Historical Jesus - Lesson 8

Dr. Mark Strauss
Historical Jesus
nt315-08
Jesus Did Die
Lesson Transcript

Welcome back to our study of the historical Jesus. In this session, we're going to focus on the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death, including the events leading up to it and how Jesus viewed his own death. Did he anticipate it? Did he conceive of it as having saving significance?

Much of the scholarship on Jesus' death relates to the question of who was responsible for the crucifixion. Historically, the primary responsibility has been placed on the Jews and their leaders in Jerusalem. Through the ages, this has often resulted in horrific antisemitism, persecution, and violence against Jews. The more recent tendency is to shift the blame to the Romans. Crucifixion, after all, was a Roman method of execution. It is said that the Jews were increasingly made scapegoats as Christianity broke away from its Jewish roots and sought to curry favor with the Roman authorities. Most contemporary scholars today would acknowledge that there is not an either/or answer to this question, and that both Jewish and Roman authorities were likely involved in Jesus' arrest and execution.

As just noted, Jesus was crucified, a Roman rather than a Jewish method of execution. Stoning was more common in Judaism. Furthermore, there is good evidence that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not have authority to carry out a capital sentence, as noted in John 18:31. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, almost certainly gave orders for Jesus's crucifixion, and Roman soldiers carried it out. On the other hand, everything we know about Jesus' teaching and actions suggests he was a much greater threat to the Jewish religious leaders than to the Roman authorities. We've seen this in actions like the triumphal entry and the clearing of the temple. Since Jesus was not a political revolutionary, it seems unlikely that the Romans would've initiated action against him unless the Jewish authorities had encouraged them to do so. Let's look first at Pilate and the Romans, and then the Jewish religious leaders.

As we've noted, the evidence indicates that Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition or insurrection. Strong evidence for this is the titleist or the plaque on the cross announcing that Jesus was king of the Jews. Furthermore, all four gospels report that Jesus was crucified between two robbers or criminals, Roman terms used for revolutionaries. A third insurrectionist, Barabbas, was released in Jesus's place. All this fit well the accusation of the religious leaders in Luke 23:2, where they say, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king."

While this confirms the charge against Jesus, it's still baffling, since Jesus had almost nothing in common with other rebels and insurrectionists of his day. He called for love for enemies and he called for kindness toward those who oppress you. He acknowledged the legitimacy of paying taxes to Caesar. At his arrest, he ordered the disciples to put away their swords. These are not the actions of an insurrectionist. Why, then, would Pilate order Jesus to be crucified? We know from the Jewish historian Josephus and other writers that Pilate's governorship was characterized by corruption, brutal suppression of dissent, and a general disdain for the Jewish people. At the same time, Pilate's support from Rome was shaky at best. On several occasions, Pilate got into trouble by antagonizing the Jewish leadership who complained to the emperor in Rome.

While likely viewing Jesus as innocent or at least as harmless, it was much easier for Pilate to order the execution of an obscure and powerless Jewish peasant like Jesus than to face the backlash of the powerful religious leaders. From the perspective of the Jewish leadership, Jesus would've been viewed as a nuisance and at times as a dangerous threat. During his Galilean ministry, Jesus was opposed primarily by the Pharisees and their scribes, whose center of authority was in the synagogue communities. This conflict focused especially on Jesus' teaching and actions related to the Jewish law. He treated the Sabbath command as secondary to human needs, and accused the Pharisees of elevating their oral traditions over the commands of God. He also accused them of pride, hypocrisy, and corruption.

While Jesus was in conflict with the scribes and Pharisees during his Galilean ministry, the greatest threat to his life came when he challenged the powerful temple leadership in Jerusalem. As we noted previously, Jesus' actions against the temple, the center of Israel's religious establishment, likely provoked the Jewish authorities to act against him. In Mark's account of Jesus' Jewish trial, false prophets, witnesses are brought forward to testify. We heard him say, "I will destroy this temple made with human hands, and in three days we'll build another not made with hands." To squabble with rabbis in Galilee over the interpretation of the law was one thing. To threaten to destroy Israel's sacred temple was quite another.

Some have denied the historicity of Jesus' trial as described in the gospels, claiming it violates Jewish trial procedures. The Jewish Mishnah, the earliest interpretation of Jewish law, states that it is illegal for the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, to meet at night, to meet on the eve of Passover, or to meet in the high priest's home, all of which happens in Jesus' trial. Also, a second hearing would've been necessary for a death sentence. A charge of blasphemy could be sustained only if Jesus had uttered the divine name of God.

But, this accusation against the gospel accounts is not decisive for several reasons. First, the Mishnah was not put in writing until AD 200, 170 years after Jesus' crucifixion. These regulations may not go back to the time of Jesus. But even if they do, they represent an ideal situation. Indeed, the very existence of such guidelines suggest there were problems at trials in the past. Abuses like these at Jesus' trial would've been the kind of violations that prompted these reforms that we see in the Mishnah.

On closer inspection, Mark's trial account makes good sense when viewed in the context of Jesus's ministry. Jesus's temple action would naturally have prompted the high priest to ask if he was making a messianic claim. Jesus' response is, "I am, and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming on the clouds of heaven." This response combines two key Old Testament passages, Psalm 1101 and Daniel 7:13. The first indicates that Jesus will be vindicated by God and exalted to a position at his right hand. The second suggests Jesus will receive sovereign authority to judge the enemies of God. By combining these verses, Jesus asserts that the Sanhedrin is acting against the Lord's anointed, that they will face judgment for this and that Jesus himself will be their judge. Such an outrageous claim would naturally have been viewed as blasphemy to the Jewish leadership, who consider themselves to be God's appointed guardians of his holy temple. Such a challenge demanded a response.

There are also political factors to consider. Jesus' actions in the temple confirmed for the leaders that Jesus was capable of violent opposition, and a disturbance of the peace might bring Roman retribution. The earlier words of the Pharisees and the chief priests in John are plausible in this scenario. In John 11:48, they say, "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." The Sanhedrin therefore turn Jesus over to Pilate, modifying their religious charge to a political one, claiming to be a king in opposition to Caesar. They gain from Pilate a capital sentence.

From the external factors that provoke Jesus's death, we turn next to Jesus' own perspective and intention. Did Jesus expect to die? Did he intend to? If so, how did he view his own death? According to the synoptic gospels, from Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi onward, Jesus warned his disciples of his coming death. Three times he predicts that the son of man would suffer and die and then rise again. Those are in Mark 8, Mark 9, and Mark 10. Some have suggested that these so-called passion predictions were prophecies created after the fact by the church, since Jesus could not have predicted his own death. Yet, there is good evidence for their historicity.

First, Jesus uses the title Son of Man in these statements, which is characteristic of the historical Jesus rather than the later church. Second, there's no reference to the cross in these passion predictions, and very little atonement theology expressed in them. Surely, if the church invented these sayings, they would've included much more on the significance of Jesus' death. Yet, even from a purely human perspective, Jesus would likely have foreseen his coming fate. Evidence for this is that in his conflict with the religious leaders, Jesus often spoke of the persecution and murder of the Old Testament prophets, and he identified himself with these prophets.

In the Nazareth synagogue in Luke 4, Jesus says that no prophet is accepted in his hometown, and later affirms that he's heading to Jerusalem to die. Luke 13:33 reads, "I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day, for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem." The early church is unlikely to invent its sayings that refer to Jesus as a prophet since they prefer exalted titles like Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. In summary, it's safe to conclude that Jesus viewed himself as a prophet and expected the fate that often came to the prophets, persecution and even death.

If Jesus expected his own death, what significance did he give to it? The most important evidence for this comes from two key passages. First is the Last Supper narrative, and second is the ransom saying in Mark 10:45. Let's look at both of these. The so-called eucharistic words of Jesus at the Last Supper have a strong claim to authenticity. In about AD 55, Paul wrote to the church in Corinth. It's in First Corinthians, chapter 11. He says, "For I receive from the Lord what I also passed on to you. The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way after supper, he took the cups saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this whenever you drink it in remembrance of me.'"

First Corinthians 11:23 to 25, Paul claims to receive this tradition from those who were believers before him. Since Paul's conversion occurred just a few years after Jesus' death about AD 35, this eucharistic tradition must be very early. Further evidence that these words go back to the historical Jesus is their multiple attestation in Luke 22, and in slightly different form in Mark and in Matthew. The significance of Jesus's words are to be found in three closely related Jewish symbols, Passover, exodus, and covenant. The synoptic gospels explicitly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal.

The original Passover and the exodus that followed represented God's greatest act of deliverance in the Hebrew scriptures, and the creation of Israel as a nation. With his mighty power, Yahweh defeated Pharaoh with 10 plagues, delivered his people through the sacrificial blood of the Passover lamb, and brought them out of slavery in Egypt. Giving them his law at Mount Sinai, he established a covenant relationship with them. When Israel was oppressed and exiled, the prophets predicted that one day the Lord would return to Zion to accomplish a new and greater exodus. See, for example, Isaiah 11:11 through 16, Isaiah 35:1 through 10, and Isaiah 40 verses 1 to 5.

Jesus' eucharistic words at the Last Supper recall and transform the rich symbols of Passover, announcing the arrival of a new exodus and a new covenant. The unleavened bread of the Passover meal now represents Jesus's body given for his disciples. The implication is that he is the new Passover lamb, something Paul expressly calls him in First Corinthians 5:7. The Passover wine represents the blood of the new covenant. Jesus' words in Mark 14:24, "This is my blood of the covenant." Echo Exodus 24:8, where a blood sacrifice sealed the first covenant.

In Luke 22 and in First Corinthians 11, Jesus explicitly speaks of the new covenant, a clear allusion to Jeremiah 31 and the eschatological promise of the forgiveness of sins and a personal knowledge of God. Jesus' words at the Last Supper thus fit well his preaching about the kingdom of God and the dawn of the new age. Jesus inaugurates a new Passover meal, celebrating the new covenant and the arrival of the kingdom of God. While the first covenant was instituted with the blood of sacrificial animals, this new covenant will be established through his own blood.

Another Old Testament allusion in Jesus' eucharistic words takes us further toward Jesus' understanding of his death. Jesus speaks of my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. The phrase poured out for many probably alludes to Isaiah 53 verses 11 and 12, where the servant of the Lord will justify many and bore the sin of many. If this allusion is present, as seems likely, Jesus identifying himself as Isaiah's suffering servant and interpreting his coming death as a sacrifice or atonement for the sins of his people. This self-understanding finds support in our second key passage, the ransom saying of Mark 10:45. "After calling his disciples to a life of servant leadership, Jesus concludes, 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 10:45. The term ransom or redemption means a price paid to set someone like a slave or a prisoner of war, free.

The preposition for is the Greek "anti", which normally carries a sense instead of or in place of. Jesus thus interprets his death as a substitutionary death for his people. The term many does not mean some, but not all, but contrasts the one who dies with the many who will be saved. What, then, is the most likely background to Jesus' words in Mark 10:45? The idea of a righteous man dying a martyr's death for the sins of others appears in some Jewish writings of Jesus' day. In the apocryphal book of 4 Maccabees, for example, the martyr Eleazar prays that God would be merciful to his people who have broken the law and identifies his death as a sacrifice for them. While this idea is possible, a much closer parallel is found in the description of the suffering servant in Isaiah 52 and 53.

Isaiah 53:5 and 6 reads, "But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on 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." Later in verses 11 and 12, the prophet says, "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 onto death and was numbered with the transgressors, for he bore the sins of many and made intercession for the transgressors."

If this represents Jesus' view, we may conclude that it is likely that Jesus not only foresaw his death, but moved to make it happen. Interpreting it in light of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, a sacrificial act of atonement for the sins of his people. Having looked at the significance of Jesus' death, in our next and final session we'll examine the historical evidence for the resurrection, the vindication of Jesus's person and his work.