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.

A third puzzling statement is found in Jesus' response to James and John. Are they ready to drink the cup that he himself was to drink, and to be baptized with the baptism with which he was baptized? The "chalice", also mentioned in the description of the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, symbolizes suffering and martyrdom. In the prophetic writings, it is often called the cup of the Lord's wrath. The word "baptism" probably referred to the trials that awaited Jesus, as indicated by John's baptism, which symbolized the Exodus from Egypt. Jesus was to share the fate of Israel and thus usher in the true Exodus.

I have been able to consider these three statements only in the briefest form. But if we use them as a means of interpreting the main symbolic action of the Easter meal, the picture is very clear. Jesus evidently regarded his own death as a central part of his calling, which inextricably linked his ministry to the destiny of Israel. This sheds light on the prophecies of suffering so numerous in the synoptic gospels. Their authenticity continues to be questioned, but the Last Supper and the explanations we have studied provide the necessary basis for their interpretation.

All of this becomes clearer in the context of the belief of the Jews of the Second Temple era in the coming eschatological redemption, as Albert Schweitzer noted a century ago. Redemption had to be preceded by a period of terrible suffering, called the Messianic Tribulation. Terrible calamities will befall Israel, but then a new age of redemption and forgiveness of sins will come. According to Schweitzer, Jesus foresaw the coming trials, the periasmos, and wanted to take on their burden. This explains his exhortation to his disciples to watch and pray so as not to be subjected to "periasmos." Such assumptions acquire special credibility if we compare them with the stories about the Jews, who also considered themselves the bearers of the sufferings of the Israeli people: the Maccabean martyrs, prophets and the righteous man, whose persecution, death and retribution are described in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (chapters 2-3). Similar themes are raised in the Qumran narratives.

At the heart of these movements were various biblical texts: the Psalms, the books of the prophets Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel and, of course, Isaiah, in particular, passages from chapters 40 to 55 dedicated to the righteous Servant of God. I do not think that the Jews in the Second Temple era already considered this image outside the context of Isaiah's prophecies, or that they used the image of the Servant as the basis for a special doctrine of atonement, but rather that all these writings testify to their belief that the suffering of Israel must have been borne by one particular person. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about the belief of the Jews of the pre-Christian era in the "Servant of God" – the Messiah who was destined to sympathize and die to atone for the sins of Israel and the whole world.

However, there was also something, as evidenced by dozens of texts, most notably Isaiah, namely, the widespread belief in the mo that Israel's suffering was part of a single divine plan. The day will come when the sorrow will come to an end. The present state of affairs is explained by the sin of Israel itself. But the sufferings of the people were supposed to hasten the end of nourishment, the cleansing of sin and liberation from captivity. His faith was born not in abstract reasoning, but in poverty, torment, and exile. The Jews were not only convinced that Yahweh would deliver Israel from tribulation in due time. Surprisingly, in a sense, suffering itself had to be a means of redemption.

I believe that the person and identity of Jesus at death's door must be seen within the framework of this worldview.

It is possible to reconstruct with certainty the mindset that led a first-century Jew to conclude that Yahweh would choose as his instrument one man who would bear the punishment of all Israel, and his suffering would be filled with exceptional meaning. At the same time, it is not difficult to believe that any of the Israelites could imagine themselves in the place of this man. Therefore, we are justified in assuming that Jesus had similar thoughts. Let me dwell on this in more detail.