Читать книгу The Self-Donation of God - Jack D. Kilcrease - Страница 9

The Christology of the Gospels

Introduction

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. He is the true mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5). He is the one who finally brought an end to universal exile brought by the fall of our first parents. This theme of exile and return, which we have traced throughout the Old Testament, will be important in our treatment of how the New Testament authors understood Jesus’s atoning work as the final end to the universal exile of creation from its creator God. This would take the form of the return of divine presence, renewal of creation, and fulfillment of the law through eschatological judgment. In order to reverse the state of universal exile, we will observe that Jesus is God’s own self-donation and entry into the story of Israel and humanity. As we saw in the previous chapters, God in his faithfulness elected mediators in the Old Testament period in order to fulfill the law and thereby represent himself in faithfulness to Israel. Mediators also served as an embodiment of Israel remaining faithful to him. Jesus is the true prophet, priest, and king, who fulfills God’s own faithfulness by coming in the flesh. As an ultimate fulfillment of his faithfulness, God literally gives himself to Israel by donating his person to them. From within our nature, God finally wins a victory over sin, death, the devil, and the law, thereby enacting a true and everlasting testament of his love.

The Synoptic Gospels: Mark

In discussing the Synoptic Gospels, we will begin first with the shortest gospel, Mark.221 Mark’s gospel works from an alternating pattern of humiliation and exaltation. It is a book of glory and of the hiddenness of glory sub contrario. In it, Jesus is the divine Son of God, the Son of Man, and the divine kavod come in the flesh to fulfill the pattern of exile and return prefigured in the history of Israel. He thereby forgives sins, renews creation, and overcomes demonic forces.

Mark begins his gospel with glory, by announcing his intention of informing his audience of the “Gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). In that Jesus brings a “gospel,” he must necessarily be divine, for as Ben Witherington III comments:

Only a god is really able to bring world-changing and lasting good news and benefaction and hope. Mark, then, from the outset, is announcing not merely a coming of a teacher or even just a human messianic figure (though that is part of the truth), but the epiphany or advent of a deity who will reveal himself in various and sundry ways during his time on earth.222

There are other indications of Jesus’s divine glory throughout the gospel. Simon Gathercole has pointed to Jesus’s citation of Psalm 110 in his question concerning whether the Messiah is David’s Son or David’s Lord (Mark 12:35–37). Though the Hebrew of Psalm 110:3 is notoriously difficult to translate, the LXX version of the text reads: “With you is the rule on the day of your power, in the radiance of your holy ones; From the womb, before the morning star, I gave you birth.”223 Read in light of the rest of the gospel, this definitely points to the divinity and preexistence of Jesus. Doubtless Mark’s original readers would have read it this way, since they were probably most familiar with the LXX.

Martin Hengel has also suggested that Mark’s use of Isaiah in 1:2–3 (“I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way”) is highly suggestive of an inter-Trinitarian conversation before Jesus’s earthly advent.224 It should be noted that read against the background of Second Temple Jewish expectations of YHWH’s return to Zion, Mark’s use of the verse, “a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him,’” seems to suggest that he is indicating Jesus has come to fulfill that expectation.225

As a book of glory, Mark also emphasizes Jesus’s role as the “Son of Man.”226 The Son of Man was understood by at least some of the Second Temple Jews to be the cosmic judge who would come at the end of time (for example in 1 Enoch 61–62, 64). As the cosmic judge, the Son of Man takes on the role held by the priests within the Levitical cult: “You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” (Lev 10:10, also see 11:47). Because Jesus is the true advent of this figure, Mark indicates that he has the power to forgive sins on earth in the present (Mark 2:10) and will serve as the judge of humanity at the eschaton (13). Jesus makes his judgment available ahead of time to those who have received his word of forgiveness with faith.

Mark’s glorification of Jesus in the first verses of his gospel is followed by his description of Jesus’s entry into humiliation. Jesus goes to the Jordan and is baptized with sinners, thereby identifying himself with them. Being indistinguishable from the mass of sinful humanity, Jesus’s glory is revealed when his Father testifies to it: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (1:11). Mark tells us that the heavens are “torn open” (schizomenous) and the Spirit in the form of a dove descends upon him. The violence of the term schizomenous seems to indicate the disruption of the normal structure of reality that had held sway in the Old Testament. God in his holiness had segregated himself from sinners in the tabernacle/temple. In the person of Jesus, he now identifies with them.

The Father’s pronouncement of sonship echoes the royal Psalm 2, which designates the Israelite king as God’s Son and promises him the nations as his inheritance.227 Predictably, the revelation of this glory is followed by humiliation. Jesus is “driven out” (ekballei) into the wilderness (Mark 1:10, 12). The use of ekballei is particularly harsh. Elsewhere, Mark uses it to describe what happens to demons during exorcisms (1:39). Jesus, having identified with sinners, is now an object of condemnation much like demonic forces of the old creation that he is charged by the Father to destroy.

This opening sequence of alternation between humiliation and glory is repeated throughout the rest of the gospel. In fact, following this pattern S. Moyter has argued that there is an intentional literary inculsio that brackets the whole of the gospel.228 The inclusio commences at Jesus’s baptism (1:9–11) and ends at his death on the cross (15:36–39).229 At Jesus’s baptism, John is mentioned in connection to Elijah, the heavens are ripped open, and he is designated as the Son of God by the Father’s voice. At his crucifixion, there is a mention of Elijah (15:35), the rending of the veil of the temple (the same Greek word is used), and a voice designating Jesus as the Son of God is heard, this time coming from the Centurion.230 The inclusio that Moyter suggests seems to correspond well to what appears to be an intentional structural division in the book. The first half of the gospel is primarily concerned with Jesus’s glory (hidden though it often is) and therefore culminates in the transfiguration. Conversely, the second half is primarily concerned with Jesus’s abandonment and humiliation. For this reason, it fittingly culminates in his crucifixion.

After Jesus’s return from the wilderness, he engages in a series of deeds of power. He heals, works exorcisms, and forgives sins. He is the mighty one who has come to bind the strong man (Satan) and plunder his goods (3:23–29). This narrative of Jesus’s power culminates in the direct revelation of his glory in the transfiguration on Mount Tabor. In this event, Jesus reveals himself to be the hypostatized kavod that was encountered in the Old Testament by Israel. As Gathercole correctly notes, there is no indication that such glory is borrowed.231 A further indication of this is the fact that he is accompanied by Elijah and Moses, both of whom (as Donald Juel observes) were witnesses to theophonies on mountains (Exod 33; 1 Kgs 19).232 Lastly, he is encompassed with a thick cloud, which, as we have seen, is an Old Testament sign of God’s presence (Exod 19:18). God’s voice again pronounces Jesus to be his true Son and again thereby testifies to his glory as he did at the Jordan.

Jesus’s glorification is now followed again by humiliation. This time his humiliation culminates in the Father abandoning him to the cross. This downward turn is expressed in other ways as well. In the second half of the gospel, Jesus does very few miracles and speaks a great deal about his coming crucifixion. After instituting the Lord’s Supper, he travels to the garden of Gethsemane at the base of the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives is the pathway through which David fled Jerusalem when he was betrayed by Absalom (2 Sam 15:30). In the same manner, Jesus, the true king, is betrayed by Judas and his own nation. Jesus prays that he might have a reprieve from his destiny to suffer and die. The voice that came to him on the Jordan and at Tabor is now silent. Silence seems to indicate the Father has abandoned him. His faith in the Father’s Word nevertheless remains strong. Jesus ultimately accepts the “cup” (Mark 14:36) that the Father gives him. According to David Scaer, it is most likely that the “cup” Jesus speaks of is an allusion to the “cup of wrath” spoken of in Isaiah 51:22 and Jeremiah 25:16.233

In Gethsemane, Jesus is arrested and taken to the Sanhedrin. Before the high priest, Jesus is initially silent as is proper to his identity as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah who “did not open his mouth” (Isa 53:7).234 After a lengthy silence, he must finally answer the high priest regarding his identity: “Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:61–62). In other words, Jesus confesses that he is the human one and cosmic judge whose divine identity will be revealed when he shares the divine throne and glory cloud.235

The question has been frequently asked concerning whether Jesus’s “I am” in this confession constitutes a claiming of the divine Name. Even if this were not the case, Jesus’s confession still constitutes a claim of divinity, as the high priest’s accusation of blasphemy indicates (14:64). Gathercole notes that within later rabbinical circles the claim to have a heavenly throne was considered to be blasphemous because only God could claim to have such a throne. Therefore Jesus, in claiming to have a heavenly throne, was claiming to stand in the place of God.236 It should also be noted that Jesus’s description of the “Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven,” actually combines the Son of Man of Daniel 7 with Psalm 110’s description of the Melchizedekiah priest-king.237 As we have previously noted, both texts have strong messianic and theophonic connotations to them. These allusions and their connotations are only strengthened when read in the overall context of Mark’s gospel.

After being condemned by both the Sanhedrin and Pilate, Jesus is led out to be crucified. His crucifixion scene possesses strong sacrificial imagery borrowed from the Old Testament and contemporary Judaism. Earlier in the gospel, Jesus asserts that he will serve “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45). Some have noted that the use of the word “ransom” (lytron) is similar to the description of the substitution of monies for the firstborn in the LXX version of Numbers 3.238 Mark also tells us that Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine o’clock in the morning (15:25) and dies at three o’clock in the afternoon (v. 33). Arthur Just has noted that according to later Jewish tradition, sin offerings occurred in the Second Temple at exactly nine o’clock in the morning and three in the afternoon.239 Similarly, Mark writes that they “crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left” (v. 27). The unusual emphasis that Mark places on the location of Jesus might have been intended to provide typological value. Jesus’s location between the thieves seems to echo the Day of Atonement when both the blood and the divine presence hidden under the cloud of incense stood between the two cherubim on the ark of the covenant (Lev 16:15). Later, we will find similar uses of this typology in John’s gospel and Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

In the final moment of his crucifixion, Jesus cries out in the words of Psalm 22, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Much like in his pleading in Gethsemane, Jesus’s cry to the Father is met with silence. Jesus’s two cries to the Father (in Gethsemane and on the cross) parallel God’s two pronunciations of him as his Son. The silence of the Father and the condemnation of the Son seem to contradict his earlier words. Nevertheless, Jesus’s cry to the Father does not indicate the failure of his faith. What should be remembered is that all the Psalms were part of the temple liturgy and therefore are in a sense all concerned with the praise of God for his goodness.240 Psalms of lamentation also assume the existence of and trust in divine grace. One does not lament if one does not consider God to be gracious and good. Lamentation is faith’s response to appearances that contradict its trust in God’s goodness and graciousness. Those who do not believe God is good and gracious do not lament because the world is precisely as a nonexistent or malevolent deity would have it. Therefore, in his lamentation Jesus maintains his faith in God’s Word to him, in spite of divine hiddenness and condemnation.241

Following Jesus’s cry of lament, he dies and the curtain of the temple (probably the holy of holies) is torn (eschisthē) from top to bottom.242 This parallels the ripping of the heavens at the beginning of the gospel not only because of the use of the same Greek word, but also because the curtain covering the holy of holies was at that time embroidered to represent the heavens.243 Hence both represent a ripping of the heavens.

The significance of this ripping has often been debated by scholars. Frequently, the event has been interpreted to mean that sinners now have access to God.244 In light of the fact that sinners were quite literally separated from God in the Old Testament by the veil, this interpretation seems to have much value. Donald Juel offers two other suggestions that are consistent with our earlier argument regarding the schizomenous inclusio. First, Juel claims that sinners are not only separated from God by the veil, but that God himself is segregated from sinners. The torn veil therefore signifies God’s own willingness to identify with sinful humanity in the person of his Son.245 The culmination of this is God’s own death in solidarity with sinners on the cross. The moment this death occurs, the veil is torn and God’s identification with sinners is complete.

Secondly, Juel also connects the ripping of the veil with the coming destruction of the temple, predicted in Mark 13. When the temple’s curtain is torn, Jesus’s prediction of the temple’s coming destruction becomes a present reality.246 People mock Jesus on the cross by asking if this is the fate of one who would have destroyed the temple (15:29). This is ironic for several reasons. First, Jesus only predicted the destruction of the temple (Mark 13); he did not actually threaten to destroy it. Mark insists all threats of destruction attributed to Jesus are false testimony (14:57–59). The mockery of Jesus is ironic for the second reason. His death on the cross causes the ripping of the veil and thereby begins the process of the temple’s destruction. The one who appears weak, is, in fact, all-powerful, even on the cross.

The inauguration of the destruction of the temple also suggests that Mark believes Jesus has taken over the functions of the temple. The temple was a microcosm of creation and functioned as a means to renew creation. It was also the location where sin was forgiven by bloody sacrifice. Through his death, Jesus works as the forgiveness of sin by bloody sacrifice, and by his resurrection he renews creation.247 The new creation that Jesus brings cannot exist alongside the old creation in some neutral fashion. Judgment of sin means the destruction of the old cult insofar as it represents the old creation. In this new creation, God overcomes his separation from sinners and therefore rips the old order to pieces chizomenous). Similarly, the separation between Israel and the Gentiles is abrogated. Upon his death, Jesus is confessed by the Gentile Centurion to be the Son of God.

The Synoptic Gospels: Matthew248

Matthew begins his gospel by telling his audience about Jesus’s human and divine identity. His divine identity is revealed in that the name “Jesus” means “God is our salvation.”249 Matthew’s intention to identify with this name Jesus as divine is clear insofar as he then reports the angel’s explanation of the name: “for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21). If Jesus is the agent of salvation, then he himself therefore must be God. If this were not enough, the evangelist then tells his audience that this fulfills the prophecy that a virgin will conceive and give birth to Immanuel, “God with us” (1:23).250

Throughout the gospel, Jesus reveals himself as the true savior God of Israel in five separate theophanies. First, in chapter 5, he promulgates the Word of God on a mountain (v. 1). Moses came down from the mountain and gave the Torah after speaking with God at the summit. Jesus stands on top of the mountain and directly promulgates the Word of God to the people as God himself. In chapter 17, Jesus is transfigured, which as we have noted in the last section, must necessarily represent a theophany. The third theophany occurs as Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives, where we are told that God’s glory rested when it left the temple (Ezek 11:23). It is also the location where Zechariah prophesied that God will stand before the final battle that will destroy Jerusalem (Zech 14:4). This fits well with Jesus’s discourse in this section, which describes the destruction of Jerusalem. He ends the discourse by saying “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (24:35) an echo of Isaiah 40:8: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” The fourth theophany occurs on Golgotha as Jesus is crucified. The darkness and earthquakes that accompany his death are direct parallels with Amos’s description (Amos 8:9) of the Day of the Lord, that is, God’s own epiphany in judgment. It is also somewhat reminiscent of the coming of God to commune with Israel as seen in Exodus 20, wherein the old covenant was ratified. In keeping with this, Jesus’s death ratifies the “new testament” in his “blood.” The fifth and last theophany is on a mountain in Galilee after the resurrection, when Jesus commissions the disciples as they “worship” or “prostrated” (prosekynēsan) themselves before him (Matt 28:17). In this context, such an action can only be understood as divine worship.251 Indeed, Jesus states, “All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to me” (v. 18). This means that Jesus transcends merely human dominion on the earth (Gen 1:28), and also possesses all authority in heaven, which according to his earlier statement in the gospel, is “God’s throne” (Matt 5:35).

From this pattern, the question arises: why five theophanies? To begin to answer the question, it should be observed that Matthew’s five theophanies parallel his five great discourses (5:3—7:27, 10:5–42, 13:3–52, 18:2–35, 23:2—25:46).252 Dale Allison has observed Matthew’s use of Mosaic typology.253 If this is so, Jesus’s five great discourses might represent the giving of a new Torah of law and promise. He also leads the new Israel out of the exile of sin and death, as we will see later.

Nevertheless, there also appears to be a deeper significance to the five discourses. N. T. Wright has noted that in Second Temple Judaism Torah was viewed in many circles as the living Word of God. It represented a means (particularly in Pharisaic circles) of entering into the divine presence, equal even to that of the temple.254 If this is the case, then the parallel between the five theophanies and the five discourses makes sense. Jesus is the living Torah, and therefore the presence of God with Israel. He is not the one who merely speaks with God “face to face” (as Moses did), but is in fact the very presence of God. Gerhard Barth agrees, remarking, “The presence of Jesus in [Matthew’s] the congregation is here described as analogous to the presence of the Shekinah . . . the place of Torah is taken by . . . Jesus; the place of the Shekinah by Jesus himself.”255

In keeping with this, Matthew also describes the Name of Jesus as taking over the position of the divine Name in the Old Testament: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (18:20). Charles Gieschen asserts that passages like these in the New Testament suggest that for early Jewish Christians the divine Name properly belonged to Jesus along with the Father.256 Therefore, just as the temple was the location of the divine Name and presence in the Old Testament (2 Sam 7:13), Jesus as the divine Name and presence now takes over the position of the temple. For this reason, the Church is also the eschatological temple, because it is the locus of the divine presence. The Church is the place where Jesus’s Name (i.e., presence) is manifest in Word and sacrament.257

In support of this reading, there is evidence that Matthew structures his gospel around an inclusio of Name and presence.258 At the beginning of the work, Joseph is informed that “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21). Matthew then cites the prophecy of Isaiah: “they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us” (v. 23). At the end of the gospel, the divine Name is repeated to the disciples: “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19).259 Again, the Name is linked to the divine presence: “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (v. 20).260

This makes Jesus’s rejection as a prophet much more serious than those of the Old Testament. The final rejection of Jesus and the crowd’s acceptance of Barabbas is in fact nothing short of the rejection of God’s own person. Jesus is not just one of the prophets who possesses the Word of God, but the Word himself. As the parable of the vineyard indicates (21:33–40), Jesus is the culmination of the rejection of prophetic mediation. Again, much like the worship of the golden calf, such rejection seeks alternative false mediators, in this case in the form of Barabbas.261 As an insurrectionist, Barabbas (“son of the father”) also claims to be one who can bring the kingdom of heaven, the content of Jesus’s new Torah of law and promise.262 Nevertheless, even in their rejection of Jesus, God’s faithfulness succeeds. At his trial, those who condemn him demand that “his blood be on us and on our children” (27:25). We are reminded of the fact that Jesus’s own blood is that of the “testament” (26:28) and that the Servant of Isaiah, the new Moses, would sprinkle the nations (Isa 52:15), much like Moses did when he ratified the Sinaitic covenant in Exodus 24. In effect, their rejection of the promise of the gospel paradoxically means its ratification through his bitter, innocent suffering and death.263

As God returned to his people, Jesus is also the one who fulfills the Old Testament promises of rest. In recounting Jesus’s genealogy and human origin, Matthew highlights that Jesus is a descendent of Abraham and of David (Matt 1:17). He thereby implicitly suggests that Jesus is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic testaments, both of which promised rest from Israel’s enemies. It should also be observed that in giving Jesus’s genealogy, Matthew makes the number of generations symbolic of the eschatological rest that Christ brings. The evangelist tells us that there were forty-two generations between Abraham and Christ. The symbolism here appears to be associated with the numbers seven and six in the genealogy, in that the number forty-two is six times seven. Seven is of course the number of the original creation. Six would be the number of creation minus the extra day of Sabbath. This final “seven” is then inaugurated by the birth of Jesus. This seems to suggest that Jesus’s forgiveness brings a new creation and a new Sabbath. Just as Christ is the eternal Word of God (i.e., the living Torah) who was the agent of the old creation, he stands at the beginning and enacts a new narrative of creation. In this regard, David Scaer has also pointed to the fact that the first words of the gospel are BIBLOS geneseōs, suggesting the beginning of a new Genesis.264

Jesus’s life not only has the goal of a new Sabbath, but is also itself the presence of that Sabbath. Throughout the gospel, Matthew repeatedly introduces the theme of the messianic Sabbath. It should be noted that many Second Temple Jews held that when the Messiah came there would be an age of Sabbath paralleling the seventh day in Genesis 1.265 Jesus brings the rest of this messianic Sabbath. He himself is the Sabbath and he offers rest: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (11:28–30).

What is the content of this rest though? If Jesus comes to complete the “seven” and “six” with the final “seven” of new creation, then his ministry is not only one of re-creation, but also Jubilee. By adding a final seven to the forty-two generations, we get forty-nine, the year of Jubilee in the Old Testament (Lev 25). This is a fulfillment of the eschatological Jubilee of Daniel 9. For this reason Jesus also tells his disciples to forgive their brothers “seventy times seven” (Matt 18:22), the number of Daniel’s great Jubilee.266 As the bringer of universal Jubilee, Jesus brings the true rest of the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus can offer this eschatological Sabbath rest because he is the true presence of God with Israel. He is the new and true Temple. Therefore his disciples enjoy the same perpetual Sabbath that the priests do: “have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here” (12:5–6). Fletcher-Louis suggests that the rationale for this judgment on Jesus’s part is the Second Temple Jewish belief that due to God’s own presence in the temple, the priests enjoyed a perpetual Sabbath.267 For this reason, priests could engage in labor on the Sabbath, because being always in the midst of perpetual Sabbath they would otherwise never do any work. If this is the case, it means that Christ himself is the new Temple and thereby also the presence of God with Israel. The Temple, as we recall, mediated both God’s holiness and his forgiveness of sins to Israel. Jesus therefore does the same.

Jesus is not only the true presence of God with Israel, but also the true recapitulator of Israel. Peter Leithart has noted that not only do the words BIBLOS geneseōs that appear at the beginning of the book (as we noted earlier) identify it with the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures, but Jesus’s commission to the disciples in chapter 28 echoes Cyrus’s commission for the restoration of Israel and the temple at the end of 2 Chronicles (the canonical end to Israel’s history).268 Jesus’s ministry therefore encompasses and redeems the whole of Israel’s history.

This reading is also validated by the fact that Jesus’s ministry and life move through the stages of Israel’s history. During his flight to Egypt as an infant, Matthew cites Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I called my Son” (Matt 2:15). The passage in its original context literally describes Israel in the desert and therefore should not be confused with rectilinear prophecy. Nevertheless, the use of this passage typologically identifies Jesus with the true Israel. If Jesus is the true Israel, he must also follow their route of exile and return from Egypt.269 He is not only the divine Son of God, but a “replacement” (to use Jeffrey Gibbs’s term) for God’s human son Israel (Exod 4:22, Hos 11:1).270 Gibbs has highlighted this theme and observed that there is an obvious connection between this and Jesus’s designation as the “Beloved Son” in Matthew’s baptismal scene. This title does not come from Psalm 2 (as is commonly thought), but rather has a direct verbal parallel with the designation in the LXX version of Genesis 22 for Isaac and Jeremiah 31 (Masoretic text, chapter 38) for Israel.271 Similarly, Austin Farrer has shown in his book, The Triple Victory that Jesus’s temptations in the wilderness directly parallel those of Israel.272 Jesus goes so far as to quote the verses that accompanied each act of apostasy by Israel in the wilderness, culminating in his rejection of the devil’s insistence on receiving divine worship. Here Jesus overcomes where Israel fell to the temptation of worshiping the golden calf.273

Scaer has also highlighted Matthew’s theme of the recapitulation and transcendence of Israel’s history of mediation.274 Jesus fulfills and transcends kingly mediation because, as he asserts, he is greater than Solomon (Matt 12:42, i.e., the greatest Israelite king). He fulfills and transcends prophetic mediation because he is greater than Jonah (v. 41). Finally, he transcends and fulfills both the Old Testament cult because he is greater than the temple (12:6).

Much as he recapitulated the exodus and wanderings of Israel in the desert, Jesus’s ministry represents a reconquest of the land (this time from the power of the devil) by his exorcisms, healing, and the forgiving of sins. As Ernst Hegstenberg notes, Jesus identifies himself with the Angel of YHWH who participated in the original conquest of the land, by claiming that he is the commander of God’s heavenly armies (Matt 26:53, echoing Joshua 5 and Daniel 10).275 He finally is rejected like the prophets and suffers death on the cross as a sign of Israel’s continuing exile. In this, he is the true king who bears the wrong doing of the people, like his ancestor Josiah. Indeed, as in Mark’s gospel, Jesus is willing to drink the cup of wrath spoken of by the prophets of the Old Testament (Matt 26:42).276 His resurrection then becomes an end of cosmic exile and his enthronement as the true king.

The Synoptic Gospels: Luke

In Luke’s gospel, the emphasis falls on Jesus’s prophetic ministry as the Servant of Isaiah and YHWH returning to Zion.277 Luke’s Christology is best summarized by the acclamation of the people in their response to Jesus’s work: “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” (Luke 7:16). By recording statements like this and others, Luke makes explicit the fact that he understands Jesus to be a fulfillment of the coming of the Servant, who, as we saw, Isaiah also identified with the return of YHWH himself.

The gospel is replete with evidence for this reading. When in chapter 2 Gabriel begins to announce Jesus’s birth to Mary, he states: “The Lord is with you” (1:28). The coming of Jesus is therefore implicitly equated with the coming of God’s presence. When informed that she will give birth to Jesus, Mary asks how this will be, in light of the fact that she is a virgin. The angel responds, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (1:35, emphasis added). Arthur Just has demonstrated that this description (particularly the language of “overshadowing”) directly corresponds to the description of the kavod’s descent into the tabernacle in the LXX’s version of Exodus chapter 40.278 In that she is the new dwelling place of the kavod come in the flesh, Elizabeth can very easily call her “mother of my Lord” (1:43). Leithart also notes that the overshadowing of Mary is reminiscent of the Spirit’s hovering above the waters at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2).279 Later, Jesus’s genealogy connects him with Adam, whom Luke also refers to as “the son of God” (Luke 3:38). By implication then, Luke seems to be suggesting to his audience that Jesus is the beginning of a new creation.

Luke’s identification of Jesus with the Servant and kavod is reinforced when he is presented in the temple for circumcision. Just notes that if one adds up the weeks between Gabriel’s confrontation of Zechariah in the temple (the angel, who is also the agent of revelation in Daniel 9) and Jesus’s presentation at the temple, one gets the number seventy.280 As we observed earlier, this is the number of the universal Jubilee of Daniel 9.281 In connection to this, later Luke recounts Jesus’s reading of Isaiah 61 in the Nazareth synagogue, where he himself makes the claim to be the Servant of that text (4:16–20).282 Indeed, this announcement is keeping with Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom of God. The coming of universal Jubilee was a common image of eschatological redemption in many of the texts of Second Temple Judaism.283

After Jesus is presented in the temple, Simeon makes the final identification between Jesus and the returning kavod/Servant in his song: “for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to [or ‘of’] your people Israel” (Luke 2:30–32, emphasis added). This on the one hand represents an allusion to the Servant of 49:6 who is a “light to the nations,” and also to the kavod. The later phrase, “the glory of your people Israel,” is reminiscent of the description of the kavod in the LXX version of 1 Samuel 4:22.284 When informed of her status as the mother of God, Mary’s song of praise echoes that of Hannah, Samuel’s mother, in 1 Samuel (compare 1 Sam 2:1–11 and Luke 1:46–55). This suggests that Jesus will be a prophet similar to Samuel. Nevertheless, in that he is God himself come in the flesh, Jesus’s role is not merely one of continuation of prophecy, but also its fulfillment. As the final and universal prophet, Jesus is the “light to the nations.”

This idea of Jesus as the “light” of revelation might also be present in Luke’s prologue. Here Just notes the possibility of a non-Johannine reference to Jesus as the “Word of God” in the sentence: “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them [the kerygma] to us” (Luke 1:2, emphasis added).285 If “eyewitnesses” and “ministers” are the same people, then their witness is not to something, but to someone (i.e., the divine Word, Jesus). David Scaer agrees with this argument and observes that Luke’s rhetorical use of this description of his sources makes little sense if the eyewitnesses are not the same as the ministers. If the ministers are not the same as the eyewitnesses, how would Luke’s claim to rely on them validate his claims of authority for his gospel? Would he not simply be bearing witnesses to the fact that there are people who proclaim Jesus and not that his sources were those who were directly appointed to be eyewitnesses to him?286

In further keeping with these divine designations, Just also suggests that Jesus applies the divine Name to himself on a number of occasions.287 In teaching the disciples about humility, Just translates Jesus’s remark about service as: “I AM in the midst of you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27).288 Similarly, he translates the risen Jesus’s self-identification to the disciples as, “I AM myself” (24:39). That Jesus would identify himself with the Name in these texts is coherent with Luke’s previous identification of him with the kavod and Word.

Therefore, much like Matthew and Mark, Luke identifies Jesus with the fulfillment of God’s presence with Israel in the Old Testament. Similar also to the other synoptic evangelists, Luke believes that Jesus continues to be present with his Church, particularly in the Lord’s Supper. This is strongly indicated by his use of an inclusio of sacramental presence. At the beginning of the gospel, we are told that Jesus is born in Bethlehem, meaning “house of bread.”289 When Jesus is born, he is placed in a manger (2:7), that is, an animal’s feeding trough. By implication then he himself is food from the very beginning of his existence. Throughout the gospel, Jesus perpetually eats with sinners, culminating in his institution of the Lord’s Supper for the forgiveness of sins.290 At the end of the gospel, we find him revealing himself in the “breaking of bread” (24:35).291

As God’s returning glory, Jesus comes to fulfill his former promise to Abraham that he would bless the nations through his seed (1:55, 71–73).292 As the “light to the nations” Jesus unites Jews and Gentiles by his lineage. To emphasize this point, Luke traces his lineage back to Adam, rather than merely to Abraham as does Matthew (3:23–37).293 Even in his death, he is able to unite Jews and Gentiles. Herod and Pilate, who had previously been enemies, are made friends by later handing him over to the former for trial (23:12). Moving on into the book of Acts, the apostles incorporate the Gentiles into the people of God and thereby fulfill his promised blessings to the nations (Gen 12; Isa 45, 49).

This emphasis on Christ’s prophetic office as the Servant of Isaiah does not preclude his occupancy of the offices of king and priest.294 Robert Sloan observes that Jesus’s role as the true king connects well with his announcement of Jubilee. This is because it in fact was the responsibility of kings in the Old Testament to announce the Jubilee.295 Luke, like the other evangelists, also identifies Jesus with the Melchizekiah priest-king of Psalm 110 (Luke 20:40–45). In keeping with his priestly role, he is the Son of Man prophesied in Daniel (6:5, 9:26–27, 9:58, 11:29–32, 18:31–34). Beyond this, Jesus is David’s son (Luke 3:31) and therefore the true fulfillment of the promises made to David, as Gabriel tells Mary (1:32–33). N.T. Wright has noted that much of Luke’s use of language and narrative imagery suggests that he is intentionally echoing the LXX version of 1 and 2 Samuel.296 Similar to David, Wright observes that Jesus wanders throughout the gospel as he awaits the kingdom promised to his mother at the beginning of the gospel (1:32–33).297 Later in Acts, just as David is persecuted by king Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, Jesus’s body, the Church, is persecuted by a man named Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 9:5–6, Phil 3:4–6).

As in the other gospels, Luke portrays Jesus as an exorcist and healer. This does not detract from Luke’s description of Jesus as a new David, but rather shows how the Third Evangelist views Jesus’s fulfillment of this role. Jesus’s war for the kingdom is not with temporal enemies, but with Satan and the demonic forces of the old creation (Luke 11:20). After his disciples return with joy from battling the devil in Jesus’s Name, Jesus exclaims “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (10:18). The devil, as the source of all evil, is the direct or indirect source of all disease and demonic possession. In combating these things therefore he is the one who Jesus and his disciples overcome through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’s announcement of Jubilee and the forgiveness of sins also works against and finally defeats the devil. Though Satan is certainly the enemy of God, he is also an accuser of humanity in the heavenly court (Job 1:6–8, 2:1–7; Zech 3:1–10; Rev 12:10). In this sense, the devil maintains his power through his ability to accuse. Understood in this light, Jesus’s forgiveness of sins and his sacrificial death are the true exercises of his office as king. Luke, it would appear, also envisions the Church throughout Acts as continuing this mission of Jesus to the ends of the earth. After the ascension, the apostles persist in Jesus’s activities of preaching, teaching, celebrating the sacraments, and engaging in healings and exorcisms.

It has often been argued that Luke utterly lacks an atonement theology. Both Hans Conzelman and James D. G. Dunn have claimed that Luke has no understanding of Jesus’s death as being sacrificial or directly redeeming.298 Roy Harrisville, while acknowledging both Dunn and Conzelman’s objections, counters their claim by citing Gerhard Fredrich, who points to Luke’s report of the words of institution (Luke 22:19–20), and also Philip’s reading of the Fourth Servant Song (Isa 53) with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–40).299 We are also told that when Jesus begins his ministry he is “about thirty years” (Luke 3:23). This is the same age (according to Numbers 4:3) that priests began their service in the tabernacle/temple.300

More subtly, Jesus’s fulfillment of priestly mediation is suggested by the fact that Luke chooses to begin and end his gospel in the temple (Luke 1:8, 24:52). This appears to mean that the entire story of Jesus has been bounded by and therefore finds its meaning in the temple. It also strongly implies that Jesus has fulfilled and taken over the function of the temple. This interpretation makes a great deal of sense in light of the data that we have earlier examined that suggests that Luke views Jesus as the returning kavod, as well as a final universal sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Through Word and sacrament, Jesus mediates God’s presence, holiness, and the forgiveness of sins to the Church.

John’s Gospel and Letters301

Much like Mark’s gospel, John’s gospel is one of glory and humiliation. John, nonetheless, works with these themes differently than Mark. As we observed earlier, Mark reveals Jesus’s glory and humiliation through a pattern of alternation. John is much more comfortable describing Jesus’s glory in a pattern of paradoxical disclosure and hiddenness. John describes Jesus as the one who makes his power and glory known by his act of humiliation. His humiliation is the very act of his exaltation. His veiling is the unveiling of his revelation.

John begins his gospel by telling his audience that Jesus is the true divine Word who spoke forth the original creation (John 1:1–4). Jesus is also the true glory of God. His light has shown in the darkness and triumphed over it (1:5). This also seems to suggest John’s identification of Jesus with the Servant of Isaiah 49:6 who is a “light to the nations” in that he is “true light, which enlightens everyone, and is coming into the world” (1:9).302

As Rudolf Schnackernburg observes, John posits that Jesus is greater than Moses. Whereas Moses desired to see God, but was only allowed to do so indirectly, Jesus is God himself come in the flesh.303 Indeed, as Charles Gieschen adds, Moses’s revelation is of a lesser variety than that of Jesus, because Jesus has directly seen the Father as no one else has.304 Whereas Moses only ascended to Sinai, Jesus has descended from heaven and will ascend there again: “no one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (3:13). As the true kavod himself, Jesus himself is the source of all glory. Moses’s face merely reflected glory, but Jesus is the glory of God in person. Throughout his book, John reinforces Jesus’s identity with the hypostatized kavod present in the Old Testament. At one point in the gospel, Jesus also chides the Jews for not listening to his voice (5:17–47) in the same manner that they would not listen to him when he spoke to their forefathers in the cloud on Sinai (Exod 20).305

John identifies himself as a true witness to this glory, just as Moses was on Sinai: “we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).306 Looking upon God in the flesh, the apostles have gained the same revelation as Moses. In seeing Jesus, Nathaniel is called a “true Israelite” (1:47) because the etymology of “Israel” in the first century among many Hellenistic Jews was “one who sees God.”307 Indeed, because the disciples have seen Jesus, they have also “seen the Father” (14:7). Since Jesus’s revelation fulfills God’s revelation to Moses, one might say that their revelation is of a greater variety: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (1:17–18).

Jesus reveals his glory through his prophetic Word. This Word reveals Jesus’s true identity in the midst of his outwardly humble form. Jesus testifies that he will be “lifted up” (3:14) and be glorified (17:1), both of which refer to his passion. Dying, Jesus will reveal his divine power to save and to condemn: “Father, the hour has come [of his passion]; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you” (17:1). His actions not only reveal his own glory as the sole agent of redemption, but also glorify his Father: “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (17:4–5).

At the hour of his death, Jesus’s identity is paradoxically revealed. The inscription over his cross declares his true identity: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” As Craig Koester correctly observes, this inscription stands as a prophetic proclamation in all three major languages of the Roman world (19:19).308 This echoes Isaiah’s insistence that the glory of the Lord would be seen by all flesh (Isa 40:5).309 The paradox, that such glory is hidden, nevertheless remains. Such glory can only be perceived by those who believe the Word of God concerning Jesus: “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” (John 11:40, emphasis added).310 It is, indeed, true that John does often talk about “seeing” the glory of revelation. But as the passages cited above demonstrate, this seeing is a spiritual seeing that is mediated through the auditory faculties. In point of fact, such spiritual seeing frequently stands in contradiction to ordinary physical vision: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (20:29).

Jesus’s identity does not merely testify to the truth, but is the truth. For John, truth is a person, and not an abstract proposition. The truth is the content of Jesus’s revelation. As the inscription above the cross makes clear, this truth is that Jesus is the true Messiah king who has come to redeem the world from sin, death, and the devil: “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth” (18:37). Jesus’s kingship is tied up in his prophetic ministry of conquest through the Word. By his prophetic Word of truth he has come to destroy the devil who is the “prince of this world” and one whom he will make certain is “driven out” (12:31). The devil is a “liar” and a “murderer” (8:44) whom Christ counters with his “truth” (1:17) and “life” (v. 4). By this prophetic Word of salvation, he will ultimately redeem humanity and bring it to the Father.311 This truth brings the freedom of the gospel: “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (8:32).

Jesus’s Word of redemption triumphs over Satan and the mangled old narrative of creation by enacting a new creation story. Just as he spoke forth the original creation, his prophetic Word of redemption will actualize the new creation. N. T. Wright observes: “John confronts his readers with a strange new Genesis.”312 Later, Wright argues that the pattern of John’s gospel corresponds to the works and days of creation, and therefore the book represents a new narrative of creation:

The large-scale outworking of this [Jesus’s renewal of creation] can be seen in John’s deliberate sequence of “signs.” I believe that John intends his readers to follow a sequence of seven signs, with the water-into-wine story at Cana as the first and the crucifixion as the seventh. The resurrection of Jesus takes place, he is careful to tell us twice, “on the first day of the week,” and I believe this is best interpreted as the start of God’s new creation. On the Friday, the sixth day of the week, Jesus stands before Pilate, who declares “behold the man!” (19:5), echoing the creation of humankind on the sixth day of creation. On the cross Jesus finishes the work the Father has given him to do (17:4), ending with the shout of triumph (tetelestai, “it is accomplished,” 19:30), corresponding the completion of creation itself. There follows, as in Genesis, a day of rest, a Sabbath day. . . . [therefore] Jesus’ public career is to be understood as the completion of the original creation, with the resurrection as the start of the new.313

This act of recreation through the Word is also tied up with Jesus’s identity as the fulfillment of the temple. As we saw in the previous chapter, the Old Testament authors saw creation as a vast temple dedicated to the worship of God. In the same manner, the Israelite cult was a restoration of the original creation. This means that Jesus’s enactment of a “strange new Genesis” cannot be divided from his fulfillment of the temple and its sacrificial worship. Jesus’s role as the fulfillment and re-creator of the cult/creation fits not only with his reality as the “Word made flesh,” but also makes him the true son of David. As we should remember, God promised David that the Messiah would build the house for his Name (2 Sam 7:14).314 Jesus’s re-creation of the world was not only prefigured in Solomon’s construction of the temple (i.e., cosmic microcosm), but also in the building of the original creation by the preexistent Christ as Holy Wisdom (Prov 8). Solomon (as we previously argued) was therefore an image of the preexistent Christ, as well as a type of his redemptive work.

For this reason, Jesus is not only a prophet and king, but also a priest and a new temple. Jesus fulfills his messianic priesthood in a number of ways. First, John makes certain that his readers recognize that Jesus is the true Temple. Christ is the returning kavod of the Old Testament. He has returned to “tabernacle” among us (John 1:14).315 Indeed “his body” (2:21) is the true Temple.316 The temple of Jesus’s body will be destroyed and raised up again (2:22–24). Hence, he not only mediates the presence of God, but he will also destroy the old creation and bring about a new creation through his sacrifice on the altar of the cross.

The second major aspect of Jesus’s fulfillment of the temple cult in John is the fact that Jesus recapitulates the ritual festivals. Indeed, as Wright has shown, John structures Jesus’s ministry around Israel’s liturgical calendar.317 Several other scholars have noticed this pattern as well.318 According to John’s reckoning, Jesus attends three Passovers (2:12–25, 6:4, 11:55—19:42), the festival of Tabernacles (7:2), and possibly Hanukah (10:22).319 In this vein, Scott Hahn writes:

We also see a dramatic identification of Jesus and the Temple in John 7–10:21. There, the backdrop is the festival celebrating the building of the Temple (Tabernacles), during which the priests daily poured out water from the Pool of Siloam on the altar steps and kept the Temple courts illuminated twenty-four hours a day in anticipation of the eschatological prophesies. In the midst of this, Jesus claims himself to be the true source of water and light, and brings light to a blind man through the waters of Siloam, thus supporting his claim to be the true Temple.

In John 10:22–42, during the Feast of Dedication, which commemorates the re-consecration of the Temple by the Maccabees, Jesus describes himself as the one “consecrated” by the Father and sent into the world—that is, he calls himself the new sanctuary. In John 14:2–3, Jesus again refers to his “Father’s House,” a Temple reference alluding to John 2:16 and supported by other Temple references—the house with many “rooms” is probably the many-chambered Temple of Ezekiel 41–43; and the “place” (Greek: topos; Hebrew: mâqôm) he goes to prepare connotes the “sacred place” of the Temple. In the final analysis, this passage describes Jesus’ departure to be prepared as a Temple wherein his disciples will “dwell.”320

Jesus’s fulfillment of Israel’s cult not only takes the form of his recapitulation of its festivals, but also of its sacrificial worship. John the Baptist informs his listeners at the beginning of the gospel that Jesus is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (1:29). Raymond Brown notes that this description of Jesus is reminiscent of both the Suffering Servant and the paschal lamb.321 These two echoes of the Old Testament fit together nicely insofar as we have seen that Isaiah envisions a universal Passover lamb to match his universal exodus. Jesus’s identification with the paschal lamb is also shown by the fact that his death occurs during the festival of Passover. Later, it will be shown that other details of Jesus’s passion reinforce his fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice.

Beyond the Passover sacrifice, there is much in John’s narrative to suggest that Jesus is also the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. In this regard, it should first be noted that the location of Jesus’s betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane is significant. As George Beasley-Murray observes, John, like Luke, does not give us the specific name of the garden of Jesus’s betrayal (although 18:1 strongly implies Gethsemane).322 In other words, John appears to be interested in emphasizing the location of the beginning of Jesus’s passion as simply a “garden.” From the re-creation imagery used by John earlier, it is not unlikely to think that John intends his readers to think of this garden as a new Eden.

The second interesting thing about the location of Jesus’s arrest is that it takes place at the base of the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives is not only the route through which David fled from Absalom (as we mentioned in our discussion of Mark), but it is also the location where Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord resting when it left the temple (Ezek 11:23).323 Read in this light, the Mount of Olives has become the real temple, since it is de facto the new holy of holies where the kavod has come to rest. As a result, the themes of both the true Temple and Eden come together in a remarkable way. The identification of Eden as the protological temple was, as Stephen Um demonstrates, by no means limited to the Old Testament, but was widely recognized in the literature of Second Temple Judaism.324 If this reading of John’s intention is correct, then John wishes to portray Jesus as the new Adam and the true high priest standing in the reconstituted garden-temple of Eden.

The location of the narrative within the true garden-temple then forms the context of Jesus’s atoning actions. These actions draw a striking parallel with the liturgy of the Day of Atonement as it was possibly practiced during the time of Christ. First, let us examine the description of Jesus’s arrest:

Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” (18:4–8, emphasis added)

Andrei Orlov has noted the significance of the fact that John mentions the divine Name “I AM” three times (though Jesus himself, of course, technically only speaks the divine Name twice, and only implies it in the Greek a third time) and has connected it with traditions in the Mishnah concerning the liturgy of the Day of Atonement.325

According to the Mishnah, after the high priest completed his ritual sacrifices of the bull and the goat meant for YHWH, he would confess the sins of the people over the scapegoat while reciting the following prayer:

O Lord, your people, the house of Israel, has committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before you. Forgive, O Lord, I pray the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which the people, the house of Israel, have committed, transgressed, and sinned before you, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, you servant, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you to clean you. From all your sins shall you be clean before the Lord.” (Yoma 6:2, emphasis added)326

There is an obvious parallel between this text and John’s description of Jesus’s arrest, the chief one being that there is a threefold repetition of the divine Name. Both the location of the recitation of this prayer and the reaction of the hearers is also highly suggestive. First, this prayer is spoken after the priest comes out of the holy of holies, which, as we have seen, is where John effectively places Jesus. He moves towards the people in the way that John described Jesus’s moving towards the guards. The reaction of the guards directly parallels the description of the priest and people in the courtyard of the temple:

And the priests and people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear the Expressed Name [of the Lord] come out of the mouth of the high priest, would kneel and bow down and fall on their faces and say, “Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever.327

Despite these significant parallels, we must remain somewhat cautious regarding this interpretation in light of the fact that the Mishnah was compiled more than one hundred years after the writing of John’s gospel (probably around AD 200).328 These parallels are at least highly suggestive and fit well with the earlier scholarship that showed John viewed Jesus’s ministry as tied up with the fulfillment of the Jewish liturgical calendar.

The rest of John’s passion narrative offers other echoes and similarities with the Day of Atonement. If Jesus offers himself up in the temple-garden as the goat for YHWH, then he must also be cast out of the city like the scapegoat. For this reason he is crucified outside the city (19:17). Of course, the difficulty is that there were two goats, and only one Jesus. Since the goat for YHWH was killed in the temple and the scapegoat was cast out of the city unharmed, it might be argued that John combines the two events of bloody sacrifice and being cast out into a single one. In fact, John is careful to tell us that the place where Jesus was crucified also had a garden (i.e., in reminiscence of the garden-temple) nearby: “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden” (19:41, emphasis added).329

There are other aspects of John’s description that suggest that John means to imply that Jesus’s blood is offered up in a garden-temple. The garden spoken of in 19:41 is ultimately where Jesus is buried. Later, on the day of resurrection when Mary Magdalene looks into the tomb where Jesus had been laid she sees “two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet” (20:12, emphasis added). Wright has observed that this strongly parallels the liturgy of the Day of Atonement wherein the blood of the first goat was placed on the mercy seat between golden images of the two cherubim on the cover of the ark.330 Jesus’s person is therefore the new mercy seat (hilastērion).

John’s crucifixion scene itself also further reinforces this interpretation. As Jesus dies he cries out “tetelestai” a word frequently written on a paid bill in the Hellenistic world. 331 Indeed, Jesus is not just the victim on the Day of Atonement, but the priest. John also uses the word “chitōn” to describe the seamless garment that Jesus wears as he is brought to the site of crucifixion (19:23–24). This word is used in the LXX to describe the garment that the high priest wore on the Day of Atonement (see LXX Exod 28:4, Lev 16:4).332

Beyond parallels with the Day of Atonement, there are other hints in the passion narrative of the fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice. According to some, the piercing of Jesus’s side hearkens back to the Passover lamb. Hans Urs von Balthasar cites the rabbinical legislation concerning Passover that prescribes that the blood of the slain Paschal lamb must be drained from the heart.333 Schnackenburg argues that the passage regarding the piercing of Jesus’s side must be interpreted as conveying that the soldiers intended to pierce his heart, since we are told that it is their goal to make certain that Jesus is dead.334 Since Jesus is pierced through the heart and his blood is drained, he is the true “lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). While Jesus is dying, the vinegar given to him to drink is hoisted on a hyssop branch (19:29). This is the same branch used to smear the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintels of the houses during the exodus (Exod 12:22).335 In other words, by his substitionary death, Jesus releases humanity from sin, death, and the devil just as the lamb served as the catalyst for the exodus from temporal bondage in Egypt.

After being pierced by the Centurion’s spear, blood and water flow from Jesus’s side (John 19:34). Following a long established patristic reading of this text, Oscar Cullman and Rudolf Bultmann have suggested that the flow of blood and water represent the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.336 Another complementary reading of this symbolism might be that the blood and water represent John’s final identification of Jesus with the temple and its cult. Hahn notes that we are told in Ezekiel 47:1–11 that living water would flow out of the eschatological temple. Read in light of this passage, it would appear that John is suggesting, yet again, that Jesus’s body is the eschatological temple. The same author has also pointed to the rabbinic tradition that two streams, one of water and the other of blood (i.e., from the sacrifices), flowed out of the Second Temple.337 As we observed earlier, the temple was the locus of God’s glory in the Old Testament. From it he mediated his holiness to his people. Read from this perspective, John asserts that as the glory of God, Jesus now mediates that same holiness to the Church by his death and through the sacraments.

This scene also evokes more Edenic imagery as well. Christ lying dead on the cross is reminiscent of Adam asleep giving birth to Eve out of his side. This parallel has been frequently noticed throughout the history of exegesis.338 In support of this reading, it should be observed that the crucifixion occurs on the sixth day of the week (the day of the creation of humanity) and that (as Wright noted above) Jesus has been identified as the true man (ecco homo, actually “human,” “anthrōpos” John 19:5). Read in this light, John appears to be asserting that Jesus is the second Adam and does for the Church through Word and sacrament what Adam did for Eve. This interpretation is bolstered by J. Ramsey Michaels’s observation that John possesses no description of ripping the veil of the temple.339 If Jesus is the true Temple, then the piercing of his heart is the actual ripping of the veil. Therefore, much like the preincarnate Christ gave himself over to ancient Israel by his presence in the cult, he now gives himself to the Church through Word and sacrament. In contrast to the Israelite cult though, he now ceases to be segregated from them, but instead directly gives himself over to them in the means of grace.

By rising from the dead in a garden on the first day of the week, Jesus reveals himself as the new Adam and the divine agent of new creation. In the garden Mary mistakes him for the gardener (20:15), the vocation held by Adam prior to the Fall. In effect, Adam has returned to the garden and creation has begun anew. By faith (3:16), one enters into this new creation and is “born again” (3:3), this time of “water and the Spirit” (3:5), that is, through baptism. In this passage, we are reminded again of the original creation in which the Spirit hovered over the waters (Gen 1:2) and recognized the new act of creation that Jesus brings to us, mediated through Word and sacrament.

221. See the following commentaries: Alexander, Gospel of Mark; Carrington, According to Mark; Cranfield, Gospel; J. Edwards, Gospel; France, Gospel of Mark; Gould, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus; Grundman, Evangelium nach Markus; Hauck, Evangelium des Markus; Hobbs, Gospel of Mark; Horne, Victory According to Mark; Huby, Evangile selon Saint Marc; Hunter, Gospel; Jeremias, Evangelium nach Markus; S. Johnson, Commentary on the Gospel; Juel, Mark; Keegan, Commentary on the Gospel; Keil, Evangelien des Markus und Lukas; Kilgallen, Brief Commentary; Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc; Lamarche, Evangile de Marc; LaVerdiere, Beginning of the Gospel; Lenski, St. Mark’s Gospel; Lohmeyer, Evangelium des Markus; G. Martin, Gospel according to Mark; Michael, Am Tisch der Sünder; Menzies, Earliest Gospel; Morgan, Mark; Moule, Mark; Nineham, Saint Mark; Riddle, According to Mark; Sabin, Mark; J. Schmid, Evangelium nach Markus; Schnackenburg, Evangelium nach Markus; Schanz, Evangelium des Heiligen Marcus; Schweizer, Mark; St. John, Analysis of the Gospel; Taylor, Mark; Trocmé, L’Evangile selon Saint Marc; Weidner, Mark; Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci; Witherington, Gospel of Mark; Wohlenberg, Evangelium des Markus; Wolff, Mark.

222. Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 69–70.

223. Gathercole, Pre-Existent Son, 236 (emphasis added). Also see the arguments for early high Christology in Bauckham, God Crucified; Hurtado, How On Earth; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ.

224. Hengel, Four Gospels, 95.

225. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 2:615–31. Also see an argument about this theme in Mark in Horne, Victory according to Mark, 14–24.

226. This is a theme throughout the Gospels: Mark 2:27–28, 8:11–13, 8:31–32, 38, 8:38—9:1, 10:32–34; Matt 8:20, 12:8, 12:38–42, 13:37, 41–42, 16:27–28, 18:11, 20:17–19, 24:30, 25:31–32; Luke 6:5, 9:26–27, 9:58, 11:29–32, 18:31–34.

227. Nineham, Saint Mark, 61–62.

228. Motyer, “Rendering of the Veil,” 155–57.

229. Though I cite other scholars with regard to this insight, the first person to direct me to this point was David Frederickson, professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary.

230. Also see comments in Leithart, Four, 153.

231. Gathercole, Pre-Existent Son, 49.

232. Juel, Mark, 128.

233. Scaer, Christology, 79.

234. France, Gospel of Mark, 608.

235. See discussion of this interpretation of Jesus’s confession in N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 2:551.

236. Gathercole, Pre-Existent Son, 60–61. Also see similar arguments in Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation; Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne. Beyond Gathercole’s argument, Bock mentions that the challenge to the priesthood (representatives of God) would be viewed as blasphemy.

237. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 21.

238. Ibid., 15.

239. Just, Heaven on Earth, 100.

240. Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2–3.

241. For a similar argument see Bayer, “Toward a Theology of Lament,” 211–20. Gerhard also suggests that Jesus was a hero of faith who was not defeated even in death (History of the Suffering, 265).

242. Lenski, St. Mark’s Gospel, 722–23.

243. Jewish War, 5.5.4, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 707.

244. For example, Schweizer, Mark, 354–55.

245. Juel, Mark, 225.

246. Ibid., 226.

247. Lenski, St. Mark’s Gospel, 724.

248. See the following commentaries: Allen, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; Broadus, Gospel of Matthew; Bruner, Matthew; M. Davies, Matthew; Allison and W. Davies, Saint Matthew; Dickson, Brief Exposition; Erdman, Matthew; Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium; Fenton, Saint Matthew; Filson, Saint Matthew; France, Gospel of Matthew; Gaetcher, Matthäus Evangelium; Gibbs, Matthew 1–11; Grundmann, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Gundry, Matthew; Hagner, Matthew; Harold, Gospel of Matthew; Harrington, Matthew; Jerome, Matthew; Keener, Gospel of Matthew; Keil, Evangelium des Matthäus; Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Matthieu; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel; Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Michaelis, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Meier, Matthew; Nolland, Gospel of Matthew; Overman, Church and Community; Rienecker, Evangelium des Matthäus; T. Robinson, Gospel of Matthew; Sabourin, St. Matthew; Sand, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Scaer, Discourses in Matthew; Scaer, Sermon on the Mount; Schanz, Evangelium des Heiligen Matthäus; Schlatter, Evangelist Matthäus; J. Schmid, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Schniewind, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Staab, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Schweizer, Evangelium nach Matthäus; D. Turner, Matthew; Wiefel, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Witherington, Matthew; Zahn, Evangelium des Matthäus.

249. Harrington, Matthew, 35; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 49; Meier, Marginal Jew, 207.

250. Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 54–55.

251. Ibid., 1168.

252. David Scaer considers these to be highly significant for the structure of Matthew. See Scaer, Discourses in Matthew.

253. Allison, New Moses.

254. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 1:236–37.

255. G. Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding,” 135.

256. Gieschen, “Divine Name,” 130–48.

257. See similar argument in Scaer, Discourses in Matthew, 157–99.

258. Ibid., 172.

259. Gieschen, “Divine Name,” 124–25.

260. Scaer, Discourses of Matthew, 202.

261. See discussion of the incident in the context of Matthew’s gospel in Maccoby, “Jesus and Barabbas,” 55–60; H. Rigg, “Barabbas,” 417–56.

262. Leithart, Four, 90.

263. We offer this interpretation against the claim of many that this passage has to do with anti-Judaism (or anti-Semitism). See discussions in the following authors: Crossan, “Anti-Semitism,” 189–214; Fitzmyer, “Anti-Semitism,” 667–71; Gaston, “Messiah of Israel,” 40; Harrington, Matthew, 388–93; Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 148–57. First, claiming the passage is anti-Semitic is absurd insofar as it is not only an anachronism (prior to the modern period, hatred of the Jews was for the most part not racial, but religious), but also the author and the gospel hero are both Jews. Secondly, Matthew does not portray Pilate tremendously well either (while he pretends to shuck responsibility, but ultimately allows an innocent man to die). Similarly, many of Jesus’s negative statements about Gentiles are reported through the gospel. Ultimately, Matthew’s polemic is not against the Jews as such, but against unbelieving humanity that rejects Christ. Jews who do not accept Christ are no worse than Gentiles who do the same.

264. Leithart, Four, 118–20; Scaer, Discourses of Matthew, 123.

265. See 1 Enoch 93:2; Ezra 7:4, 12:34; 2 Baruch 24:1–4, 30:1–5, 39:3–8, 40:1–4; Jubilees 1:4–29, 23:14–31.

266. See different opinion in Harrington, Matthew, 269. Actually the phrase can be translated as either “seventy-seven” or “seven times seventy.” Both have symbolic significance. On the one hand, “seventy-seven” is the number of times that Lamech states that he is avenged in Gen 4:24. If this is the case, Jesus’s forgiveness counteracts human revenge and self-justification as embodied by Cain and his descendents. (See criticism of this reading in Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 709–10.) Or it could be a symbolic representation of the age of Jubilee that Jesus brings as we suggested above. Both carry the same essential message of forgiveness in the new age.

267. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 43–45. Fletcher-Louis makes substantially the same point about the Markan parallel text.

268. Leithart, Four, 118–20.

269. Harrington, Matthew, 44; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 77–79.

270. Gibbs, “Son of God,” 211.

271. Ibid., 213–16.

272. Farrer, Triple Victory.

273. Ibid., 61–73.

274. Scaer, Christology, 54–55.

275. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:128.

276. See Allison and W. Davies, Saint Matthew, 3:497; France, Gospel of Matthew, 1005; Hagner, Matthew, 783; Gundry, Matthew, 533; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 683.

277. See the following commentaries: Bock, Luke; Bovon, Evangelium nach Lukas; Caird, St. Luke; Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke; Craddock, Luke; Alexandria, Saint Luke; Danker, Jesus and the New Age; C. Evans, Saint Luke; Fendt, Christus der Gemeinde; Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke; Gooding, Luke; J. Green, Luke; Hobbs, Gospel of Luke; L. Johnson, Luke; Just, Luke; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium; Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Luc; Leaney, Saint Luke; Lenski, St. Luke’s Gospel; Lieu, Gospel of Luke; Manson, Luke; I. Marshall, Luke; D. Miller, Gospel according to Luke; Morgan, Luke; P. Müller, Lukas-Evangelium; Plummer, St. Luke; Rengstorf, Evangelium nach Lukas; Rienecker, Evangelium des Lukas; Ringe, Luke; Schanz, Evangelium des Heiligen Lucas; Schlatter, Evangelium des Lukas; G. Schneider, Evangelium nach Lukas; Schweizer, Evangelium nach Lukas; Stuhlmueller, St. Luke; Summers, Luke; Tannehill, Luke; Tiede, Luke; LaVerdiere, Luke; Vinson, Luke; Julius Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae; Wiefel, Evangelium nach Lukas; Zahn, Evangelium des Lucas.

278. Just, Luke, 1:69. Also see the same argument in Chemnitz et al., Harmony of the Four Evangelists, 118.

279. Leithart, Four, 59–60.

280. Just, Luke, 1:58.

281. Collins, Daniel, 352; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:89–90.

282. See J. Green, Luke, 212; L. Johnson, Luke, 79; Lenski, Luke’s Gospel, 252; Sloan, Favorable Year of the Lord; Sri, “Release from the Debt,” 183–94; Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 219–43. We thank Edward Sri for directing us to many of these sources.

283. Bergsma, Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, 233–94, 298–301; Sri, “Release from the Debt,” 189–90. We thank Sri for directing us to the Bergsma source.

284. See similar arguments in Just, Luke, 1:117–20.

285. Ibid., 1:36.

286. Scaer, “Doctrine of the Trinity,” 329.

287. See discussion in Just, Luke, 2:784, 792, 846–47.

288. Ibid., 2:846–47.

289. Ibid., 1:14.

290. Ibid.

291. See detailed discussion in Just, Ongoing Feast.

292. See the role of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in Luke-Acts in Robert Brawley, “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions,” 109–32.

293. Though it should of course be noted that Matthew does include Gentile women in Jesus’s genealogy.

294. See the connection between the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants in Luke-Acts, in Sabine Van den Eynde, “Children of the Promise,” 470–82. We thank Scott Hahn in his piece, “Christ, Kingdom, and Creation,” for directing us to this source.

295. Sloan, Favorable Year of the Lord, 58–67.