Introduction

The historicity of Jesus' passion predictions has far-reaching implications for the study of the historical Jesus. Did Jesus predict his impending death, and if so did he believe that it would serve some sort of divinely-ordained purpose? Moreover, did Jesus believe that he would be vindicated from death? If so, did he make clear the nature of his anticipated vindication? Or, was the event of his crucifixion merely a tragic ending to a highly controversial, and in such a case, truncated ministry? The answers to these questions are very important if we are to receive any authentic glimpses into Jesus' mind-set regarding the importance and direction of his ministry. If Jesus did not view his impending death and vindication as significant to his ministry, this would rightly call into question not only the foundation upon which the assertions and approaches of evangelical scholars rest, but also that of the whole orthodox Christian faith itself. On the other hand, if Jesus did not only foresee these events to come, but also attributed a high degree of theological significance to them, then it is clear that the approaches made by some revisionist scholars are deemed irrelevant.

In what follows we will be defending the traditional Christian belief that Jesus did in fact predict his death and vindication, and that he also attached to these impending events great theological and eschatological significance. My main source for this endeavor is a book composed by German New Testament scholar Hans F. Bayer, titled in English "Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection". We will attempt to keep this discussion on a relatively rudimentary level, but those that are interested in seriously delving into this subject to the extent of examining the numerous technical intricacies of the relevant Synoptic data (i.e. issues too intricate and time-consuming for us to concern ourselves with here) should consult Bayer's invaluable resource.

We will not be looking at all of the relevant predictions found within the Gospel traditions, but will include a discussion of 6 pertinent references following a discussion of some relevant background material. I originally hoped to discuss the various predictions in the chronological order in which they are purported to have occurred in the Gospel records. However, in light of the varying number of elements and the varying degree of specificity expressed in the different narrative episodes, I thought it best to organize the article thematically, beginning with what I thought were the least explicit references of Jesus to his impending death and/or vindication and working through to the more explicit references.

Section I: Jesus and Contemporary Thought

A. Martyrdom and Atonement in Second Temple Judaism

Before delving into the various sayings of Jesus, it is worthwhile to briefly consider some relevant background information. We'll start with the thoughts of at least some of Jesus' contemporaries on these and/or similar issues. From the Maccabean literature and the Suffering Servant figure in Isaiah, it becomes clear that the correlation of suffering and/or atonement with subsequent vindication would not have been unique to Jesus. Consider the following passages (all translations taken from Wright 1992; 276-278):

For we are suffering because of our own sins. And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants… I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you [i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes] confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation. (2 Macc. 7.32-33, 37-38)

You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law. Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs. (4 Macc. 6:27-29)

These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honoured, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified-they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated. (4 Macc. 17.20-22)

On the day when the Kittim fall, there shall be battle and terrible carnage before the God of Israel, for that shall be the day appointed from ancient times for the battle of destruction of the sons of darkness… And it shall be a time of great tribulation for the people which God shall redeem; of all its afflictions none shall be as this, from its sudden beginning until its end in eternal redemption. (1 QM 1.9-12)

Then there is the fourth Servant-song of Isaiah:

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all…Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 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. (Isaiah 53:3-6, 10-12)

Regardless of the identity of this "Suffering Servant", i.e. whether the Servant is to be understood as an individual or corporate Israel, the theme of atonement-wrought-from-suffering and subsequent vindication is very explicit. In Section I-B below we will show how this passage was understood by some later texts to be referring to the theme of vicarious suffering.

The theme of the vindication of Israel resulting from atonement bought by suffering more often than not referred to national vindication from exile or oppression, but it is clear that in at least one strand of thought in Second Temple Judaism the belief in vicarious suffering was present. And in fact, this line of thought should not at all surprise us given the importance that making animal sacrifices played in the ancient world, and in particular to that of Israel. N.T. Wright notes:

There are of course considerable differences between one sort of sacrifice and another. At one end of the scale there were the sacrifices at the heart of the great national festivals: the Passover lamb signified the past act and the future hope of redemption for the nation. At the other end were the individual sin-offerings whereby an Israelite, conscious of an accidental breach of Torah, or of something done in ignorance of its being forbidden, would have his or her membership in the people of God reaffirmed despite the lapse… Somewhere logically in between was the Day of Atonement, a time of both individual and corporate offering of sacrifice, in which the nation as a whole, and the individual within the nation, recognized that at every level Israel had sinned against her god, deserved his judgment, but instead could receive his forgiveness and reaffirmation through offering sacrifice. Thus, although no clear theory may have been consciously formulated as to how and why the killing of certain animals under certain circumstances effected this result, the large-scale participation in festivals, and the regular use of the individual sacrifices, indicates clearly that the average Israelite believed firmly that the practice was effective. (Wright 1992; 275; emphasis the original)

Thus the very rituals outlined within the Torah and therefore practiced by virtually every Jew in the Second Temple period conveyed the idea that vindication (or at least reenactment, in the covenantal sense) could be accomplished through sacrifice. As a result, while it is true that the above-quoted texts are speaking about human suffering and sacrifice as opposed to animal sacrifices (as are detailed in the Torah), it should not be too surprising that we discover that the correlations of suffering, atonement, and vindication as a result of human suffering became prevalent in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. For more on this, see Wright 1992, 272-279. See also M. Brown 2000, 153-167.

So, the precedent of vindication through suffering was there to be taken up by Jesus and/or others of his time. When considering this crucial background information, the various statements in the Gospels attributed to Jesus regarding his looming suffering, death, and/or vindication are perhaps not as unusual as they might have otherwise appeared. On the other hand, the idea that atonement and vindication could be accomplished through suffering is to be distinguished from the concept of a suffering Messiah, and it is to this idea that we now turn.

B. The Suffering Messiah

We have but faint, and controversial, traces of a belief in a suffering Messiah in pre-Christian Judaism. Nevertheless, Martin Hengel has shown that in at least a few places in the pre-Christian period (or at least in the period roughly contemporary with early Christianity) there are hints of a belief in a suffering Messiah, particularly in connection with Isaiah 53.

Hengel demonstrates that there is evidence that Isaiah 53 was interpreted in some circles to be referring to an individual, eschatological redeemer that undergoes vicarious suffering on behalf of the unrighteous, subsequent to which he receives exaltation. Hengel finds evidence for this in the Greek translation of Isaiah 53 found in the Septuagint and possibly in the Armenian version of the Testament of Benjamin. In each case it is not clear whether or not this individual redeemer is to be properly understood as the Messiah, though it is in each case a distinct possibility. In the case of the former, Hengel states that "Although the motif of vicarious atoning suffering which effects salvation is weakened at a few points in the LXX over against the MT [Masoretic Text], it remains unambiguous." (Hengel 2004; 124; words in [] added). Among the phrases that support vicarious suffering that are retained in the Septuagint include "he bears our sins and is pained for us" in v. 4; "But he himself was wounded on account of our lawless deeds and he became sick because of our sins" and "by his wounds we were healed" in v. 5; and "he was led like a sheep to the slaughter" in v. 7 (ibid. 124; 2004). Furthermore, he adds that an "individual" interpretation is to be preferred:

But who is this "righteous one" in the eyes of the translator? A one-sided collective interpretation referring to Israel seems to me hardly possible¹⁸⁸. Israel must be defined rather with the confession of the "we" group, which can hardly refer to the Gentile nations, since the Gentiles have no "report" to proclaim, as in 53:1 (ακοη ημων). Nor are the Gentiles healed by his "wounds" or "bruises" (53:5: μωλωψ); this can only apply to the people of God. The Servant will rather judge the kings and the nations, the wicked and the rich (Isa. 52:15; 53:9, 12). "The many" in 53:11-12 are the same as the "we" who make their confession in the first person plural in verses 1-7. They represent the doubting, straying Israel, for which the Servant has sacrificed himself. If the people of Israel repent, acknowledging and confessing their sins -- which is perhaps their spiritual "sin offering" (cf. εαν δωτε περι αμαρτιας, 53:10) -- then on the basis of the Servant's vicarious atoning suffering, they may share his exalted destiny. (ibid. 128-129)

Hengel concludes that it is possible that a Messianic interpretation may be found in the Septuagint translation, though this cannot be spoken of as certain. He goes on to argue that if a particular contemporary historical figure was in mind, it may be a reference to Onias III, "the last legitimate Zadokite high priest" (for a brief discussion of this possibility see ibid. 136-137). Hengel concludes:

If however the Septuagint text can already be related to an end-time figure whom we can call "messianic" in the widest sense, then this is all the more true for Aquila and Theodotion, whose revisions originated in the second century C.E., when the idea of a suffering messiah is clearly attested in Judaism. (ibid. 137)

The relevant passage from the Testament of Benjamin is found in 3:8:

In you [Joseph] will be fulfilled the heavenly prophecy which says that the spotless one will be defiled by lawless men and the sinless one will die for the sake of impious men. (Testament of Benjamin 3:8, Armenian)

It is possible (though not certain) that this text in its original form is Jewish in origin and is a reference to the Messiah ben Joseph (or Ephraim), who in later Jewish texts plays the role of the suffering Messiah. This text was likely later reworked by Christians, but in its original form Hengel argues that it is probably not of Christian origin since Christians would not likely attribute Messiahship to the lineage of Joseph, but rather to that of Judah (ibid. 137-139).

Hengel also examines the Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi, which is preserved in a number of extant fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, to be dated roughly to about 100 B.C. Two fragments (i.e. 9 and 24) contain possible references to a suffering end-time eschatological priest-servant, which in turn display thematic and linguistic parallels to Isaiah 53. The details set forth by Hengel are too technical for us to reproduce here, but for those interested see Hengel 2004; 106-118. Nevertheless, Hengel's conclusion on these fragments is worth citing:

For Puech -- and we can hardly contradict him here, despite all the remaining uncertainties -- our text contains "the first and oldest midrashic exploitation of the Servant Songs of Isaiah interpreted in terms of an individual, in a current of Palestinian Judaism which more or less dates from the second century B.C.E. at the latest"¹⁵⁸ At the same time the text sheds new light on previously disputed texts such as the Testament of Levi 4 and 18, the Testament of Benjamin 3:8 (see below [part] 9), and the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, but also on the Targum of Isaiah, which may in fact have a pre-Christian history that is unknown to us. This is suggested by the "sapiential coloring of the Servant figure"¹⁵⁹ in both 4Q541 and the Targum of Isaiah, though this is also found in the Synoptic Gospels, above all in Q¹⁶⁰. I believe that it would be worth considering whether the interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the Targum, which is oriented around the Pharisaic-rabbinic messianic expectation of the king from the house of David, might not have suppressed an older interpretation oriented around the priestly Messiah, whose wisdom-didactic features and motif of intercession for sinners the Targum retains. (ibid. 118)

Hengel's complete analysis of pre-Christian texts demonstrates that different motifs of Isaiah 53 were emphasized by the various texts. While there are texts that support the suffering of an individual, there are others in which a collective interpretation is plausible. Moreover, in certain cases, such as in the Similitudes of Enoch and the Wisdom of Solomon, the motif of vicarious suffering is suppressed in favor of that of exaltation (see below for more on this). We therefore agree with Hengel's summary of the data:

The expectation of an eschatological suffering savior figure connected with Isaiah 53 cannot therefore be proven to exist with absolute certainty and in a clearly outlined form in pre-Christian Judaism. Nevertheless, a lot of indices that must be taken seriously in texts of very different provenance suggest that these types of expectations could also have existed at the margins, next to many others. This would then explain how a suffering or dying Messiah surfaces in various forms with the Tannaim of the second century C.E., and why Isaiah 53 is clearly interpreted messianically in the Targum and rabbinic texts. (ibid. 140; emphasis the original) [1]

As Hengel made allusion to, there are a number of Jewish sources in the post-Christian period that expresses belief in a suffering Messiah, including references to specific Old Testament passages that were also understood by early Christians to be prophecies of Jesus as the Messiah. Consider the following:

[At the time of the Messiah's creation], the Holy One, blessed be He, will tell him in detail what will befall him: There are souls that have been put away with thee under My throne, and it is their sins which will bend thee down under a yoke of iron and make thee like a calf whose eyes grow dim with suffering, and will choke thy spirit as with a yoke; because of the sins of these souls thy tongue will cleave to the roof of thy mouth. Art thou willing to endure such things?

The Messiah will ask the Holy One, blessed be He: Will my suffering last many years?

The Holy One, blessed be He, will reply: Upon thy life and the life of My head, it is a period of seven years which I have decreed for thee. But if thy soul is sad at the prospect of thy suffering, I shall at this moment banish these sinful souls.

The Messiah will say: Master of the universe, with joy in my soul and gladness in my heart I take this suffering upon myself, provided that not one person in Israel perish; that not only those who are alive be saved in my days, but that also those who are dead, who died from the days of Adam up to the time of redemption; and that not only these be saved in my days, but also those who died as abortions; and that not only these be saved in my days, but all those whom Thou thoughtest to create but were not created. Such are the things I desire, and for these I am ready to take upon myself [Whatever Thou decreest]... [Pesikta Rabbati on Psalm 22. William G, Braude, Translator (New Haven: Yale University, 1968), Volume II, Piska 36.2, pp. 678-679, 680-681). This material was taken from Webster 2003; 177-178]

What is the cause of the mourning [mentioned in the last cited verse]?-R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained, The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained. The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination. It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son [(Zech. XII, 10) (The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Editor (London: Soncino Press), Seder Mo'ed, Vol. III, Sukkah 52a, p. 246). This material taken from Webster 2003; 215; emphasis the original]

Zechariah xii.12: And the land shall mourn…That mourning? What was it all about? R. Yose and the (non-named) Rabbis differ on the point. The one says, It is for Messiah, the son of Joseph when he is killed; and the other says, It is for the Evil Yetzer (Desire)…when it is killed. All is clear in the case of him that says, It is for Messiah the son of Joseph when he is killed, for then we can understand what is written, "And they shall look upon him whom they pierced and they shall lament for him, &c. [(Zech. Xii.10) (The Yalkut on Zechariah, Edward G. King, Translator (London: Cambridge, Deighton, Bell & Co., 1882), Hint 581, pp. 69-70) This material taken from Webster 2003; 215-216; emphasis the original]

Is. 52:13-53:12: Behold, my servant, the Anointed One (or, the Messiah), shall prosper; he shall be exalted, and increase, and be very strong. As the house of Israel hoped (or, waited) for him many days, for his (text, their) appearance was wretched among the nations, and his (text, their) countenance beyond that of the sons of men: so shall he scatter many nations; kings shall be silent because of him (or, it); they shall set their hands upon their mouths: for the things which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived…

And the righteous shall grow up before him even as budding shoots; and as a tree that sendeth forth its roots by streams of water, so shall the holy generations increase in the land that was in need of him: his appearance shall not be that of a common man, nor the fear of him that of an ordinary man; but his countenance (or, complexion) shall be a holy countenance, so that all who see him shall regard him earnestly. Then shall the glory of all the kingdoms be despised and come to an end; they shall be infirm and sick even as a man of sorrows and as one destined for sicknesses, and as when the presence of the Shekinah was withdrawn from us, they (or, we) shall be despised and of no account. Then he shall pray on behalf of our transgressions and our iniquities shall be pardoned for his sake, though we were accounted smitten, stricken from the Lord, and afflicted. But he shall build the sanctuary that was polluted because of our transgressions and given up because of our iniquities; and by his teaching shall his peace be multiplied upon us, and by our devotion to his words our transgressions shall be forgiven us…Then will I divide unto him the spoil of many peoples and the riches of strong cities; he shall divide the booty, because he delivered his soul unto death and subjected the rebellious to the law; and he shall make the intercession for many transgressions, and the rebellious shall be forgiven for his sake [The Targum of Isaiah, J.F. Stenning, Editor and Translator (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), pp. 178-180). This material taken from Webster 2003; 253-254; emphasis the original)]

Thus we see that several texts utilized by early Christians were also taken up in a Messianic sense by later Jewish sources. Notice though in this last case that, while the text of Isaiah 53 is considered by the Targum of Isaiah to be referring to the Messiah, it is presented in a much different light than that of the Christian understanding. It is often claimed by scholars that this is the result of an anti-Christian polemic. Zimmerli and Jeremias comment on this:

It can be seen how, step by step, in Targ. Isa. 52.13-53.12 is depicted the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom over Israel. The statements about the passion of the servant have been so radically and consistently removed by artificial contrivances that faint traces remain only in two places³⁰². Even allowing for the targumic translation technique, the section Targ. Isa. 52.13-53.12 stands out by the unusual freedom of its paraphrase in the context of Targ. Isa. 40-66³⁰³, which elsewhere keeps more closely to the Heb.Text. For this violent reinterpretation of the text there is only one possible explanation: we have here a piece of anti-Christian polemic³⁰⁴. From the second century at the latest, Judaism was concerned in various ways to wrest Isa. 53 from its use by Christians as a christological scriptural text proof (cf. p. 75). The curious form of Isa. 53 in the Targ. shows to what extremes this attempt was carried through. The whole section was indeed messianically explained because the messianic interpretation of Isa. 52.13-53.12 was so firmly rooted that Targ. Isa. could not escape it, but the passages about suffering, in brusque contradiction to the original, are replaced by the current view of the Messiah. The fact that this thoroughgoing process of reinterpretation of Isa. 52.13-53.12 was applied to both the Greek (see pp. 65 ff.) and the Aramaic texts of Isa. 53 shows how firmly rooted in Palestinian Judaism was the messianic exegesis. (Zimmerly & Jeremias 1957; 70-71)

More recently, Michael Brown writes:

Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (which, for simplicity in this discussion, we will simply call Isaiah 53) with reference to the Messiah, despite the fact that the Targum virtually rewrites the entire passage, changing the verses that speak clearly of the servant's sufferings so that they speak instead of the suffering of the nations. This means the Messianic interpretation of the passage must have been quite prominent when the Targum was being formed, since it would have been much easier to not add the explicit reference to the Messiah (in 52:13) rather than to virtually rewrite the verses that seemed to contradict the expected role of the Messiah. (M. Brown 2003; 59; emphasis the original)

On the other hand, Jostein Adna counters the claim that the Targumist's translation was reflective of an anti-Christian polemic by noting the apparent contradiction between Is. 52:13 and 52:14:

One might think that Isaiah 52:13 on its own deals with a purely triumphant and exalted figure. But do not matters look different when the following verses are included? How can the Servant of 52:13 be understood as the Messiah in the light of the suffering described in verses 14ff.? I believe we should follow Otto Betz in his view that on the basis of 52:13, which speaks of the Servant's success, the Targumist concluded that the statements of suffering and death (52:14 and 53:3-9) must apply to others. He found this understanding confirmed in the change of the person present in the Hebrew text from the third person in Isaiah 52:13, "my servant," to the second person in verse 14, "many were astonished at you..." (Adna 2004; 199; emphasis the original)

Adna then goes on to argue that, based on the above-derived hermeneutical principle, it can be shown how "The Targumist offers a theologically reflected and consistent interpretation of Isaiah 53 and is able thereby to retain an impressive proximity to the smallest components of the Bible text." (see ibid. 200-202) This finds further support in some observations made by Hengel. While the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 53 clearly retains the theme of vicarious suffering (see above), there is a change in the translation of Isaiah 53:9 so that instead of the Servant being given a grave with the wicked and his death with the rich, the text speaks of the Lord handing over both the rich and wicked to judgment. Hengel argues that the Lord is in fact giving the wicked over to the Servant himself (see Hengel 2004; 123 for discussion). Hengel further states that "In this way, the Septuagint explains a development toward the idea of judgment that culminates in 1 Enoch 62-63 and Wisdom 5¹⁷⁷." (ibid. 123) Consider, for example, Wisdom 5:1-6:

Then the righteous man will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors. When they see him, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at his unexpected salvation. They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, "This is the man whom we once held in derision, and made a byword of reproach -- we fools! We thought that his life was madness and that his end was without honor. Why has he been numbered among the sons of God? And why is his lot among the saints? So it was we who strayed from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine on us, and the sun did not rise upon us. (quoted in Hengel 2004; 130-131)

Hengel notes that there are a number of verbal and conceptual parallels to the LXX of Isaiah 53 in this passage, including 1) The same word for "amazement" (εκστησονται) is used in Wisdom 5:2 and Isaiah 52:14, and in both cases this word is used in reference to the wicked persecutors of the Servant who are surprised by the latter's vindication; 2) In both cases the wicked do not repent until after the exaltation of the Servant (Wisdom 5:3ff.; Isaiah 53:3-5, 12); 3) The wicked's confession of going astray in Wisdom 5:6 resembles the statements in Isaiah 53:6 (i.e. "All of us like sheep have gone astray; each of us has gone astray in his own way"); and 4) The statement of the wicked in Wisdom 5:6 that "the light of righteousness did not shine on us" contrasts with the Servant being shown the light in Isaiah 53:11 (ibid. 131). While it is probable that this text has in mind Isaiah 53, it is noticeable that there is no mention of vicarious suffering. Rather, the text focuses exclusively upon divine justice, or the punishment of the wicked versus the justification of the righteous (ibid. 132).

Similarly, there is the Similitudes of Enoch [2]. Hengel notes (ibid. 99-100) that this source relates to the Servant motif of Isaiah, but primarily to the first two songs (i.e. Isaiah 42:1-3; 49:1-7), whereas its connection to Isaiah 53 is limited to the frequent expression of "the righteous One" found throughout the Similitudes in reference to the Son of Man (which could recall Isaiah 53:11 along with 42:1 and Zech. 9:9) and also perhaps the theme of judgment against the powerful and the kings. The most probable reference, according to Hengel, is the possible allusion in v. 62:5 of the Similitudes to Isaiah 52:13, 15:

One half of them shall glance at the other half; they shall cast down their faces...when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of glory. (ibid.100)

The reference to "the righteous One" may be more plausibly explained as a reference solely to Isaiah 42:1, particularly as the Similitudes make allusion to this passage more than Isaiah 53. Furthermore, the concept of the Son of Man being exalted above the powerful could just as easily be taken from Daniel 7. On the other hand, Isaiah 53 could at least be in the author's mind since it is within close proximity to the first two Servant Songs, both of which are clearly alluded to by the author. In the end, it seems best to assert that a connection between the Similitudes and Isaiah 53 is possible, but not certain.

Given that the Wisdom of Solomon and the Similitudes of Enoch post-date the Septuagint, we may suggest that an evolution in thought may have occurred regarding the suppression of the vicarious suffering wrought by the Servant of Isaiah 53 accompanied by the increasing emphasis on the Servant's exaltation. While the Septuagint retains the theme of vicarious suffering in Isaiah 53, it also in 53:9 transforms a statement about the Servant's death and burial into the handing over of the wicked into the Servant's hands. In Wisdom and the Similitudes, the theme of the Servant's exaltation is emphasized against the virtual disappearance of the theme of vicarious atoning suffering. In the post-Christian Targum of Isaiah, the transformation is complete as the whole 53rd chapter of Isaiah is reworked to emphasize the Servant's exaltation above and judgment of the wicked.

All of this should warrant us some caution in suggesting that this reworking in the Targum is the result of an anti-Christian polemic. However, it remains true that the most natural reading of Isaiah 53 entails that the Servant is exalted after and because of his undeserved suffering (compare 53:10-12 and 52:13-15) [3]. This, along with the fact that we find in the pre-Christian era some attestation to the theme of the vicarious suffering of an individual, quite possibly even in a Messianic sense, adds to the plausibility of Jesus taking up this theme himself. This finds further corroboration by the fact that we find in post-Christian Judaism key passages such as Psalm 22, Zechariah 12:10, and Isaiah 53 used clearly in reference to the Messiah. Given the importance that these passages played in the early church's theology of a suffering Messiah, it seems very unlikely that post-Christian Jews would have applied these same passages to the Messiah if such applications did not have pre-Christian roots. For a more in-depth treatment of the concept of a suffering Messiah in historical Judaism, see M. Brown 2000, pp. 220-231.

It is important to emphasize that Messianic beliefs in the Second Temple period were quite diverse (see e.g. the superb treatment in Collins 1995), and as such we cannot say with assurance what a given Messianic claimant at that time would believe about his mission and what specific collection of OT texts and themes he would draw upon to guide his thought-process(es). One constant, however, with Jesus being the exception that proves the rule, is that it seems that all potential Messianic claimants within a century on either side of Jesus thought the royal, military, and/or political aspects of Messiahship were crucial to their respective missions. Collins writes:

Each of the royal pretenders we have considered was the leader of a violent, armed uprising. Insofar as any of these people had a claim to be regarded as messiahs, the claim was grounded in their military leadership. In this respect, at least, the royal pretenders conformed to the usual paradigm for a royal messiah. The scepter of Balaam's oracle was supposed to smite all the children of Seth. Isaiah's 'shoot from the stump of Jesse' was supposed to kill the wicked with the breath of his lips. Despite attempts by some modern scholars to 'spiritualize' this image, its violent implications are picked up repeatedly in the Roman period. The Branch of David/Prince of the Congregation has a role in the final battle against the Kittim at Qumran. The one who will be called 'Son of God' in 4Q246 will bring peace to the earth, but he will do so by military victory: 'The great God will be his strength. He will make war on his behalf, give nations into his hand and cast them all down before him.' The 'son of David' in Pss Sol 17 is to 'purge Jerusalem from Gentiles,' and 'smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter's jar.' The man from the sea in 4 Ezra burns up all his adversaries with a stream of fire from his mouth. The messiah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 'reddens the mountains with the blood of the slain.' To be sure, a real life messiah needed more mundane weapons than the breath of his mouth. But the violent destruction of the wicked is a standard element in the repertoire of the Davidic messiah. (Collins 1995; 203-204; for more on other Messianic movements roughly contemporary with the time of Jesus and the early Christians, see ibid.195-204. See also Wright 1992; 167-181)

However, we have seen that it is likely that there was a strand of thought in pre-Christian Judaism in which the concept of a suffering Messiah was present. It is possible that the two strands of thought could go together. For instance, perhaps some believed that the Messiah would die as a martyr in the Messianic battle, and receive some sort of vindication afterwards. This is obviously speculative, though it does appear that this is what the disciples of Jesus eventually came to understand just prior to their final march into Jerusalem (on this see Section VIII-B).

C. Jesus as the Suffering Messiah

Obviously, even if Jesus did not have a military campaign in mind, this does not mean that he intended to do just the opposite, i.e. suffer at the hands of the Romans. On the other hand, if we find indications within the Gospels that Jesus did understand his mission to entail such a fate, however out-of-the-ordinary it may seem, we should be prepared to seriously explore this avenue as a possibility. This is especially the case when we consider that the concepts of atonement and vindication (particularly on a national level) resulting from suffering were present within the Judaism of Jesus' day. This conclusion is that much more enforced if we are correct in arguing that the concept of a suffering Messiah existed in pre-Christian Judaism. With this in mind, let us now explore the New Testament data for the belief that Jesus was fulfilling the role of the Suffering Servant.

First of all, Isaiah 53 was a very important text to the early church, as can be seen from a number of both explicit and subtle allusions to the passage across the New Testament [4]. But, it is precisely because of the importance of the 4th Servant Song to the early church that a large number of scholars believe that the references to Isaiah 53 attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are spurious. However, it is at least as plausible to postulate that the importance of Isaiah 53 in the early church stemmed from Jesus' own allusions to the passage during his ministry. In fact, it is probably more plausible. Peter Stuhlmacher explains:

The view suggested above in thesis form is confirmed when one situates the debated texts within the formative process behind the synoptic tradition, as it has been newly explained over the last thirty years by H. Schurmann, B. Gerhardsson, M. Hengel, and R. Riesner. According to this new view, the decisive origins of the synoptic tradition lie in the "school" of Jesus, who taught as the "messianic teacher of wisdom" (so M. Hengel). The παραδοσεις or traditions of this school were transmitted to the primitive church in Jerusalem by the μαθηται whom Jesus himself had called. These traditions then formed an essential part of the "teaching of the apostles" (διδαχη των αποστολων) mentioned in Acts 2:42¹⁰. Since a carefully maintained continuity of tradition existed between Jesus' disciples and the Jerusalem church, and since the apostolic guarantors of the Jesus tradition remained alive until the outbreak of the first Jewish war, synoptic texts may be spoken of as subsequent "formulations of the church" only when it can be shown exactly who created them, when, why, and for what recipients they were created, and under what circumstances they were accorded equal authority with the Jesus tradition backed by the apostles. When one cannot provide the answers to these questions, one must reckon with authentic tradition in the synoptics. (Stuhlmacher 2004; 149; emphasis added; for more on the reliability of oral tradition see here and here)

With that in mind, let's take a look at a couple of references to Isaiah 53 attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels as well as one to Zech. 13:7. The first text we'll consider is Luke 22:35-38:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me." Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

The "And he was numbered with the transgressors" in v. 37 is a quote from Isaiah 53:12. R.T. France argues for the probable authenticity of this verse:

Jackson and Lake assume without argument that this quotation is the work of Luke, and Hooker¹¹⁷ writes, 'Unfortunately it occurs in a very obscure passage, of which both the meaning and genuineness are extremely doubtful', but does not explain the statement. Actual arguments against its authenticity are few. J. M. Creed¹¹⁸ suspects the passage Luke 22:35-38 as being obscure and clumsily constructed, and also because 'it is unlikely that Jesus seriously entertained the thought of armed resistance'. It is, however, still more unlikely that any early Christian would attribute to him a thought so out of character and embarrassing to Christian apologetics; the words of verse 36 are best explained as a metaphorical warning of dangerous times ahead¹¹⁹. Nor is it clear why the obscurity of a saying should mark it as unauthentic. V. Taylor¹²⁰ has demonstrated clearly the appropriateness of the quotation in Jesus' situation on the night before the crucifixion, and J. Jeremias¹²¹ sees the quotation as indispensable to the context, where it stands 'between the two quite obviously ancient words about the swords'. The non-LXX character of the quotation further suggests a Semitic origin¹²². In the absence, therefore, of arguments to the contrary, this quotation may be taken as authentic. (France 1992; 114-115)

Some argue though that even if Jesus was quoting a particular verse within the fourth Servant song, this does not necessitate that he saw himself as fulfilling the redemptive role that the Servant plays in Isaiah 53, partiularly since Luke does not refer to any of the many parts of Isaiah 53 that contain implications of vicarious suffering. France responds by noting:

Two factors, however, tell against this conclusion. The first is the context: that Jesus on the eve of his death should quote from Isaiah 53 at all is surely significant, and indicates that he saw his death in the light of that chapter; that he should quote the phrase 'was numbered with the transgressors', far from indicating that vicarious suffering was absent from his mind, shows that he was preoccupied with the fact that he, who least deserved it, was to be punished as a wrong-doer. There may be the further identification with sinful mankind for their redemption. 'This thought is not explicit in His words, but it is a natural reflection in the mind of one who had pondered the Servant-conception and who quotes a passage immediately followed by the words: "yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Isa. Liii. 12).'¹²⁴ The second factor is the formula with which Jesus introduces the quotation: 'This scripture must be fulfilled in me…for what is written about me has its fulfillment.' This, one of the strongest fulfillment-formulae ever uttered by Jesus, is hardly the way to introduce a casual catch-phrase. If Jesus saw these words as destined to be fulfilled in him, and as written about him, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he identified himself with the one of whom they were written, the Servant of Yahweh. (ibid. 115-116)

As France alluded to earlier, this passage has been argued by some to advocate military action. J.P. Holding responds to this idea:

Here's another:

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

An advocation of war? We have addressed this matter in our trial piece -- some even think that Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, and note that Peter scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus' arrest. What an overstated case! The passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords - and during the so-called "scuffle," there was nothing but Peter slicing off a servant's ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away! Raymond Brown [Death of the Messiah, 689] has rightly admonished those who read such things into this passage:

...such an isolated instance of spontaneous defense that could have occurred in a melee of any period is scarcely indicative of belonging to a resistance movement.

The swords in question, at any rate, were not the longswords [sic] of our medieval television programs. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the "peace-loving Essenes" carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment! [See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 21] Needless to say, this weapon would not be much use against the Temple police - much less against any number of armed Roman soldiers! (Source)

The next passage we'll consider is that found in Mark 10:45. Below is the passage in its immediate context:

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-45; emphasis added)

The authenticity of this verse is regularly denied. C. E. B. Cranfield summarizes the major objections:

(1) this saying is out of harmony with its context, which focuses on service; (2) the use of "elthen" ["come/came"] suggests a date after the lifetime of Jesus looking back on it as a whole; (3) "lutron" ["ransom"] and the ideas associated with it are found nowhere else in Jesus' teaching; and (4) the original form of the saying is found in Luke 22:27, and Mark 10:45 is a dogmatic recasting of it, perhaps under Pauline influence³¹³. (Cranfield, Mark, 343; cited from Witherington III 1990; 252; words in [] added)

Witherington, however, refutes each of the above arguments. In regards to (1), he notes that "The literature dealing with the Maccabees makes it clear that some Jews believed the ultimate form of service to and for one's people was to give one's life for them" (ibid. 252; also see above). Jesus' use of "Son of Man" in this context also ran counter to the understanding of this apocalyptic figure in other Jewish literature of the time (as we show in section VII below). On the other hand, Witherington notes, drawing from C. K. Barrett, that since "Daniel as a whole is a book of martyrdom", Jesus is not departing from the larger framework of the book from whence we get our earliest extant mention of the "Son of Man" (ibid. 252).

In regards to (2), the use of elthen, Witherington notes:

First, some 'elthen' sayings are authentic (cf. Luke 12:49). Second, as Dodd has noted, 'elthen' with the infinitive purpose or equivalent 'hina' clause "is one of the most widely established forms in which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted."³¹⁶ Furthermore, although "elthen" can be used retrospectively as in Matt. 11:18, it can also explain one's sense of purpose or mission without having the sense of providing an overview after the fact (cf. Mark 2:17). (ibid. 253)

As for (3) and the use of lutron, or "ransom", he writes:

Even though "lutron" is used only here in the Gospels, some of the ideas associated with it seem to be present in the so-called cup saying in Mark 14:24. The idea of a ransom is a familiar Old Testament concept, as is the idea of ransoming life back (cf. Exod. 30:12; 31:30; Num. 18:15; Lev. 25:51-52). (ibid. 253)

Finally, there remains the argument that Mark 10:45 may be under Pauline influence. Witherington again writes:

Furthermore, it is not true that "lutron" is a Pauline word. The only place where we have a cognate term, "antilutron", is I Tim. 2:6, and many scholars would call this material deutero-Pauline. This word and indeed the whole sentence in Mark 10:45 is thoroughly Semitic and can be translated as a whole back into Aramaic³¹⁸...By comparison, 1 Tim. 2:6 seems to be a later Greek form of the saying.

Several other objections to the authenticity of this saying will not stand close scrutiny. As Stuhlmacher shows, it is not convincing to argue that this material derives from the church's Last Supper theology³²⁰. Those traditions do not use the key word "lutron", nor do we find in them "anti pollon" [pollon = many], but rather "hyper" or "peri pollon". Also missing in such material is any use of the phrase "Son of Man." Thus, Stuhlmacher is right to conclude, "There is no real foundation for a derivation of Mark 10:45 from the Last supper connection."³²¹ (Witherington III 1990; 252-253; emphasis the original; words in [] added)

Sydney H.T. Page summarizes some positive arguments favoring the authenticity of this passage:

Absolute proof in this area is unattainable, but it should be observed that several features of the saying are consistent with its being authentic. The semitic character of the saying has been noted, and that is in keeping with its being dominical, though it could, of course, be accounted for in other ways. In this connection the use of the title 'Son of man' is of special interest, since it appears as a characteristic self-designation of Jesus in the Gospels. Secondly, the content of the saying accords well with the rest of the teaching of Jesus regarding His passion. Particularly significant is the way this saying corresponds with the cup-word at the Last Supper [though recall above where Witherington demonstrated that the terminology is different, though of course the concept remains the same]. Finally, a number of writers have been struck by the restraint of the saying, and have correctly observed that this would be expected in a saying of Jesus, but not in something formulated by the Church /72/. As Vincent Taylor puts it: 'the saying leaves many points open, and in no way characterizes the need or condition of the 'many'. As a 'community product', the saying is much too discreet; as an utterance of Jesus, it has just that air of mystery, and the note of provocativeness, constantly found in His words' /73/. The ransom logion shows little sign of reflecting the developed theology of the atonement found elsewhere in the NT, but may well be seen as the fountainhead of later developments. (Page 2003; 153-154; words in [] added; a still-more detailed refutation of the typical objections to authenticity than what we provided above can be found in ibid.137-154)

Interestingly, the passage under discussion may not even be a reference to Isaiah 53 in the first place. Witherington argues that this passage actually parallels Isaiah 43:3-4 better than Isaiah 53 for the following reasons:

In Isaiah 43 we find (1) "kofer", the Hebrew word that probably stands behind "lutron" (the Aramaic would be "purkan"); (2) the SMS root that stands behind the use of "diakonein" ["serve"]; and (3) "tahat", which lies behind the use of "anti (pollon)". Strikingly, there is also a reference in Isaiah 43 to Yahweh giving "a man" for Israel³²².

All of this is important in view of the fact that we have no evidence the early church used Isaiah 43 to reflect on Jesus. By contrast, the servant in the Septuagint of Isaiah 53 is called "ho pais mou", and the word used for service is "douleuein", not "diakonein". Likewise absent from this text in the Septuagint is "lutron". Thus, the case that our saying was created by Hellenistic Jewish Christians out of the Septuagint of Isaiah 53 is weak. I conclude that the objections to authenticity of this saying fail. (Witherington III 1990; 254; word in [] added)

Thus if Jesus was in this case referring to Isaiah 43, the criterion of dissimilarity would further boost the probable authenticity of the reference.

Another passage from the Old Testament that Jesus appeals to which indicates his belief in impending death is Zechariah 13:7:

"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!" declares the LORD Almighty. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

Jesus quotes this passage just after the setting of the Eucharist:

"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." (Mark 14:27-28)

The second part of v. 27 (which contains the allusion to Zechariah) and v. 28 are commonly held to be redactional insertions. Joel Green lists the reasons for this: 1) There is a continuity observed between vss. 27a and 29 (so that it would read "You will all fall away," Jesus told them...Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."); 2) Peter's words in v. 29 make sense as a reference to 27a, but his response betrays no knowledge of the OT citation by Jesus or of his prediction of vindication in v. 28; 3) Since 14:28 corresponds very closely to Mark 16:8, this suggests that the 14:27b-14:28 tradition is "free-floating"; 4) There is a correspondence in syntax between 14:28 and 1:14, suggesting that Mark may have been the author (i.e. redactor) here rather than relying on pre-existing tradition (Green 1988; 247-248). To this list it could be added that Mark's use of the word egeiro for "risen" increases the probability that 14:27b-28 are the words of the evangelist himself. In the other four predictions of vindication preserved in Mark's Gospel (which are demonstrably very ancient-see Section VII), the word anistemi is utilized instead in reference to Jesus' rising from the dead.

In response to problem #s 1-2 cited above, Green quotes Cranfield in saying that "...it would be natural for [Peter] to be too taken up with the implied slur on his loyalty to pay much attention to anything else". Green also notes a similar prediction found in John 16:31-33:

"You believe at last!" Jesus answered. "But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me. "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

This prediction is found in a different context than the one in Mark 14:27b-28, since the former occurs after Jesus' predicts Peter's threefold denial, and the latter just prior to that. Yet they both occur within the context of Jesus' table-fellowship with the disciples the night prior to Jesus' death. The wording of the two predictions is also different, though they share in common the concept of the disciples being scattered. Thus that Jesus appealed to Zech. 13:7 is multiply-attested. Green argues that since both evangelists testify independently to Christ's general prediction of the "falling away" of the disciples, this indicates that we are working here with primitive tradition (ibid. 249). R. T. France adds that Jesus' quotation of Zech. 13:7 "agrees with many uses by Jesus of the shepherd motif from the OT, and also with his frequent use of Zc. 9-14 during the passion." (France 1992; 107, n. 28) [5]

That Jesus may have seen the significance of Zech. 9-14 in his ministry is corroborated by his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1ff and par.) where he clearly is deliberately fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

R. T. France further argues that Jesus may have made an allusion to Zechariah 12:12 in Matthew 24:30 (ibid. 106-107). Below are both of the relevant texts:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives." (Zechariah 12:10-14)

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)

An allusion here in Matt. 24:30 to Zech. 12 is not certain, however. This saying of Jesus though could be a conceptual conflation of Zech. 12:10-14, Daniel 7:13-14, and perhaps even Psalm 110:1 (compare Mark 14:61-62). If Jesus did have the former text in mind, however, this would be yet another indication that he expected to die, and that his death served as the fulfillment of the "pierced one" in Zech. 12:10-14.

So, while the precise historical placement of Jesus' citation of Zech. 13:7 cannot be ascertained due to redaction-critical considerations, the combination of this allusion being multiply attested, Jesus' other applications of material within the block of Zech. 9-14 to himself, and his frequent use of the shepherd-motif throughout his ministry makes the cumulative case that Jesus did apply to himself the reference in question probable.

So, in sum we have examined two possible allusions by Jesus to the Suffering Servant figure of Isaiah 53 [6], though the one found in Mark 10:45 may have Isaiah 43 in mind instead [7]. We have also examined an allusion Jesus made to Zech. 13:7, which would further support the historicity of his expectations to die in accordance with the Scriptures. At the end of the day, it is probable that Jesus saw in himself the Suffering Servant figure of Isaiah 53, the Smitten Shepherd of Zech. 13:7, and possibly the Pierced One of Zech. 12:10-14. If Jesus did indeed see himself fulfilling the role of Isaiah 53 in particular, then this means that he thought that it was his divinely-ordained mission to 1) suffer unjustly; 2) undergo an atoning, sacrificial death; and 3) be subsequently vindicated by God.

D. The Historical Circumstances of Jesus' Ministry

It is also prudent to point out that the circumstances that Jesus found himself in during his ministry, particularly as it progressed, likely would have forced him to strongly consider the possibility that he would have to face an imminent death and/or how this might fit in with his divinely-ordained mission. Joachim Jeremias summarizes the situation perfectly:

One thing may be taken as certain: the external course of his ministry must have compelled Jesus to reckon with the possibility of a violent death. The charge against him that he cast out demons with the help of Beelzebub (Matt. 12.24 par.) meant that he was thought to practice magic and to merit stoning [(5)-Sanh. 7:4]. The accusations that he blasphemed God (Mark 2.7), was a false prophet (Mark 14.65 par.)⁶ and a rebellious son (Matt. 11.19 par.; cf. Deut. 2.20f.), and that he deliberately broke the sabbath, all cite misdemeanours which were punishable by death [(7)-By stoning (Sanh. 7:4); only the false prophet is strangled (11:1)].

We have numerous illustrations that Jesus broke the sabbath [(8)- Mark 2.23-28 par.; 3.1-6 par.; Luke 13.10-17; 14.1-6; John 5:1-13; 9:1-41, cf. Luke 6.5 D]. The little complex of tradition in Mark 2.23-3.6, which gives two sabbath stories, the rubbing together of the ears of corn and the healing of the man with the withered hand in the synagogue, depicts a particularly vivid situation. It must be recognized that according to contemporary Jewish law a capital crime could only be brought to judgment if the perpetrator had demonstrably been warned before witnesses and if it had been made certain in this way that he had acted deliberately [(1)- Chief passages: Sanh. 5.1; 8.4; 12.8f. ( = Makk. 1.8f.) ; Tos. Sahn. 11:1-5; b. Sanh. 40b-41a; j. Sanh. 22c, 53ff.; Siphre Num. 113 on 15.33...]. The first of the two sabbath stories reports the giving of the warning to Jesus (Mark 2.24 ουκ εζεστιν, cf. John 5.10) and his explanation that he was breaking the sabbath as a matter of conviction (vv. 25-28). The next breach of the sabbath would therefore inevitably bring him into mortal danger, especially as it is said that he was kept under observation (3.2 παρετηρου&nu αυτον). In fact his death was resolved upon after the second breach of the sabbath (3.6). It cannot be objected against this conclusion that the Jews could not carry out death sentences passed by their courts because they did not have the ius gladii (John 18:31)². This held only in the area under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor, i.e. for Judaea and Samaria, and not for Galilee. No one could prevent Herod Antipas from carrying out the death penalty in his own kingdom, as the beheading of John the Baptist makes clear. The warning 'Herod seeks to kill you' (Luke 13.31) was therefore to be taken quite seriously.

Above all, when Jesus decided to carry out the cleansing of the temple he must have been clear that he was risking his life; and that was in fact the occasion for the definitive official action against him³. The Fourth Gospel is quite right in applying Ps. 69.10 to the situation: 'Zeal for thy house will consume me'¹ (John 2:17). So we can see that Jesus forfeited his life in many ways; he was constantly threatened; he must regularly have had the prospect of a violent death.

But it was not only the course of his ministry that must have compelled Jesus to reckon with a violent death; in addition there was something else: his view of salvation history. We saw in [chapter] 9 how he repeatedly presented himself as the last messenger of God, in the tradition of the prophets. His contemporaries were becoming more and more inclined to see the prophets as martyrs²; the time of Jesus was that of the great 'tomb renaissance', and everywhere in Palestine people were building memorials to the prophets and the other martyrs as expiation for their murder³. Jesus shared this view of history. He regarded martyrdom in Jerusalem as part of the prophetic office (Luke 13.33). Even more, he agreed with the wisdom saying which regarded salvation history as an unbroken chain of martyrdoms of the righteous and the messengers of God from Abel to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (Matt. 23.35 par.). At the end of this chain stood the Baptist, with whose fate Jesus must have been particularly preoccupied, as he had been associated with him. Would Jesus, who believed himself to be the last of the prophets sent by God (see above, pp. 82-85), have expected a better fate for himself? (Jeremias 1971; 278-280) [8]

In addition to the impressive summary provided by Jeremias, we may add to consideration Jesus' saying in Mark 8:34 that his followers "must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it". If Jesus thought that his followers would be persecuted, even to the point of death, it is likely that he would have reckoned with the possibility of the same fate befalling him as well.

Summary

Our results for this section have yielded the following points: 1) Atonement-through suffering was a viable concept within the Judaism of Jesus' day; 2) It is quite possible that the idea of a suffering Messiah, with use of Isaiah 53 and possibly other texts, was alive in that time period; 3) A solid, cumulative case can be made that Jesus saw in himself the fulfillment of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, as well as the Smitten Shepherd of Zechariah 13:7, and possibly the "Pierced One" of Zech. 12:10-14; and 4) That Jesus saw himself and his mission in such light is corroborated by the fact that he often found himself in very precarious circumstances as the course of his ministry progressed, even to the point where his final journey to Jerusalem was practically inviting death to come along for the ride (see Section VIII-B below where it can be shown that even the disciples anticipated great peril in this final trip), further accentuating the probability that Jesus would have reflected on what was probably to become of him.

These observations are very important to keep in mind as we approach Jesus' more specific passion predictions, for it should at this point come as no surprise whatsoever for us to discover that he foretold his death, the atoning significance that it would have, and that he would subsequently be vindicated by God, now that we have established these several pieces of key background information. In light of all of this, we should in fact expect to find such predictions made by Jesus within the Gospel Tradition.

Section II: Gethsemane and the Cup

They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch. "Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" (Mark 14:32-42)

When considering the Synoptic narratives that detail Jesus' and the three disciples' (Peter, James, and John) trip to Gethsemane the night of Jesus' arrest (Matt. 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46), it is evident that Jesus was anxiously anticipating an upcoming period of great distress [9].

Before considering historicity, we might want to consider briefly the nature and meaning of the "cup" that Jesus felt was his divinely-ordained function to drink. Given the Jewish background of Jesus and the importance that Scripture played in it, the best place to look for references in order to gain insight into what is meant by this "cup" would be the Old Testament itself. Bayer notes that there are 20 metaphorical references to "cup" in the OT, with 17 of these being maledictory in nature, and the other 3 being benedictory (Bayer 1986; 70-72). All 3 benedictory references are found in the Psalms:

The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods. I will not pour out their libations of blood or take up their names on my lips. LORD, you have assigned me my portion and my cup; you have made my lot secure. The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; surely I have a delightful inheritance. (Psalm 16:4-6)

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. (Psalm 23:4-6)

How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD. I will fulfill my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. (Psalm 116:12-15)

While there are maledictory references to the "cup" in the Psalms as well (e.g. Ps 11:6; 75:8), Bayer states that all metaphorical references to the "cup" in the prophetic literature (in contrast to the Psalms) are maledictory in nature. Consider the following:

This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them." So I took the cup from the LORD's hand and made all the nations to whom he sent me drink it: Jerusalem and the towns of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a ruin and an object of horror and scorn and cursing, as they are today; Pharaoh king of Egypt, his attendants, his officials and all his people, and all the foreign people there; all the kings of Uz; all the kings of the Philistines (those of Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the people left at Ashdod, Edom, Moab and Ammon; all the kings of Tyre and Sidon; the kings of the coastlands across the sea; Dedan, Tema, Buz and all who are in distant places; all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the foreign people who live in the desert; all the kings of Zimri, Elam and Media; and all the kings of the north, near and far, one after the other-all the kingdoms on the face of the earth. And after all of them, the king of Sheshach will drink it too. "Then tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you.' But if they refuse to take the cup from your hand and drink, tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: You must drink it! See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword upon all who live on the earth, declares the LORD Almighty.' (Jeremiah 25:15-30)

Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger. Of all the sons she bore there was none to guide her; of all the sons she reared there was none to take her by the hand. These double calamities have come upon you-who can comfort you?-ruin and destruction, famine and sword-who can console you? Your sons have fainted; they lie at the head of every street, like antelope caught in a net. They are filled with the wrath of the LORD and the rebuke of your God. Therefore hear this, you afflicted one, made drunk, but not with wine. This is what your Sovereign LORD says, your God, who defends his people: "See, I have taken out of your hand the cup that made you stagger; from that cup, the goblet of my wrath, you will never drink again. I will put it into the hands of your tormentors, who said to you, 'Fall prostrate that we may walk over you.' And you made your back like the ground, like a street to be walked over." (Isaiah 51:17-23)

Bayer summarizes the concepts that can be gleaned from the OT metaphorical references to "cup":

Whereas the Psalms proclaim that judgment and exaltation befall the unrighteous and the righteous respectively, the prophets unanimously underline the fact that Jerusalem is not spared the cup of divine wrath¹⁵⁸. A common element between the Psalmic and prophetic references to the cup lies in the fact that the cup of judgment does not necessarily imply final destruction or a violent death¹⁵⁹. While some prophecies tend to imply that final destruction and death are inaugurated by the cup of wrath (cf especially Je 25:27.31.33)¹⁶⁰, other prophecies identify the cup of judgment as a temporary calamity to be borne (cf especially Is 51:17.22)¹⁶¹. Thus the cup of divine judgment does not necessarily refer to an apocalyptic context¹⁶².

The maledictory metaphor of the cup in the OT refers thus generally to divine punishment which may include, and begin with, the chosen people of God¹⁶³. (ibid. 72)

Given the physical and mental anguish that befell Jesus during his time at Gethsemane, as well as his asking his Father to remove the cup, it is safe to conclude that Jesus' reference to the "cup" that he was to drink was of a maledictory nature, one which implied divine judgment.

So, what can be said regarding the historicity of this pericope? First of all, when considering the Synoptic parallels to this event, we are likely dealing with multiple attestation. Bayer notes that Matthew and Luke share many features in common against Mark in their versions of the Gethsemane pericope. First, the prayer in Mark 14:35 is not found in the Matthean or Lukan versions. Second, while all three accounts use the same Greek word for "Father" (pater), unlike Mark, Matthew and Luke do not precede this with Abba, the Aramaic word for "Father". Third, Matthew and Luke each have "the common ει-clause regarding the cup". Fourth, the word Matthew and Luke use for "yet" (plen) is different from the word Mark uses (alla). Bayer elaborates on this point by stating "It is important to observe that besides Mt 26:39 par only Mt 11:22 par (Q) contains [plen] in a Matthew/Luke parallel. The possibility that [plen] in Mt 26:39 par hints at a separate source is increased by the fact that the adversative conjunction used by Mark (alla) is not uncommon in Matthew and Luke". Finally, regarding Jesus' comments about God's will being done, Matthew 26:42 and Luke 22:42 share in common the Greek words thelema and ginomai, corresponding to "will" and "done", respectively (though it should be noted that Matthew in 26:39 shares thelo, also for "will", in common with Mark 14:36). (Bayer 1986; 68)

A third source could possibly be reflected in a passage found in the epistle to the Hebrews:

Raymond Brown quotes Hebrews 5:7-10 and then comments on its independence from the Synoptic accounts:

[7] Who in the days of his flesh, having brought prayers and supplications, with a strong clamor and tears to the One having the power to save him from death, and having been heard from fear, [8] despite his being Son, learned obedience from the things that he suffered. [9] And having been made perfect, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, [10] being designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

A study of the Greek vocabulary in this passage shows that the author of Hebrews did not make up the passage from wording that he found in any of the canonical Gospels, nor did any evangelist make up his PN [passion narrative] account of Jesus' prayer(s) from this passage. The words I have [emphasized] in the passage described key actions of Jesus or things done to him as he faced death; yet not one of them describes anything done by or to Jesus in the PN of any Gospel, or indeed (with the exception of "suffer") throughout the whole Gospel accounts of the ministry. (Note: a verb related to "tears" is used of Jesus in John 11:35; the verb "to suffer" [paschein] is used in the passion predictions [Mark 8:31; 9:12] and at the Last Supper [Luke 22:15].) (R. Brown 1994; 227-228; emphasis the original; words in [] added)

Brown lists a number of similarities between the passage in Hebrews and the Gethsemane pericope as it is contained in the Gospels (ibid. 231), though he lists a number of differences as well:

Hebrews speaks of a "strong clamor" to God, and this does not occur in the Gethsemane prayer. In Hebrews Jesus' prayer to be saved from death is heard, presumably in the sense that he emerges from death victoriously; that does not apply readily to the Gethsemane prayer despite Omark's attempt ("Saving" 43-49) to argue that Luke's strengthening angel can be interpreted as a savior from death. The answer to the prayer about the hour or cup in all four Gospels confirms that Jesus must face death; the issue of whether or not he will be annihilated by death does not come to the fore. Moreover, at this stage in the passion Jesus has not really learned obedience through the things he has suffered, even if in Mark/Matt he is in the process of doing so. (ibid. 232; emphasis the original)

Brown argues for the plausibility that the passage in Hebrews has as its source an early Christian hymn (similar to what we find in Phil. 2:6-11) which was constructed from reflection on a number of texts in the Psalms (Brown points out especially Ps 116, but also Ps 22:24; 31:23; 39:13) while having in mind the prayers of Jesus not only in Gethsemane but also on the cross (see ibid. 227-233). Bayer points out a few linguistic peculiarities suggestive of a separate source underlying the Hebrews passage as well, which probably contains some post-Easter reflections (Bayer 1986; 69) [10].

Another reference to the "cup" worth mentioning is found in John 18:11, where Jesus asks the rhetorical question in response to Peter's drawing of the sword at the time of Jesus' arrest, "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?". John does not contain the Gethsemane pericope, yet here he demonstrates knowledge of Jesus' use of the "cup" as a maledictory metaphor. This could give us yet a fourth independent witness to Jesus' understanding that he must endure a certain measure of divine wrath.

In sum, the Synoptic narratives likely betray the usage of two separate sources for the Gethsemane pericope. Additionally, a third source (perhaps an early Christian hymn reflecting on the Gethsemane event) is probably reflected in the epistle to the Hebrews, while a fourth source from John 18:11 gives us yet another glimpse of Jesus' belief that he must drink the "cup of divine wrath". If the postulation that there was an early Christian hymn is correct, and that it was constructed through reflection not only on the knowledge of Jesus' actual prayers during his passion, but also through the adoption of motifs found in the Psalms, it is likely that this source is later than the traditions underlying the Gethsemane narratives themselves. While the former contains some post-Easter reflections (such as the allusion to Jesus being saved from death), there is no obvious implication of this found in the latter. The absence of OT motifs (other than perhaps Jesus' vague reference to the will of the Father being accomplished) in the Gethsemane narratives (as opposed to the hymn) supports this assertion. This also amplifies the possibility that the traditions of Gethsemane in the Synoptics are very old.

Besides multiple attestation, and the likely antiquity of the traditions, we can appeal to at least two factors which lend further support to the historicity of the core narrative based on the "criterion of embarrassment". First, it is unlikely that the early church would fabricate the story of the disciples' falling asleep and thus failing to keep watch as Jesus had instructed them, particularly during one of his most agonizing moments. This would obviously not reflect well upon three of the most important key pillars of the early church. Perhaps the strongest indicator of historicity in this narrative, however, is the mental and physical anguish that Jesus underwent as "the hour" approached. It is especially unfeasible to assert that Jesus' prayers for the circumvention of the events of his impending passion would have been invented by the early church, since it was these very events that served as most of its core theology (i.e. the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus). Raymond Brown contrasts this episode in the life of Jesus with contemporary accounts of Jewish martyrs, such as the Maccabean martyrs and Eleazar (II Macc 6:19-20, 28), along with some examples recorded by Josephus (War 1:33.3; #653; 2.8.10; #153; 7.10.1; #417-18), which indicate that they went to their deaths without reluctance (R. Brown 1994; 217-218). Brown also writes that this episode served as a target of derision to a prominent ancient pagan critic of Christianity:

We have an ancient example of the treatment of Gethsemane as a mark against Jesus in Celsus, a learned pagan of ca. AD 170 who had Jewish sources and whose work against Christianity was refuted by Origen. We hear objections like these: How can one who is divine "mourn and lament and pray to escape the fear of death, expresing himself thus, 'O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me'?" (Contra Celsum 2.24). How can he "be deserted and delivered up by those who had beeen his associates and with whom he had shared all things in common?" (2.9). Why was he caught hiding; and if he foresaw that such things would happen to him, why did he not avoid them? (2.9,17). (ibid. 218)

The last of the objections by Celsus is a simple one to answer, and that is that Jesus also saw it as his divinely-ordained mission to suffer an atoning death, and be subsequently vindicated (as we argue in other sections of this article). Nevertheless, the objections of Celsus emphatically demonstrate the Christological difficulties that this episode poses, as well as the weakness of the disciples. The historicity of this episode in the life of the historical Jesus thus rests upon an unshakeable foundation (for the problem of how the disciples could have heard Jesus' prayer see here).

From this passage we learn that Jesus anticipated undergoing, as part of his mission, a measure of divine wrath. We have seen from Old Testament references that the "cup" of divine wrath, while sometimes implying total destruction, at other times indicates that the "cup" could be removed or transferred (as in the case of Isaiah 51:17-23). From this narrative alone, it is difficult to determine which Jesus had in mind here, though Bayer states "The very fact that Jesus addresses God as his Father (Mk 14:36) suggests that while he is judged as the unrighteous, he is vindicated as the righteous one (cf Ps 11.6.7)." (Bayer 1986; 77) The fact that Jesus elsewhere refers to his own vindication (as we establish in other sections of this article) also supports the view of transference. It is probable that, in light of Jesus' belief in the atoning significance of his death (see Section IV), he saw his death as opening the way of salvation for many, while in light of his pronouncements of judgment against Jerusalem (see esp. Mark 13 and par.), the transference of divine judgment from him would be unleashed on those responsible for rejecting the Son of God. This is, of course, similar to Isaiah 51:17-23, where divine judgment falls on God's chosen people at the hands of foreign powers, but finally this "cup" is transferred to those foreign powers.

Section III: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants

"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. "The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said. "But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." (Matthew 21:33-43)

The "Parable of the Wicked Tenants" is found in each of the three Synoptic Gospels as well as in the Gospel of Thomas. While there are some differences among the various versions [11], the core of each version is essentially the same, with a landowner planting a vineyard, renting it to farmers, sending a parade of servants to collect the harvest, which are beaten or killed by the farmers, and finally sending his son who is also killed by the farmers. Each of the Synoptic evangelists also place Jesus' telling of this parable to the questioning Jewish authorities shortly after Jesus' cleansing of the Temple. Our primary concern here is to evaluate the historicity of Jesus' telling of this parable. Those wishing to take an in-depth look at this parable regarding such issues as the parable's cultural setting, which version of the four found in the Synoptics and Thomas likely is the most primitive, and how all of the various elements are to be properly interpreted should consult "The Parable of the Wicked Tenants" by Klyne Snodgrass. For our purposes, we will only refer to Snodgrass's evaluation of historicity.

Historically, perhaps the most widely argued obstacle to the authenticity of this parable is the claim that this parable falls more into the category of "allegory" rather than "parable" due to the various metaphorical associations contained therein, such as that of the vineyard owner, the vineyard itself, and the servants. It has been argued by previous scholars that allegorizing was a common tendency of the post-Easter church whereas it was not a common practice utilized by the historical Jesus. Snodgrass writes:

Jülicher combated this perversion by denying that Jesus used allegory or even allegorical traits. Where these are found, the evangelists are to blame. According to Jülicher, the parables are simple and straightforward comparisons that do not require interpretation. There can be no question of several points of comparison between the imagery and the idea, for parables illustrate only a single point of contact between the two. Allegory, in contrast to the authentic speech of the parable, is inauthentic speech in that it means other than the actual meaning of the words. The allegory is an artificial figure, and for this reason it is unlikely that Jesus used it. (Snodgrass 1983; 14)

In response, Snodgrass demonstrates that the line drawn by Jülicher between "parable" and "allegory" is too artificial, and that it ignores the evidence that this parable of Jesus took on the same form as those parables found in the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah 5; II Samuel 12,1f.) as well as in rabbinic parables. Snodgrass even lists two rabbinic parables that are similar to the "Parable of the Wicked Tenants":

1. This is to be compared to a king who had a field and he gave it to tenants. The tenants began stealing it. He (the king) took it from them and gave it to their sons. They turned out to be worse than their predecessors. He took it from their sons and gave it to their grandchildren. They, in turn, were worse than their antecedents. A son was born to him (the king). He said to them (the tenants), 'Go forth from the midst of that which belongs to me. It is not my wish that you be in its midst. Give me my portion that I may make it known as my own.' (SDt. 32, 9 § 312 (134b)) [Cited from Snodgrass 1983; 25]

2. Like a king who had a small son; also he had a possession. The king wished to move to a foreign land. He spoke to a tenant; he should guard the possession and enjoy its produce until his son should wish it to be delivered to him. When the son of the king was grown, he claimed the possession. Immediately the tenant began to cry woe! Even so when the Israelites lived in Egypt, the Canaanites lived in the land of Israel and guarded it and ate its fruit; but when they heard that the Israelites had come out of Egypt, they began to cry woe! (Tanch B nuic 7 (29a), S-B, I, 874f.) [Cited from ibid. 25-26]

Consider also the following comments from Philip Barton Payne:

Jülicher's definition of parable came straight from Aristotle, allowing only one point to a picture; but it must be considered improbable that Jesus formed His parables after Aristotle's rules. Even in classical writing the precise distinctions of Aristotle's rhetoric were by no means always followed. Quintilian said that allegory was popular and understood by even simple people (Instit. Orat. VIII,1,51) and the most beautiful genre of discourse is that which mixed the qualities of similitude, allegory, and metaphor (Instit. Orat. VIII,6,48-49). In fact, Jülicher contradicted his own sharp dichotomy between authentic parable and inauthentic allegory by an example he cited, the allegory of Ebrard, Cheirisophos' Reise durch Böoten. It is interesting both for the one who takes it as a literal description of Boetia in the year 400 B.C. and the one who recognizes it as a commentary on Bavaria /23/…

The rabbis made no distinction in category between comparison, common saying, parable, allegory, riddle, and mixed form /25/…

…It became more and more recognized that there were various degrees of allegory and that a mixing of parable and allegory was entirely appropriate in the Semitic world /29/. A growing number of scholars have affirmed that Jesus did use allegory /30/. (Payne 2003; 335-336)

Payne goes on further to argue that, contrary to the arguments of many, the Gospel evidence indicates that Jesus did in fact utilize allegorical elements in his parables:

In fact, the evidence from the gospels supports the view that Jesus used allegorical elements in His parables freely and that allegorical features in the gospels should not be held in automatic suspicion. The highest degree of allegory is found, not in the latest gospels to be written, as one would expect if the church had gradually allegorized the parables, but rather in the earliest gospels, Mark and Matthew. Luke has far fewer allegorical elements and the Gospel of Thomas the least of all. The earliest evidence we have shows the parables to contain various degrees of allegorical elements. Even Jeremias, who is of the opinion that 'the allegorical interpretations can be recognized as almost certainly secondary' /37/, has to admit the 'strange result: the discourse-material in Matthew and Luke, the Markan material, the special Matthean material, the gospel as we have it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all contain allegorical interpretations, but the Lucan special material and the Gospel of Thomas have none' /38/. (ibid. 2003; 337)

As far as the "Parable of the Wicked Tenants" is concerned, Bayer argues further that the allegorical features contained therein are detectable in the parable's most primitive form (see Bayer 1986; 93-95). We'll consider the one particular ("allegorical") reference that is of most acute concern for us here. Bayer writes in regards to this:

Regarding 1): Steck, among other scholars, has argued that the reference to the '(beloved) son' may reflect a Hellenistic Son of God Christology²¹. Based on Dodd's argumentation²², Hengel argues, however, that the reference to the '(beloved) son' (Mk 12:6)²³ may very well reflect earlier tradition since the introduction of the 'son' in the parable follows naturally after the repeated sending of the servants²⁴. Furthermore, Snodgrass has rightly stressed that 1 QSa 2:11-22 and 4 QFlor illustrate the fact that 'Son of God' was interpreted Messianically in pre-Christian Judaism²⁵. (Bayer 1986; 94; for more on the title 'Son of God' in regards to pre-Christian Jewish Messianic expectation, see Collins 1995; 154-172)

It is likely that OT passages such as 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2 contributed to the attribution of this title to the Messiah in Jewish circles. Moreover, it is historically likely and accepted by most scholars that Jesus understood himself to be God's "son" in some special sense of the term. This issue is beyond the scope of this article, so we can only give a couple of examples in cursory-fashion. That Jesus understood himself as the "Son of God" in some sense is supported by noting, for instance, that the saying of Jesus in Mark 13:32 (where Jesus identifies himself as the "Son") is widely accepted to be authentic since it is unlikely that the church would have invented a saying about Jesus' not knowing the time of the parousia. Another passage where Jesus refers to his unique Sonship is found in Matthew 11:27:

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Witherington notes that this is part of Jesus' use of the Jewish Wisdom Tradition as it parallels the following statement found in Wisdom 2:13-16:

He claims to have a knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of the Lord…and boasts of having God for his father"

Given the very Jewish nature of the Wisdom Tradition, as well as the solid body of evidence that exists which supports the assertion that Jesus saw himself in this light (see the above link), the saying in Matt. 11:27 (par. Luke 10:22) has a solid claim to authenticity (Witherington 1990; 222-223; see the whole discussion in ibid. 221-228 for a more in-depth treatment).

In addition to these considerations, the "Parable of the Wicked Tenants" itself, as well as the historical context in which it was stated, lends credibility to the fact that Jesus was referring to himself as the "Son" in the parable. Given that the surrounding historical narratives, such as the episodes of Gethsemane and the Last Supper, where Jesus was anticipating his death, as well as the fact that Jesus understood himself to be preaching an important message of eschatological judgment to his countrymen (which fits well as a parallel with the nature and purpose of the parable), it is most plausible to suggest that Jesus was here again referring to his own impending death at the hands of the Jewish authorities.

Thus the objection to the authenticity of this parable on the basis of allegory is unfounded (See Snodgrass 1983; 13-26 for further discussion on this topic). As for positive indicators of historicity of the core tradition of the parable, Snodgrass lists the following:

1) In the New Testament the method of teaching in parables is confined to the earthly Jesus. The early Church dropped the parabolic form and spoke openly and propositionally.

2) This parable is hardly the work of a group. While there have been later additions, the basic form of the parable stems from an expert in parable construction. Indeed, it is one of the most artistic of the parables with its reversal and the force with which it makes its point. In the context of Jesus' life, the parable is as forceful and powerful as any. Placed, however, in the later context of the early Church after the events of the cross and resurrection, it is rather limp and without force. The speech of Peter in Acts 4, 10-12 reveals how the church used Psalm 118.22 with force.

3) The introductory formula to the quotation uses ανεγνωτε which occurs only on the lips of Jesus.

4) The images of the son and judgment, particularly in the Matthean account, are too imprecise to be vaticinia ex eventu. Even with the citation of Psalm 118.22, there is nothing on the significance of the death of Jesus and the all important reference to the resurrection is missing. If this were an early Church product, some reference to both would have been included.

5) The slant of the parable against the Jewish leaders rather than the nation as a whole (or the unbelieving element) is more in keeping with Jesus' message than that of the Church.

6) Most important is that the message of the parable, the wordplay, and the place of Psalm 118.22 in the passion predictions and the lament over Jerusalem and its connections with the title 'Son of Man' are much too complex and subtle to be accidental or the work of a 'creative community.' One would have to assume a rather deliberate and highly sophisticated endeavor to accept that these nuances are the work of the community. (Snodgrass 1983; 108-109)

N.T. Wright lists his reasons for accepting the parable as an authentic parable of Jesus, containing some overlap with Snodgrass, as follows:

As with so much of this material, it is open to anyone to object that the parable has been written up ex post facto, and that Jesus could not have told a story about himself, even cryptically, which ended this way. I reply (1) that this begs the question; (2) that the story fits so well with so many strands of Jesus' work and prophetic self-understanding that it is hardly straining historical credibility to ascribe it to him; (3) that the death of the son is not an addition, bolted on to the story from the outside, but belongs at its very climax; (4) that what may be the earliest version, that of Mark, does not have the son being first cast out of the vineyard and then killed (as Matthew does, reflecting perhaps later Christian awareness of Jesus being taken out of the city and then crucified), but rather the reverse, which can hardly be regarded as a Christian retrojection; and (5) that the parable is remarkably free of any later Christian atonement-theology, focusing instead on the close connection between the death of the son and the destruction of the vineyard. I conclude that the prophetic narrative symbolism of this parable belongs to Jesus' awareness that his challenge to the Temple would result in his own death, as the guardians of Israel's traditions refused to respond to the message which he (of course) believed was from YHWH himself. (Wright 1996; 566)

So what can we say about the authenticity of the appendix to the parable where Psalm118:22 is quoted (besides what is listed in the summary of Snodgrass we provided above)? While the authenticity of the parable itself is widely regarded (even in some highly liberal circles like the Jesus Seminar), historically the appendix has been widely disregarded as a secondary addition, resulting from the church's desire to add a reference to Jesus' vindication from death. Bayer disagrees, however:

We must stress, however, that there exists no source or tradition which omits the citation of Ps 118:22 or places the citation other than directly following the parable. Nothing speaks against the pre-Markan provenance of Mk 12:10(f?) since according to Acts 4:9-11, Ps 118:22 was known and used Messianically in the early Palestinian Jewish Christian church…Furthermore, a comparison between Mk 12:1-10 and Acts 4:8-11 reveals that Ps 118:22 is cited in Acts 4:11 as a direct and overt identification of the Jewish leaders as the 'builders' of Ps 118:22 (note the addition of υμων in the citation of Ps 118:22 in Acts 4:11). In Mk 12:10, however, the subtle hint lies in the correlation between the tenants of the parable and the builders in Ps 118:22. Mk 12:10 exhibits therefore an enigmatic, suggestive use of Ps 118:22, whereas Acts 4:11 employs Ps 118:22 in explicit terms. (Bayer 1986; 100-104; emphasis added)

There is also a Semitic wordplay, or paronomasia, found between the word "stone" in the Psalm 118:22 quote and the word "son" in the actual parable. N. T. Wright elaborates:

In case it may be thought that the interpretative thread has now been stretched beyond breaking point, we may note finally that the 'stone' is in fact also closely linked with the 'son' of the parable. The Aramaic for 'stone' in Daniel 2 is 'eben' (the word is the same in Hebrew); the normal Hebrew for 'son', as for instance in 2 Samuel 7, is 'ben'. It did not take much skill in biblical interpretation for the pun to be observed and exploited. (Wright 1996; 501)

Such a connection also apparently has precedent in the inter-testamental literature:

Cf. 4 Ezra 13.36f., 52: the 'mountain carved out without hands' is a clear reference to Dan. 2.34, and is immediately linked with the Messiah, described as 'my Son', and referred to in terms of Ps. 2. The son/stone pun is presumably one explanation for the various messianic interpretations of Daniel's 'stone' in the rabbis (above, n.83). The oblique reference to Dan. 2, seen in the light of the subsequent Danielic references in Mk 13.25 par., 14.62., seems to belong with the messianic reading of the 'son of man' in Dan. 7,…(ibid. 501, n. 85; for a more technical discussion on this issue see Snodgrass 1983; 113-118)

Bayer states that such wordplays are also attested in the OT in such places as Exodus 28:9f, Joshua 4:6ff.20f, I Kings 18:31, Lamentations 4:1f, Isaiah 54:11ff, and Zechariah 9:16 (Bayer 1986; 105). He also adds 5 further arguments which support the authenticity of this quotation at the end of the parable:

To these two significant factors, we add the following observations in support of our argument: 1) The Semitic, introductory phrase 'can it be that you have never read this text' appears to be a typical way in which Jesus refers to the OT (cf Mk 2:25, 12:26.35). 2) Parts of Ps 118 were most likely recited by Jesus subsequent to the Last Supper (Mk 14:26). This probability together with the Messianic interpretation of Ps 118:22 in Rabbinic traditions supports an early provenance of the citation following the parable. 3) We submit below that Mk 8:31 conveys the concept of the rejection by the Jewish rulers in a pre-Markan tradition which includes, but is not limited to, an allusion to Ps 118:22. Based on our arguments in Chapter VI, Mk 8:31 may be an early Palestinian Jewish Christian tradition which is independent from - yet parallel to - the reference to Jesus' rejection by the Jewish rulers in Mk 12:10. 4) Gundry submits that it is not uncommon to find the metaphors of farming and building side by side [Bayer here references Gundry, Matthew, 429, where the latter refers to Je 1:10; 1 QS 8, 5; 1 Cor 3:9; Col 2:7]. 5) Pedersen argues that the legitimizations of divine messengers in the first and second century AD exhibit the common element of referring to the OT to justify their mission.

In light of this cumulative evidence we conclude that Ps 118:22 in Mk 12:10 is an authentic polemical explanation which identifies the wicked husbandmen ('tenants') as the rulers of Jerusalem. (ibid. 105-106; words in [] added)

Wright states that this psalm was "clearly designed to be sung by pilgrims going to the Temple", and at verses 19-27 "it is all about building the Temple, celebrating in the Temple, and ultimately sacrificing in the Temple." (Wright 1996; 498) This saying of Jesus would thus fit in well with the historical context of the Temple-cleansing occurring at no less a significant time as that of a major festival (i.e. Passover). Wright further notes:

We should not forget, either, that processing into Jerusalem singing songs of praise was as much a 'political' as a 'religious' act. It was what the Maccabees had done after their victories, and their example was followed by those who won the remarkable early victory against the Romans in AD 66⁷³. (ibid. 498-499)

To all of the above arguments it may be added that, if it was the post-Easter church's intent to falsely attribute to Jesus a declaration of his impending resurrection, they didn't do a very good job of it. While the quotation of Psalm 118:22 seems to clearly hint at vindication, such is only implicit. Furthermore, the nature of this upcoming vindication cannot at all be deciphered from the mere reference to the Psalm by itself. We'd expect a post-Easter invention to be much more explicit than this. N. T. Wright concludes regarding the matter:

The complex riddle comes full circle. The prophetic story of the rejected servants climaxes in the rejected son; he, however, is the messianic stone which, rejected by the builders, takes the chief place in the building. Those who oppose him will find their regime (and their Temple) destroyed, while his kingdom will be established. The psalm text indicates, cryptically, what will later become clear: when the owner of the vineyard acts against the wicked tenants, the son will be vindicated. The whole picture serves as a further, and richer, explanation of what Jesus had been doing in the Temple, and why. I submit that such an essentially elegant and yet richly textured explanation is far more likely to go back to Jesus - who, after all, had long planned and meditated his climactic symbolic action - than to any subsequent writer or thinker⁸⁶.

[86] Indeed, had a subsequent writer been inclined to 'touch up' the parable, we might well have expected that, among other things, the 'son' would be vindicated more explicitly. (ibid. 501)

So, from this parable we discover that Jesus believed that, along with a host of previous prophets that had come before him, he would be killed by the Jews (i.e. tenants), and that he believed himself to be the final and most important of all of these prophets. Moreover, from the appendix to the parable where Psalm 118:22 is quoted, we can conclude that Jesus expected some sort of vindication which entailed him becoming a very prominent figure in God's eschatological plan [12].

Section IV: The Eucharist

Another significant episode in the life of Jesus, occurring on the eve of the crucifixion, is the Last Supper, or Eucharist. Here are the four New Testament sources:

When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me-one who is eating with me." They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely not I?" "It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it