at which time his disciples will fast (Mark 2:19-20). Jesus compares the time of his presence to that of a wedding celebration, when it would be inappropriate to fast, but with his departure his disciples will begin to fast.  He describes his departure as being removed: "The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away (aparthê) from them." It seems that he is referring to his death, so that this saying belongs to a rejection context. It is possible that Jesus is alluding to the fate of the Servant in Isa 53:8, for the Greek word in Mark 2:20 to describe Jesus' departure is apairein, and the related verb airein occurs twice in Isa 53:8 to describe the Servant's destiny of death: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away (erthê); and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off (airetai) from of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken." For he was cut off (LXX airetai; Hebrew gazar) from the land of the living;  (See Cranfield, St. Mark, 110-11.)  

Questions

How does Jesus understand the salvation-historical significance of his death in the Gospel of John? How does Jesus understand the salvation-historical significance of his death in the synoptic gospels?

 

 

BACK TO INDEX PAGE

 

Last Modified On: