Did Jesus Foreknow His Death, Was He Willing to Die, and Did He Understand the Redemptive Meaning of His Death?
Did Jesus Foreknow His Death, Was He Willing to Die, and Did He Understand the Redemptive Meaning of His Death?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54855/csl.26621Keywords:
The historical Jesus, foreknowledge, acceptance, understanding, the event of the cross, redemptive deathAbstract
The purpose of this study is to address the affirmation that the historical Jesus foreknew, willingly accepted, and understood His salvific death—a matter of great importance within the Christian faith. The significance of this theme is evident in the reflective and scholarly efforts of many researchers. The negative position holds that there is no objective evidence to demonstrate that Jesus foreknew and understood His salvific death. Conversely, the affirmative position maintains that there is indeed objective evidence proving that Jesus foreknew, willingly accepted, and fully understood His salvific death. Between these two opposing positions, the Catholic Church has affirmed that, in professing the faith that Jesus "was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried," the Church not only recognizes the Passion of Christ as a historical event but also affirms that Jesus freely accepted death upon the cross in order to atone for sin and to bring about the salvation of humanity.
References
Boyarin, D. (1999). Dying for God. Stanford University Press.
Bultmann, R. (1964). The primitive Christian kerygma and the historical Jesus. In C. E. Braaten & R. A. Harrisville (Eds.), The historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ (pp. 22–23). Abingdon Press.
Collins, J. J. (1978). The root of immortality: Death in the context of Jewish wisdom. Harvard Theological Review, 71, 17–92.
Daube, D. (1962). Death as release in the Bible. Novum Testamentum, 5, 82–104.
Droge, A. J., & Tabor, J. D. (1992). A noble death. HarperSanFrancisco.
John Paul II. (2008). Chúa Giêsu - Con Thiên Chúa là Đấng Cứu Thế: Giáo lý theo Kinh Tin Kính (Nguyễn Đức Tuyên & Ngưỡng Nhân Lưu Ấu Nhi, Trans.).
Kasper, W. (2011). Jesus the Christ. T&T Clark International.
McKnight, S. (2005). Jesus and his death: Historiography, the historical Jesus, and atonement theory. Baylor University Press.
Nguyễn Hai Tính. (2022). Giáo trình dẫn nhập Kitô học. Nhà Xuất Bản Tôn Giáo.
Oberlinner, L. (1980). Todeserwartung und Todesgewißheit Jesu: Zum Problem einer historischen Begründung (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 10). Katholisches Bibelwerk.
O’Collins, G. (2009). Christology: A biblical, historical, and systematic study of Jesus (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Page, S. H. T. (1980). The authenticity of the ransom logion (Mark 10:45b). In R. T. France & D. Wenham (Eds.), Studies of history and tradition in the four Gospels (Gospel Perspectives 1, pp. 137–161). JSOT Press.
Palmer, D. W. (1975). To die is gain. Novum Testamentum, 17, 203–218.
Schweitzer, A. (1910). The quest of the historical Jesus: A critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede (W. Montgomery, Trans.). A. & C. Black. (Original work published 1906)
Segal, A. (2004). Life after death. Doubleday.
Thần học tự do. (n.d.). Thời sự Thần học, (94). https://catechesis.net/than-hoc-tu-do/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nguyễn Hoàng Vũ, S.J.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
