But how to do it. Judging by the activities of the Messianic and similar Jewish movements, one would expect the following to happen: Jesus would go to Jerusalem, fight the forces of evil, and ascend the throne as the Messiah, the true King of Israel. In a sense, Jesus lived up to those expectations. However, everything did not happen as his followers imagined.

Crucifixion of the Messiah

Jesus' confidence in his Messianic calling is, in my opinion, one of the key points that reveals to us the significance of the crucifixion as part of that calling. In doing so, of course, we will have to ask why the Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to the Romans and why they crucified him. However, to be brief, I would like to focus on the intentions of Jesus himself.

Let me make a short introduction. When I was teaching at Maxwell University in Montreal, I was asked to teach classes for twelve-year-olds at the Sunday school of a local church. Once I asked the children: "Why did Jesus die?" And gave them time to think about the answer on their own, without consulting each other. Then everyone in turn was invited to express their opinion. Interestingly, about half of the disciples cited historical reasons: he died because the chief priests and Pharisees were dissatisfied with him, or because the Romans feared him. The other half offered theological answers: he died to save us from our sins so that we could go to heaven, or because God loves us. We spent a whole hour comparing these answers fascinatingly. I don't know if any of these children remember what we were doing, but I haven't forgotten it. I remain convinced that the juxtaposition of the two sides of this serious question, the historical and the theological, is one of the most important tasks in the study of the person of Jesus.

Here we are inevitably confronted with two main problems of historical description. First of all (and I do not have the opportunity to substantiate my words at this time), I believe that, despite the abundance of different points of view and theological interpretations contained in existing written sources, there is still not much historical material in them. Second, considerable disagreement arose as to whether Jesus went to Jerusalem with the intention of giving his life, or at least because he was aware of the danger that threatened him and did not seek to escape it. Here we return to the difference in the views of Schweitzer and Wrede. The latter, like most twentieth-century theologians, rejected the idea that Jesus' death was not accidental, or that he at least did not rule out the possibility of such an outcome. Schweitzer, on the other hand, by studying the person of Jesus in an eschatological and apocalyptic context, was able to make sense of Jesus' seemingly strange intentions. Taking into account the necessary corrections and additions, my assumptions are close to Schweitzer's ideas.

Let's start, as before, with the main symbol. One of the eminent Jewish scholars, Jacob Neusner, recently suggested that the Passover meal of Jesus was intended to be a complement and a kind of counterbalance to his actions in the Temple. While I disagree with Neusner in assessing the significance of these actions, he is essentially right. Jesus' conduct in the Temple and at the Passover meal is, as stated in the preceding chapter, the culmination of two lines of activity. By its holding in the Temple, it definitively challenged the prevailing symbolism. The temple was the greatest of the Jewish symbols, and Jesus, by asserting his authority over it, put his ministry and himself in its place. The Last Supper became a symbol of a royal feast chosen by Jesus, worthy of the completion of a new exodus, the Temple sacrifices symbolized the meeting of the God of the covenant with his people, forgiveness and hope. God's presence among them signified the renewal and inviolability of the covenant, his love. And now, by his actions, Jesus declared: "All that the Temple represented has found a new and final embodiment in its person and to do.

What can be said about the Last Supper itself? The significance of the Jewish Passover meal is beyond doubt. Disagreements arise over whether the Last Supper can be considered as such. Personally, I have no doubt about it, despite the fact that in his characteristic manner of subverting authority, Jesus arranged for it on another evening. The Passover brought the feasters back to the time of the Exodus not only through remembrances. It seemed to assert their status as a free people who had made a covenant with Yahweh. After the Babylonian captivity, the celebration of the Passover acquired an additional meaning. With hope and faith, the feasters turned their minds to the true end of the exile and the renewal of the covenant. The return from captivity to the window meant the complete forgiveness of the sins of Israel that had caused the exile. Therefore, the Passover meal in the period of the Second Temple was of great importance in itself, symbolizing the forgiveness of sins – the eschatological blessing of the new institution.

To his pseudo-Passover meal, surrounded by twelve followers whom he regarded as members of his family, Jesus also gave a special symbolic meaning, reversed without words. The history of Israel had reached its climax, and as this meal testified, the apogee was the fate of Jesus himself. His actions with the bread and cup, like the brick in Ezekiel's hands or Jeremiah's broken vessel, were filled with prophetic symbolism and pointed to the coming judgment and salvation of Israel, which Jesus believed Yahweh would accomplish in the very near future. In this context, his words brought his listeners back to all things related to the captivity and the Exodus, making it clear that Israel's hope would soon be realized through him, Jesus. This death must be seen in the broader context of Israel's redemption story, as it was to be its decisive moment. Those who shared a meal with Jesus became a people of renewed covenant who received the "forgiveness of sins" as a sign of the end of exile. Uniting around it, they formed a true eschatological Israel.

What does this interpretation of the Last Supper mean in terms of understanding the person of Jesus and his intentions? We have already mentioned that each Messiah was expected to wage a victorious war against Israel's enemies and to rebuild the Temple, where Yahweh meets with his people, granting grace and forgiveness. But, as the preceding chapters testify, Jesus' appeal to his contemporaries was doubly revolutionary. In order to accept this call, Israel had to become the light of the world once again, not through military victories, but by "turning the other cheek" and "going the second way." Breaking the usual stereotypes and traditions, Jesus called his followers to take up the cross and follow it, to accompany it to the new kingdom that he announced to them. I believe Jesus took his preaching seriously. He himself went all the way he offered to his disciples, "He turned the other cheek, walked the second race and bore his cross. He became the light of the world and the salt of the earth. He was the personification of Israel for the salvation of Israel itself." Jesus conquered evil by taking upon himself its most terrible outpourings.

As soon as we come to understand the most important things, we will understand the meaning of the mysterious statements that accompany the main symbolic action. Again, I would like to make three points. Luke (23:31) quotes the strange words of Jesus on his way to Golgotha: "For if this is done to a verdant tree, what will happen to a dry one?" With these words, Jesus made it clear that his own death at the hands of Rome was an omen for the people who had rejected him. The Romans accused him of a crime that he, unlike many of his countrymen, did not commit. He was a verdant tree, they were dry.

It should be noted that this statement does not contain any allusion to the doctrine of the atonement, although it is in this context that the Church viewed the death of Jesus from the earliest days of its history. These are not the apostles' reflections on the crucifixion, but the living words of Jesus himself. They show that there is an inextricable link between his death and the fate of Israel. Having proclaimed God's judgment on the Temple and all the people, Jesus was the first to bear the punishment, which symbolized the massacre of the Romans against their rebellious subjects.

This theme acquires additional significance in the second "riddle". Jesus said, "How often would I have gathered your children together, like a bird gathering its young under its wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." These words contain another warning about the judgment of the Temple abandoned by God. The image of the bird with its chicks eloquently testifies to Jesus' intentions in connection with the coming judgment. In the reader's mind, a picture of a fire arises. The bird gathers its chicks under its wing, and when the fire recedes, they are found alive and unharmed, sheltered by its charred, lifeless body. Jesus wanted to take upon himself the punishment that threatened the city and all the people. Like Elijah in Sir. 49:10, he hoped to turn away the wrath of God from Israel. However, this was no longer possible. Jesus' destiny was inseparable from the future of Jerusalem, but its inhabitants rejected the blessing he offered.