The sufferings and death of Jesus in Jerusalem

Jesus' decision to go to Jerusalem is the turning point in his story. The events it set in motion soon came to have decisive significance for the faith of his followers. It is not coincidental that the Gospels narrate this period of his life in disproportionate breadth. Despite the many points of agreement among the Gospels, there also are considerable discrepancies within the tradition of the Passion. Thus, one cannot expect the tradition of the Passion to provide historically accurate reports, for it has been formed from the viewpoint of the church and its faith in Christ. The most important theological motifs in the narratives include the intention of presenting Jesus' sufferings and death as the fulfillment of God's will, the decision, in conformity with the words of the Old Testament Prophets and Psalms, to proclaim him as Messiah and Son of God, despite his brutal end. Nevertheless, important historical facts may be inferred from the texts.

Jesus probably went to Jerusalem with his disciples for the Passover in order to call the people of Israel gathered there to a final decision in view of the dawning Kingdom of God. He must have been aware of the heavy conflicts with the Jewish rulers that lay ahead of him. The story of the cleansing of the Temple, in particular, shows that Jesus did not avoid these conflicts. The later tradition, stylizing the story, gives as Jesus' sole motive for going to Jerusalem his desire to die there and to rise again in accordance with the will of God (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff.). The best clue for a reconstruction of the outward course of Jesus' Passion is given by his Crucifixion. It proves that he was condemned and executed under Roman law as a political rebel. All reports agree that he died on Friday (Mark 15:42; Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:31). They differ, however, in that, according to the Synoptics, this was the 15th of Nisan (March/April); i.e., the first day of the Passover. But, according to John, it was the previous day; i.e., the one on which the Passover lambs were slaughtered and on which the festival was begun in the evening (in accordance with the Jewish division of days) with a common meal. Thus, according to John, Jesus' last meal with the disciples was not itself a Passover meal but took place earlier. Each of these datings may be theologically motivated, whether it be that the Eucharist is to be represented as the Passover meal (Synoptics) or whether Jesus himself is to be shown as the true Passover lamb, who died at the hour when the lambs were slaughtered (John). Historically, the Johannine dating is to be preferred, and the 14th Nisan (April 7) is to be regarded as the day of Jesus' death. The question of the occasion for Jesus' execution and the role that the Jews played is thereby more difficult and more important.

The way the Gospels present the facts of the case, Jesus was actually condemned to death by the supreme Jewish tribunal (Mark 14:55ff.). Pilate, on the other hand, was convinced of Jesus' innocence and made vain attempts to release him but finally yielded to the Jews' pressure against his better judgment (Mark 15:22ff.). The historical reliability of this account has rightly been questioned. First, the Synoptic reports differ among themselves. According to Mark and Matthew, the Jewish supreme court had already gathered in the home of the High Priest after Jesus' arrest in the night of Holy Thursday to Friday and condemned him to death as a blasphemer at that point (Mark 14:64). Thereafter, they resolved to hand Jesus over to Pilate in a new session in the early morning (Mark 15:1). Luke knows of only one session and has the interrogation take place in the morning (Luke 22:66), but he says nothing about Jesus' condemnation (Luke 22:71). John deviates even more; here, only the high priests Annas and Caiaphas are involved in the interrogation of Jesus (John 18:13ff.). Secondly, with regard to all the Gospel accounts, the question arises, what earwitness can be supposed later to have given the disciples an exact report? Thirdly, the jurisdictional competency of the Jewish Sanhedrin is disputed. In the opinion of some scholars, the Jewish authorities were permitted to pronounce sentence of death and to carry it out by stoning in the case of serious religious offenses (blasphemy). In the opinion of others, though, this required the confirmation of the Roman procurator. Also, trials of this kind were not to be conducted during the period of the festival.

The strongest argument against the Synoptic presentation is, however, that it is styled throughout in a Christian, and not in a Jewish, way; i.e., on the basis of scriptural proof and the Christian confession to the messiahship and divine Sonship of Jesus. The High Priest's question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (Mark 14:61), is unthinkable from the viewpoint of Jewish premises, because Son of God was not a Jewish title for the Messiah. Thus, the account reflects the controversies of the later church with the Judaism of its day.

There also is in the Gospels a tendency to exonerate Pilate at the Jews' expense. His behaviour, however, does not match the picture that nonbiblical sources have handed down about him. But everything speaks for Jesus' having been arrested as a troublemaker, informally interrogated, and handed over to Pilate as the leader of a political revolt by the pro-Roman priestly and Sadducean members of the Sanhedrin, who were dominant in Jerusalem society in those days. The cleansing of the Temple and a prophetic, apocalyptic saying of Jesus (John 2:19; cf. Mark 14:58; Acts 6:14) about the destruction of the Temple may thereby have played a role. It can hardly be assumed that each and all of the Pharisees, who were without political influence at that time, were involved in the plot. Nor are they mentioned as a separate group in the Passion narratives alongside the priests, elders, and scribes.

The other scenes in the Passion story do not need to be listed here separately. They relate more to the theological meaning of Jesus' Passion and are, to a large measure, formed in an edifying cultic manner, even though they refer to events that are certainly historical; e.g., Judas' betrayal, Jesus' last meal with his disciples, and Peter's denial of Jesus. The traces of an eyewitness account are perhaps still recognizable at certain points (Mark 14:52; 15:21).

The accounts differ in their presentation of Jesus' death, especially in their rendering of his last words. It is only in Mark and Matthew that Jesus dies crying out the prayer from Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The distinction between the repentant and the defiant thief is only found in Luke. Jesus' last words are given differently in Luke ("Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!") and John ("It is finished"). Each of these accounts, as also the testimony of the Roman centurion ("Truly this man was the Son of God!"; Mark 15:39), gives expression to the significance of Jesus and his story.