Although scholars in the past century have often doubted that Jesus could have predicted his own death,51 others have demurred, entirely apart from the question of prophetic foreknowledge.52 As Leander Keck observes, if “Jesus did reckon seriously with the likelihood that he would be put to death violently, then the passion predictions merit another look.”53 Because they do not interpret the significance of his death, Keck argues, they give no indication of being Christian inventions after the fact.54
Some protest that “Q” omits passion predictions, since the passion predictions come from Mark,55 but this objection fails to reckon with several factors. First, for all we know, “Q” could be Mark’s source for the idea at least once; sometimes Mark apparently gives an abbreviated version of “Q” material.56 While this is simply an objection to an argument from silence rather than a positive argument, other objections exist to assuming these predictions to be merely Mark’s invention. Thus second, John apparently independently provides passion predictions (Jn 2:4; 8:28; 12:23-24, 32-33). Third, Paul, writing earlier than Mark, confirms the tradition of one passion prediction and explanation that is implied in Jesus’ words at the last supper (1 Cor 11:23-25).57
Even if one discounts the possibility that God could grant insight to one of his agents concerning his mission (which, as Raymond Brown notes, is merely a philosophical a priori),58 doubts that Jesus foresaw his death are untenable for several reasons.59 Good historical reasons exist for supposing that Jesus foresaw his imminent martyrdom, and probably even viewed it as part of his mission.60
First, the saying may reflect an early Aramaic construction and three characteristics of Jesus’ distinctive style.61 Second, Jesus shared the common Jewish view that sufferings precede the kingdom,62 which renders more understandable his own imminent expectation of suffering. Third, he also accepted the Jewish view, confirmed in John’s death, that prophets are martyred, and Jesus in a “Q” saying (Matt 23:37//Lk 13:34) linked this tradition of martyred prophets with Jerusalem’s failure to accept his own message.63 (Some also recall that God’s suffering servants in the remnant traditions of both Isaiah and Daniel provided sufficient grist for such views,64 and the Maccabean tradition hallowed martyrdom.)
Fourth, the gospel tradition reports numerous conflicts Jesus had experienced up to this point, the implications of which should have become clearer as he approached the arena of the political powerbrokers in Jerusalem.65 Fifth, some of Jesus’ other sayings, like disciples sharing his cup (Mk 10:38) and his words at the last supper (Mk 14:22, 24), point in the same direction.66
But finally and most importantly, Jesus could not but have foreknown his death: Jesus ultimately provoked his death, showing his control over its timing, by his apparent assault on an institution by which the priestly aristocracy symbolized their power.67 No one could directly challenge Jerusalem’s municipal aristocracy, which was connected with Roman interests in “stability” and “order,” without anticipating severe reprisals, for any such challenge could not but appear to the state’s guardians as a threat to the state’s political security.
That Jesus’ execution as an accused evildoer condemned by the highest court of the land would be instigated by his people’s priestly leaders (also Mk 8:31) is one of the striking ironies of the gospel story that must have made it offensive to Jewish people loyal to the religious establishment — hardly the sort of story Jewish Christian apologists would have invented.68 Minorities in conflict with the priestly political elite in Judea (whether the Pharisees or, to a greater extent, the Essenes and others) could understand it, but it would simply amplify the offense of Jesus’ execution for Diaspora hearers. Yet it fits Jesus’ own mission: if he expected a prophet’s death in Jerusalem, political conditions being what they were he had to expect the elite priests’ Sanhedrin and possibly (especially at Passover) the Roman governor to play a role.
It would not be implausible that if Jesus expected to face rejection and death for an offensive message like many earlier prophets, he might also expect God’s vindication in swiftly establishing the kingdom,69 hence (in the perspective of many Palestinian Jews) raising the dead. Kim Huat Tan has shown the plausibility of Jesus speaking of a future, postmortem role for himself based on several factors, the most compelling being the multiplicity of sayings about the resurrection and especially parousia, many with features we normally use to signal authenticity.70 That Jesus may have expected his own postmortem, resurrected exaltation ahead of that of others would be distinctive — we know of no direct precedents for the view — but would at least be compatible with Jesus’ apparent expectation of an interim era in which a community could carry on after him (see ch. 14). (Certainly some other Jewish teachers envisioned an interim eschatological era of some sort.)71
That Jesus rarely spoke about his impending passion, especially in public, fits the Gospels’ picture of him focusing on God’s reign rather than himself in public teaching.72 That the disciples misunderstood such clear teaching (e.g., Mk 8:32) may imply the strength of the more popular messianic category in light of which they interpreted Jesus’ mission; it also suggests that the passion prediction, clear as it was, could be construed the way oracles in the ancient Mediterranean were often construed, on the principle that they often appeared obscure until fulfilment.73 In any case, that Jesus expected his execution seems clear from his course of action.
