JESUS' INTERPRETATION OF THE REJECTION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD
1. Introduction
Some of Jesus' teaching presupposes
a context of the rejection of him and his message of the Kingdom of
God by the majority of Jews and especially the Jewish authorities. This
means that there are two
There are several sayings of Jesus in which he indicates his awareness that his message about the Kingdom of God has been rejected along with himself as its messenger. These include Mark 10:35-40 = Matt 20:20-23 and Mark 12:10-11 = Matt 21:42-44 = Luke 20:17-18. 2.1. Jesus' Cup and Baptism (Mark 10:35-40 = Matt 20:20-23)
In the context of James and John's mother request that her sons be granted the privilege of sitting at his right and left to her sons when Jesus comes into his glory, Jesus says that he has a cup from which to drink and baptism to undergo (Mark 10:38; Matt 20:22). (Matthew abbreviates his Markan source.) To say that one has a cup to drink is a metaphorical way of saying that one has a destiny consisting of suffering; the metaphor of drinking a cup down to the dregs to mean suffering occurs in the Old Testament (Ps 75:9; Isa 51:17-22; Ezek 23:32-34). In the longer Markan version, Jesus explains that he also has a baptism to undergo (10:38). To undergo a baptism similarly means to face calamity; in this context, baptism means to be perilously overwhelmed by water (There is no positive sense of Jesus' use of baptism in this saying.) The metaphor of being overwhelmed by water to denote calamity is also found in the Old Testament (Pss 18.4; 32.6; 42.7; 69.1-2, 13-15; 88.6-7; 124.1-5; 69:2, 15; Isa 43:2); in Hellenistic sources the verb baptizô is used metaphorically of being "overwhelmed by catastrophe." Jesus is informing these two disciples that if they want a share in the future glory of the Kingdom, they must be prepared to suffer in the present, because the Kingdom of God and its messenger have been rejected. 2.2. Rejected Stone (Mark 12:10-11 = Matt 21:42-44 = Luke 20:17-18)
In a saying attached to the Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants (because of a thematic overlap), Jesus interprets his rejection in light of Ps 118:22-23. In the same way that the stone that the builders rejected ironically turned out to be the cornerstone (kephalê gônias), so Jesus will turn out to be the Israel's most important figure in salvation history. The kephalê gônias is either a cornerstone or the keystone of an arch or a gateway. At any rate, it is an important stone in a building. Ps 118:22-23 is not clearly interpreted messianically in any of the earliest extant sources (See Str.-B. 1. 875-76 for some evidence of a messianic interpretation of Ps 118:22). Ps 118:25-26, however, is messianically interpreted in Midr. Ps. 118. 22, an interpretation that Jesus seems to have known (see Matt 23:29; Luke 13:35b; see also Mark 11:1-11 = Matt 21:1-11 = Luke 19:28-40 = 12:12-19), and therefore one that probably extended back to the first century, if not earlier. Thus, Jesus interpreted portions of Ps 118 as messianic, including vss. 22-23. In so doing, he was adopting the well-known Jewish practice of finding not-so-obvious eschatological meanings in Old Testament texts (pesher-type interpretation). Luke adds the phrase, "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed" (Luke 20:18). This was probably a free-floating saying that the author added to his Markan source; the thematic parallels are obvious. Although it is difficult to know for certain, originally Jesus may have been alluding to the stone in Dan. 2:34, 45, the stone cut from the mountain, not by human hands, that will crush the statue made of different materials representing different world kingdoms to come. If so, then he gives an ironic interpretive twist to this passage from Daniel: the stone crushes Israel not the gentile kingdoms. (Matt 21:44 is probably an interpolation in Matthew of a saying similar to Luke 20:18.)
Because of its rejection of the Kingdom of God and him as its messenger and mediator, Jesus condemns his generation as evil, and sees it as being under the judgment of God. He believes that the consequence of this rejection will be the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. 3.1. Uncooperative Children (Luke 7:31-35 = Matt 11:16-19)
There are two slightly different versions of a parable, its application and a concluding saying in Luke 7.31-35 = Matt 11.16-19. In the parable Jesus compares "this generation" to disagreeable and peevish children who will not cooperate with one another long enough to play a game together. Although it is somewhat ambiguous, the parable seems to depict two groups of children who argue about which game to play: "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry" (Luke 7.32). As a result of this quarreling, neither game is played. Jesus’ generation is like the children in the parable, insofar as it is so querulous that it will not respond to or cooperate with any of God's salvific overtures to it. In particular, it criticizes and rejects John for being demon-possessed because of his extreme asceticism, but it also criticizes and rejects Jesus as too indulgent and morally lax, as demonstrated by his association with tax-collectors and sinners. This generation cannot reject both men at the same time, however, because the reasons for their rejection are logical opposites. Thus, Jesus and John find themselves in a "no-win situation," for there is no pleasing this generation. Jesus is criticizing his contemporaries for their irrational rejection first of John’s message of looming judgment and second of his own proclamation of the Kingdom of God. The use of the phrase "son of man’ in Jesus' saying is self-referential, an indirect reference to the speaker, Jesus, used in order to avoid making a direct claim for himself. Attached to his parable is a related saying: "Wisdom is proved right by her children" (Luke 7:35) or "But wisdom is proved right by her works" (Matt 11:19). (Luke's "by her children" is metaphorical way of saying "by her works," as found in Matthew: one's "works" are like children insofar as they come "from" a person and define that person.) Wisdom's "children" or "works" represent those who accept Jesus' message of the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God (see Prov 8:32 and Sir 4:11 for other references to Wisdom's children). Jesus' point is that his message (and that of John) will prove in due time to be the wisdom of God in a soteriological sense. Thus, those who believe his message in the present will be vindicated in the future. In this saying, Jesus makes use of the Jewish tradition of Wisdom as a hypostasis of God's communication to human beings, the agent sent to disclose the mind of God, assumed to be hidden and inaccessible to human beings (Prov 8; Sirach 1, 24; Baruch 3-4; Wis 7:22-8:1; 1 Enoch 42). 3.2. Missing the Significance of the Present (Luke 12:54-56; Matt 16:2-3)
In two independent traditions, Luke 12.54-56 and Matt 16.2-3, Jesus points out that, if the people of his generation are able to predict the weather based on empirical observation, then all the more should they be able to discern the salvation-historical significance of their recent experience. But tragically they are not able to do so. In Luke 12.54-56, Jesus points out that his hearers know that it will rain when they see a cloud rise in the west and that it will be hot that day when the wind is blowing from the south. Based on present experience they are able to forecast the weather. In Matt 16.2-3, Jesus appeals to the well-known adage that a red sky at sunset foretells fair weather for the next day, but a red sky at dawn means that the weather will be stormy for that day. Each saying concludes with a rhetorical question intended as a criticism. Jesus’
purpose in these two sayings is to condemn his generation for not being
able to recognize that their present is the time of the inception of
the Kingdom of God. In Luke 12.56, Jesus expresses this by saying that
it cannot discern the "the present time." What he means in
Matt 16.3 by "not discerning the signs of the times" is that
his contemporaries have not been able to discern that the Kingdom of
God has drawn near, in spite of the fact that they have ample evidence
of this from their own experience. The reason that Jesus calls his hearers
hypocrites is that he is offering an implicit qal vahomer argument
(from minor to major): he argues that being able to recognize the signs
of in-breaking of the Kingdom of God should be easier than being able
to predict tomorrow's weather, were it not for their spiritual obduracy.
This makes his generation's rejection of him and his message of the
Kingdom of God irrationally tragic. 3.3. House Abandoned (Luke 13:34-35 = Matt 23:37-39)
The two versions of a saying of Jesus, an announcement of judgment, have substantial verbatim agreement, but are found in different contexts in Matthew and Luke (Luke 13.34-35 = Matt 23.37-39). Jesus laments the fact that Jerusalem, representative of the entire Jewish people, would not accept his message about the Kingdom of God and become his disciples. He begins by pointing out that Jerusalem has an inglorious record of ‘killing the prophets and stoning those sent to it’. In other words, the covenant people have had a history of spiritual obstinacy that has manifested itself in rejecting those whom God has sent to them. The use of present participles serve to express Jerusalem’s historically ever-present attitude of rebellion towards God and the prophets sent to it by God. In order to describe the relationship to him that his contemporaries have rejected, Jesus uses the metaphor of a mother bird who gathers her chicks under her wings. He is implicitly appealing to the natural order against his generation. It is natural is for chicks to seek out the protection of their mother; so by analogy what should happen is that his contemporaries recognize that the Kingdom of God has drawn near and then choose to become his disciples. To reject Jesus is as unnatural and senseless as chicks refusing to be gathered under their mother’s wings. So the result is that Jesus’ generation desires the opposite of what he desires. Jesus
says that as a result of his generation’s rejection of him and
his message, "Behold, your house is abandoned.". His use of
"behold" conforms to the Old Testament use of the same at
the beginning of prophetic threats, and the present tense expresses
prophetic certainty. By the term ‘house’, he probably he
means the Temple. (House meaning Temple occurs in 1 Kgs 6.2; 9.1-10;
2 Chron 3.6-7; 7.7, 19-22; Ezra 9.9; 10.1, 6, 9; Isa 64.11; Jer. 7.10-14;
26.6; 1 En. 89.56; Jub. 49.19; 2 Bar. 8.2-4.)
‘House’ sometimes refers to Jerusalem, but in this case
such an interpretation is unlikely: since ‘your’ in ‘your
house’ refers back as its antecedent to a personified Jerusalem,
a pars pro toto for the Jewish people, it would be awkward and confusing
if what belongs to Jerusalem ("your") is Jerusalem itself.
But it does not ultimately matter much whether "house" means
city or Temple since the two are inseparable: the fate of one is the
fate of the other. Jesus warns that, because of the rejection of him
and his message of the Kingdom of God, judgment against the nation becomes
unavoidable. God will abandon the Temple, and its abandonment will means
the deliverance of the Temple and city over to destruction. Jesus concludes
by saying that they will not see him again until they greet him with
the words from Ps 118.26: "Blessed is he who comes in the name
of the Lord" (Ps 118.26). This implies that God’s abandonment
of the nation is not a permanent condition, but will come to end in
the future when Jesus returns to the nation. 3.4. Not Recognizing the Time of Visitation (Luke 19:41-44)
Luke inserts the tradition represented by Luke 19.41-44 into a block of Markan material (Luke 19.29-22.13 = Mark 11.1-14.16). It bears the linguistic marks of a being slightly redacted Lukan special tradition. In this tradition, Jesus predicts the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. He addresses the personified city and specifies what will be done to it: ‘Your enemies will lay siege to you, and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will raze you to the ground, you and the children within you. They will not leave one stone on another’ (19.43-44). What is being described is the siege of the city, followed by the destruction of the city’s fortifications and killing of its population. Although it conforms generally to what Titus will do to the city years later, it does not follow that what is being described is a vaticinium ex eventu. This is because the language used probably derives from prophetic predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem in the Old Testament. (See Isa 29.3: ‘I will camp against you encircling you, and I will set siegeworks against you, and I will raise up battle towers against you"; Ezek 4.2: "Then lay siege against it, build a siege wall, raise up a siege wall ramp, pitch camps and place battering rams against it all around"; Jer 6.6: "Cut down her trees and cast up a siege against Jerusalem.") Besides, the description of the siege and conquest of Jerusalem in this passage is typical of any siege; there is nothing so unique that one should suspect that it is a vaticinium ex eventu. (See Josephus for a description of events relating to the siege and capture of Jerusalem: War 5.466-67; 6.149-51 [building of embankments], 5.499-509 [erecting of wall around the city]; 6.24-28 [taking of the Antonia citadel]; 6.93 [razing of the Antonia citadel]; 6.228 [burning of Temple gates]; 6.420-21 [killing of population of the city]; ]7.1-4 [destruction of the entire city].) Jesus attributes this anticipated fate of the city to the fact that the inhabitants have not recognized the "time of their visitation," meaning that they have not recognized that the time of eschatological salvation—the Kingdom of God—has arrived. In some of the Qumran sectarian texts, the use of the term ‘visitation’ to mean eschatological salvation for the sons of light and judgment for all others occurs (1QS 3.14, 18; 4.6b-14; 4Q286 frg. 7 col. 2.3b-5a).They have failed to understand that this is the time when God would give his people "peace"; in this context, "peace" is a synonym for the Kingdom of God. Of interest also is the fact that Josephus reports that, during the Festival of Pentecost in the year of the destruction of the Temple, priests serving at night, upon entering "the inner court" of the Temple, heard voices in concert announce, "We are leaving from here" (metabainomen enteuthen); the same event is described by Tacitus: "All of a sudden, the doors of the shrine opened and a superhuman voice (maior humana vox) cried, 'God is departing'" (Hist. 5.13).
According to Jesus, the negative response to the offer of the Kingdom of God results in the suspension of its progress already under way for the nation. The Jewish leaders who reject Jesus and the Kingdom of God will likewise be rejected by God. Having been rescinded for Jesus’ generation, the offer of the Kingdom of God instead is extended to others, those who were not initially invited to enter the Kingdom of God. In other words, gentiles are now offered the Kingdom of God, which would be at variance with the eschatological expectations of Jesus’ contemporaries. In response to the failure of his mission, Jesus also establishes a community composed of his disciples and others who have accepted him and his message of the Kingdom of God. He turns from the nation as a whole to a minority of Jews defined by their relationship to him. Presumably, to this community will be added those gentiles who respond positively to the offer of the Kingdom of God. 4.1. Giving the Vineyard to Others (Mark 12:1-10 = Matt 21:33-41 = Luke 20:9-16)
In order to communicate that, because of their rejection of him, the Jewish leaders are themselves rejected, Jesus tells a parable in which he compares his generation to homicidal tenant farmers who are evicted from their land, which is then given to others (Mark 12:1-10 = Matt 21:33-41 = Luke 20:9-16). Given the many differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke, it is probable that there are at least two versions of this parable, although some of the differences between the versions are no doubt redactional in origin. It would seem that Jesus uses variations of this parable, resulting in two or more different versions of it in the tradition. All versions of the parable presuppose a situation of an absentee landowner who lets his vineyard to tenant farmers, who contract with him to give him a portion of the harvest. All agree that, at the proper time, the landowner sends servants to obtain his share of the harvest, but they are unsuccessful. He then sends his son, whom they murder. The tenant farmers intend to seize the vineyard for themselves and propose that, by killing the son and heir, they will gain possession of it. In response, the landowner kills the tenants and gives the vineyard to others. Jesus’ parable is actually an allegory, for it consists of several interconnected metaphors. The astute hearer is expected to make several equations between elements in the story and reality. Unlike many of his other parables, his hearers are fairly easily able to decode this allegory. The description of the construction of the vineyard in Matt 11:33b and Mark 12:1b a provides direction to the interpretation of the allegory insofar as it alludes to LXX Isa 5:1-7, in which the covenant people are represented as an unfruitful vineyard that God, the owner of the vineyard, threatens to destroy. But even without this intertextual clue the hearer would be able to make the equation, since this was a conventional metaphor. For other uses of the metaphor of the vineyard, see Ps 80:8-9; Isa 27:2-6; Jer 2:21; 12:10; Ezek 15:1-6; 19:10; Hos 10:1. (Luke’s version provides no details about the construction of the vineyard.) The point of departure for the interpretation of the parable is the identification of the vineyard with Israel and correlatively the owner of the vineyard with God, but there is a shift of focus in the parable from the vineyard to the tenants. Since in the parable, as in Isa 5:1-7, Israel is represented by the vineyard, it is natural to take the tenant farmers, absent in Isa 5:1-7, as representing the Jewish religious leadership, responsible for the cultivation of the vineyard and the rendering to God, the owner of the vineyard, his due, represented by the fruit. Complicating the interpretation is the introduction of servants and the son of the landowner into the parable. The hearer would understand the servants in the parable to be the prophets, for this was a conventional metaphor at the time of Jesus and the narrative context permits this equation. Since in the second-Temple period it is used in this sense, the hearers would have no choice but to decode the figure of the son in the narrative as the Davidic Messiah, who follows the prophets salvation-historically. They would probably understand that Jesus is making an indirect claim to being the ‘son’, whom the leaders of the people have rejected and intend to execute, just as leaders from previous generations rejected and killed the prophets. The leaders who reject Jesus include the chief priests, scribes and elders (Mark 11:27; 12:12). Of course, the High Priest would also be included in this group. The consequence of rejecting the son, i.e. the Davidic Messiah, will be rejection in turn. The hearer would agree that the landowner, "the lord of the vineyard," is justified in killing the tenants who murdered his son and in giving the vineyard to others. The question, "What will he do?" is rhetorical, because the hearers know what he must do. So by parabolic analogy, God is equally justified in removing and destroying Israel’s leaders, who reject and will murder the Davidic Messiah, and in giving the leadership to others. The identity of these others is not clear from the context. Perhaps Jesus is thinking of the twelve disciples, to whom he promised a share in the administration of the Kingdom of God (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). Matthew includes an isolated saying in 21:43 after the citation of Ps 118:22-23 in 21:42. Jesus says, "I say to you that the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who produce its fruits." The use of "for this reason" (dia touto) to introduce the saying suggests that its inclusion in this context is redactional. Matthew has inserted it into its present context based on the common theme of taking away and giving to others and link-word "fruits" (karpoi). But there is no reason to consider the saying itself as a Matthean creation. The fact that Kingdom of God and not the more typically Matthean Kingdom of Heaven is evidence of its traditional provenance. In this saying Jesus is probably addressing the Jewish people as a whole and not simply its leaders; in a context of rejection, he tells them that the offer of the Kingdom of God has been rescinded because of their lack of fruit, which is a metaphor for actions. The implicit subject of the passive verbs is God. The actions in response to his message of the Kingdom of God that Jesus expected from his generation was to believe the good news about the Kingdom of God and to repent if necessary. But this fruit is not forthcoming, so that the Kingdom now will be given to a people who will produce the expected fruit. The people to whom the Kingdom will be given can only be those—considered collectively—to whom the offer of the Kingdom was not initially made. In other words, they are gentiles. 4.2. Banquet Still Held (Matt 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-21)
Speaking parabolically, Jesus teaches that, in spite of its rejection, the banquet, which is a metaphor of the Kingdom of God, will still be held, but with different guests, who are replacements for the ones originally invited (Matt 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-21). He intends obliquely to communicate that the Kingdom of God is now to be offered to gentiles. Although they each tell a similar story, the parables in Matt 22:1-10 and Luke 14:16-21 are too different from each other to be ascribed to a common written source. In fact, they are so different that it is advisable to handle them as literarily and tradition-historically independent of each other, rather than as two versions of the same original parable. It is conceivable that Jesus told both parables at different times to make the same point. In general, each parable is a narrative about a man who holds a banquet, sends out his servant(s) to summon the guests to the banquet to which they have been previously invited. (It was the practice to summon the guests to the banquet at the moment when everything was ready.) When the invited guests do not come to the banquet, however, the man becomes angry, writes them off and sends out his servant(s) again in order to find replacement guests among those who would not ordinarily be invited to one of his banquets. The point made in both parables is that the banquet is still held even when those invited refuse to come and in their place the host must invite his social inferiors to the banquet. Both parables are allegories, although not every narrative detail is intended to be decoded. The use of hyperbole pushes the narrative to the point of incredulity: a hearer would not expect first that none of the invited guests would come to the banquet and second that the host would be so indiscriminate in his choice of replacements. This lack of realism serves to guide the hearer in the decoding of the allegory, insofar as it focuses the hearer’s attention on those two points. Jesus presupposes knowledge of a conventional metaphor on the part of his hearers: eschatological salvation is a banquet (see Isa 25:6-8; 1 En. 62:12-14; 1Q28a (1QSa) 2.11-22; Luke 14.15; 22.16, 18, 28-30; 2 En. 42.5; 4 Ezra 2.38-40; 2 Bar. 29.1-8; m. Ab. 4.16). From this point of departure, the allegory unfolds. If the banquet is metaphor for the Kingdom of God, which is Jesus’ preferred term for Israel’s eschatological salvation, then the host in each parable must represent God. The invited guests would be understood to be Israel: God offers to the nation the opportunity to receive the Kingdom of God. What comes next in the parable has the potential to cause great offense to his readers. When the offer of the Kingdom of God is refused, God offers it to those who were not originally invited, who are the inferiors of Israel in a salvation-historical sense. These others can only be gentiles, since Jesus offers the possibility of entering the Kingdom of God to all Israel, even to ‘tax-collectors and sinners’. 4.3. Simon the Rock (Matt 16:16-19)
Following Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, Jesus explains that henceforth he will concentrate his efforts on creating his community. Peter is to be the foundation of this new people of God. Matt 16:13-19 represents a longer version of Peter’s Confession than that found in Mark 8:27-28, one that includes Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession of him as the Christ (16:17-19). The origin of Matt 16:17-19 has been disputed by commentators, but one position that the evidence does not support is that it is Matthean redaction. There remain two options: either Matt 16:17-19 was interpolated into the Markan framework or it originally belonged to a longer, non-Markan version of Peter’s Confession. The latter explanation is the best, since Matt 16:13-19 gives evidence of being a unity. Using wordplay, Jesus says to Simon that his name is ‘Rock’ (Petros) because on ‘this rock’ (petra) he will build his community. In the original Aramaic the same word, Kepha' would have been used in both clauses (see John 1:42: "Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Kephas"). In response to his realization that he and his message of the Kingdom of God will ultimately be rejected (see Matt 16:21), Jesus says that he will create a community under the leadership of Simon, one of the twelve. No longer is he thinking of the restoration of Israel as his goal, but now seeks to create a community consisting of a believing remnant from Israel, those who have accepted his message. Jesus compares his community to a building and Simon to the bedrock foundation on which that building rests. The same metaphor is used in the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) to describe the building of the Qumran community: "For you have placed the foundation upon a rock" (1QH-a 14.26). Likewise the Founder prays, "And you have established my house upon a rock" (1QH-a 15.6-9). The Qumran use of the metaphor differs from that of Jesus insofar as in the former there is no one individual identified as the foundation, although in 4QpPsa (4Q171) 3.15-16 the Founder is said to be the means by which the community is established. Jesus adds that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against his community, founded upon Simon. In other words, in spite of Satan's success at thwarting the national realization of the Kingdom, Jesus intends to build a community that Satan cannot thwart. The phrase ‘the gates of Hades’ is a metaphor rooted in the Old Testament; Sheol or death is depicted as a city, and the phrase ‘the gates of Sheol’ or ‘the gates of death’ represents the metaphorical ‘city’ of Sheol, the gates standing for the whole city as an example of synecdoche (Isa 38:10; Job 17:16; 38.17; Pss. 9:13; 107:18). The phrase ‘gates of Hades’ also occurs in Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51; Ps. Sol. 16:2, with the same meaning. Jesus’ use of the metaphor ‘the gates of Hades’ does not mean, however, the realm of death, but the realm of evil, which is depicted as an organized power, expressed by the use of the metaphor of a city. Simon is given ‘the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven’. ‘Keys’ are a symbol of authority (see Isa 22:22). His authority is over the Kingdom of Heaven, which implies that Israel’s eschatological salvation, in part at least, continues to be a present reality, but now only for the community, the believing remnant from Israel. Thus, Simon has the authority to ‘bind and loose’ on earth. What is meant is that Simon has preeminent authority within Jesus’ community. In War 1.111, Josephus uses the same terminology to describe the authority that the Pharisees wielded under Salome Alexandra: While they [the Pharisees] ... became at length the real administrators of the state at liberty to banish and to recall, to loose and to bind, whom they would. In short the enjoyments of royal authority was theirs."
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. Also, ironically, Satan will be defeated by means of Jesus' death. 5.1. The Necessity of Jesus' Death Jesus views his death not only resulting from the decision of the elders, chief priests and scribes to arrest him and have him executed, but also as being ordained by God. To die is his salvation-historical destiny. Jesus' death is the result both of human free will and of God's foreordination. 5.1.1. Must Suffer Many Things (Mark 8:31 = Matt 16:21 = Luke 9:21-22)
After Peter's confession of Jesus' messiahship at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus begins 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 not-yet-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, so that Jesus sees his death as part of his salvation-historical calling. Jesus says that he must "suffer many things" (polla pathei) and be rejected (apodokimasthenai) (see the same description of Jesus' fate occurs 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). There is a possible allusion to Ps 34:20 (LXX Ps 33:20): "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but Yahweh saves them from all of them." 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 in 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. Josephus, similarly, uses the phrases "after three days" (meth' hêmeras treis or meta treis hêmeras) and "on the third day" (tê tritê tôn hêmerôn) synonymously (Ant. 7.280-81; 8.214, 218). This means that Mark's phrase "after three days" does not mean "on the fourth day." 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, in John 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. In several places in the gospel Jesus speaks about the appointed time of his death.
Jesus speaks about his "time" (kairos) (7:6, 8) and his "hour" (hora) (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 time appointed 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 use of hour to mean the beginning of his ministry, see John 2:4.) In John 15:25, Jesus sees his rejection as foretold in scripture, which implies that he believes that his death is divinely predestined (in Ps 35:19 or 69:4: the motif of the righteous man who suffers at the hands of the wicked). 5.2. The Salvation-Historical Significance of Jesus' Death Jesus interprets his death as vicarious and expiatory: his death is for others (vicarious) insofar as it is the means by which the guilt of others is removed (expiatory). In this, Jesus fulfills the destiny of the Isaian Servant. By his death also comes the defeat of Satan. Jesus' death is also the means by which the new covenant comes into being, a component part of which is forgiveness of sin (see Jer 31:31-34), but only for the remnant of believing Jews. He also probably interprets himself as the eschatological Passover sacrifice. (Note that John the Baptist calls Jesus the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world [1:29, 36].) A. John 3:14 (see also John 8:28; 12:32, 34)
In this saying, 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. 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. Jesus also indicates that his being "lifted up" is necessary (dei), implying that it is divinely ordained. B. John 15:12-13
Jesus says that from a motivation of love he lays down his life for his friends. Insofar as he says that he lays down his life for his friends, Jesus understands his death as voluntary and vicarious. C. John 12:24
Jesus compares his death to a seed that falls to the ground and dies, thereby producing many seeds. 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. D. John 12:31-32
In two passages in the synoptic
gospels, Jesus interprets his death as that of the suffering Servant
in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.
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." On literary grounds there is some evidence to conclude that the ransom-saying in Mark 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. Moreover, it is possible that 10:45 itself is composite: 10:45b, the ransom-saying, may not originally belong to 10.45a. However, it does not matter much to the interpretation of Mark 10:45b whether is it is an isolated saying or not. According to Mark 10:45a, Jesus has come as a servant, and his giving of himself as a ransom (lutron) is the ultimate act of his service (Mark 10:45b). 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 "to serve" (diakonêsai) hints at an intertextual allusion to "my servant" in Isa. 52:13 and 53:11. Although "to serve" (diakonêsai) does not occur in Isa. 52:13-53:12, and the verb or a cognate is not used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew verb "to serve" ('bd), 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 "to give his soul" (dounai tên psuchên autou) is the equivalent of the Hebrew "to make his life" in Isa. 53:10, even though it is not a direct translation. The clearest connection to the fourth servant song is "many" (pollôn), which is translation of the Hebrew rabim (Isa. 53:11, 12bis). The last and most important allusion to Isa. 52:13-53.12 is the phrase "ransom for" (lutron anti), 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. B. Luke 22:37
Jesus explicitly quotes Isa
53 in relation to his approaching death, indicating that he understands
his fate as that of the Suffering Servant. 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. His
point is that his mission, at least from one perspective, has been a
failure that his message has not been received, so that 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 travelled 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 reckoned
among the lawless. The disciples misunderstand his point, and Jesus
cuts short the conversation. If he cites a Servant text as predictive
of the nature of his execution, Jesus doubtless intends that his hearers
draw further parallels between himself and the Servant; in particular,
they are to understand that Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice (see
Isa 53:10-12). (See Barry D. Smith, Jesus' Last Passover Meal, 1993)
At his last Passover meal, Jesus pronounces the blessing over the bread, breaks the bread, distributes it and unexpectedly interprets it with reference to his own body: "This is my body (given) for you." (The Lukan/Pauline version is probably more original.) To interpret foods eaten at Passover was not unusual; Jesus would have done something similar during the recitation of the Passover haggadah. But after the blessing of the bread and its distribution, normally nothing would be said of an interpretive nature. Jesus’ departure from procedure would have made an impression on those present. The term to sôma mou (‘my body’) is probably the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew/Aramaic gwpy meaning ‘myself’. Jesus’ statement could be paraphrased as follows: "This bread represents the giving of myself in death for your benefit." Jesus takes advantage of a place in the meal when he, as the paterfamilias, would have the attention of all those present for the meal, during the blessing said in common over the bread. Moreover, Jesus chooses the broken bread with which to compare himself, because it offered an appropriate metaphor for what is about to happen to him. The tertium comparationis is the fact that the bread was broken, i.e. destroyed, as his physical self is about to be. Taken by itself, Jesus’ word over the bread is a self-contained statement about the meaning of his impending death as vicarious, as benefiting others. But when placed against a paschal background, his meaning can be further elucidated: Jesus is interpreting himself as the eschatological Passover lamb that will bring about eschatological redemption for Israel. Just as R. Meir sees the original sacrificial lambs as expiatory for the generation of the exodus, Jesus views his own death as the corresponding eschatological expiation for sin. It is as an expiatory sacrifice for sin that Jesus sees his death as vicarious, as benefiting others. Similarly, parallel to the way in which Isaac's sacrifice or willingness to be sacrificed was seen as the expiatory ground of the Passover sacrifices in Egypt, Jesus saw his own death as typologically fulfilling the original Passover sacrifices as their eschatological counterpart, as giving them their true salvation-historical meaning. The tradition of the Binding of Isaac would have made Jesus' communication to his disciples of his own understanding of his death as antitypical of the original Passover sacrifices relatively simple. It is just a matter of replacing Isaac with himself, and making a few necessary alterations. Whether
Jesus speaks more explicitly about the typological correspondence between
his impending death and the Passover sacrifices in Egypt is difficult
to prove. The sources are silent in this regard. If Jesus says nothing
more than the word over the bread and the word over the cup, it would
be difficult for his disciples to understand his meaning. It is suggested
that during the Passover haggadah, Jesus speaks at length concerning
himself as the eschatological Passover lamb. Since during the Passover
haggadah, elements of the meal, including the Passover lamb,
are interpreted as symbolic of some aspect of the experience of the
generation of the exodus, Jesus takes this opportunity to speak about
his death in terms of the original Passover sacrifices. Although this
point cannot be proven definitively, it is probable that Jesus does
not restrict his comments concerning his death to the words of institution.
Jesus' words are simply too cursory to be fully meaningful.
|
1. Introduction
contexts
in which to situate Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom of God: a non-rejection
context and a rejection context. (This makes understanding Jesus' teaching
much more complicated.) Towards the end of his ministry when opposition
to him has hardened to the point of irreversibility, Jesus spells out
the consequences of this opposition for his people. He also modifies
his teaching about the Kingdom in light of his rejection. The negative
response leads to the termination of the progress of the Kingdom of
God already under way. Most surprisingly of all, Jesus interprets his
death as part of his mission, even though in a non-rejection context
there is no death anticipated and the incorporation of his death as
part of his message in this context would be incongruous. His death
is the means by which forgiveness offered in a non-rejection context
is possible. In a rejection context, something salvation-historically
new emerges from Israel’s failure, being causally tied to it.
Last Modified On: