Hebrews introduces a long roll-call of heroes and heroines of faith. Right from the opening example of Abel, it is clear that faith regularly made these men and women vulnerable to suffering, persecution, and even violent death. Hebrews notes that many of these persons of faith were tortured, mocked, flogged, and imprisoned (Heb. 11: 35–6), as well as mentioning three ways in which some of them died: ‘they were stoned to death, they were sawn in two, they were killed by the sword’ (11: 37). In this list of heroes and heroines of faith we find one royal name, King David (11: 32), a general reference to ‘the prophets’ (also vs. 32), but no priests as such, even if several of those listed (like Abel, Noah, Abraham, and King David himself ) did on occasion perform some cultic, priestly action. The Gospels report that Jesus recognized that a prophetic vocation might well involve suffering and even violent death: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!’ (Matt. 23: 37 par.; see also Matt. 23: 34 par.). Jesus is also remembered as having mentioned the killing of Zechariah (Matt. 23: 35 par.), a priest who, by command of King Joash, was stoned to death ‘in the court of the house of the Lord’ (2 Chron. 24: 20–2). There are good grounds for taking these statements as stemming substantially from Jesus, and thus concluding to what should be a relatively uncontroversial position: Jesus himself acknowledged the dangers that attended a prophetic and priestly vocation.8
8 See J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 942, 945 8, 950 1.
He clearly thought of himself and his mission also in prophetic terms (Mark 6: 4 parr.). That he understood his vocation also in priestly terms appears a reasonable conclusion from the narratives of the Last Supper (see next thesis). He seems also to have in some sense thought of himself in kingly terms. We might base this conclusion on such passages as his interchange with James and John when they ask to sit on Jesus’ right hand and left in his coming royal glory (Mark 10: 35–45 parr.). Jesus’ ominous reply about what his kingship will involve, the ‘cup’ that he will drink and the ‘baptism’ with which he will be baptized, more than hint at the suffering to come. It will culminate with his being crucified on the charge of being a dangerous royal pretender (Mark 15: 26). That charge suggests that Jesus had given an impression of claiming, at least implicitly, some kind of royal authority. Where the charge affixed to the cross indicated that Pontius Pilate thought of that kingship as a threat to public order, Jesus himself understood his kingship in terms of service and suffering.9
9 See O’Collins, Christology, 67 80. 10 N. Schreurs, ‘A Non Sacrificial Interpretation of Christian Redemption’, in T. Merrigan and J. Haers (eds.), The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 551.
Unquestionably, we cannot draw from the historical witness of the Gospels a picture of Jesus clearly enunciating his threefold office as priest, prophet, and king. But there are good reasons for concluding that (1) he understood his mission in terms of prophetic, kingly, and priestly functions, and (2) knew the deadly risks inherent in these functions. In particular, as we shall argue in the next thesis, he knew the exercise of his priesthood to involve him in suffering and a violent death. At the Last Supper he dramatized what Hebrews expressed about the utter vulnerability of his priestly vocation.
Page 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
