Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, March 27, 2013 Read – Luke 22:1-38 We have now reached the end of the story. It is important to note that at this point all four gospels converge to tell essentially that same story. That has led many interpreters to the belief that a “Passion Narrative” precedes any of our present gospels, including Mark. That is likely to be the case – whether or not this “Passion Narrative” was a written source or only the oral telling of the most significant part of the story of Jesus. Having said that, it is important also to say that each of the four gospel writers has significantly shaped the story in his own way. If the theory that Mark is the first gospel writer, and that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as one of their sources is true, then it is also important to notice that Luke has once again significantly edited Mark. Luke’s gospel differs so significantly at points that some interpreters have hypothesized that Luke is using additional sources along with Mark. That may be the case, but it is impossible to make that determination. It is possible that Luke had only Mark at his disposal and that the changes are his working with Mark and do not come from elsewhere. We have been witness to Luke’s substantial editing all along the way and to see Luke doing that here is not unusual. In the end it really does not matter. At any rate it seems evident that Luke is still using Mark as the skeleton for his narrative. Mark tells us that is was now two days before the Passover (Mark 14:1). Luke drops out the reference to two days and says that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was drawing near (Luke 22:1). Neither of these changes is really all that significant – the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread refer ultimately to the same event. Luke joins Mark in pointing out that the chief priests and scribes were seeking a way to kill Jesus but that they are unable to do so because the people support Jesus. At this point in the story Mark tells of Jesus being anointed for his burial by a woman at the house of a leper named Simon (Mark 14:3-9). Luke omits this story – likely because he has already told a version of the story of a woman anointing Jesus feet with her tears in the house of a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:36-50). Because Luke omits this story at this time the effect in Luke’s narrative is that Luke joins the desire of the chief priests and scribes to kill Jesus with the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Only Luke tells us that Satan had entered into Judas and thus is the real force behind the betrayal (Luke 22:3). Luke also tells us that Judas was looking for an “opportune time” to do his deed – a remark that recalls how Luke ended the story of the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the desert. There Satan was said to leave Jesus until an “opportune time” (Luke 4:13). There has been much speculation regarding the motives of Judas – none of the gospel writers give an explicit reason why he did what he did – for Luke, Judas is mostly a tragic character – others will implicate Judas as being greedy. For the most part Luke follows Mark in his account of the preparation for the Passover. As for Mark, the story recalls Jesus making arrangement for his entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Luke does add one interesting touch to the story – he alone tells us it was Peter and John who Jesus sends to make the arrangement (Luke 22:8). It is in the telling of the events of the eating of the Passover that Luke differs most from Mark – and Matthew who follows Mark closely. First of all Luke does not identify that there is a betrayer in their midst until after they had eaten – Mark reveals this information as the meal begins (Mark 14:18). Only Luke tells of Jesus’ intense desire to eat this Passover and of his prophesy that he will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:15-16). The fact is that in Luke’s telling of the story Jesus does not eat. As the meal itself begins Luke tells us that Jesus took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to his disciples to divide among themselves – again Jesus does not drink but says that he will not drink of his cup until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:17-18). Only Luke tell us of this first cup which is followed by the bread. Following the cup Luke tells of Jesus taking bread, giving thank, breaking it and giving it to his disciples to eat, saying to them “This is my body” – these are words that are also found in Mark. Luke, however, has added words to Mark’s account – Luke’s exact words are, “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19-20). This expansion of Mark’s words sounds a lot like the words found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 where Paul tells the Corinthians that he is passing on the tradition regarding the Lord’s Supper that he received. This one of those places interpreters point to as evidence of another source than Mark. Perhaps that source is only in the memory of Luke who picked it up in his experience of the Lord’s Supper – an event that happened very early within the life of the church. Next Luke tells of Jesus taking a cup after the supper and giving it to his disciples to drink – thus following the pattern he found in Mark. How are we to understand all of this? What is this business of two cups? Perhaps the best way to understand it is to reflect upon the experience of the Passover – in the Passover four cups of wine are used. So, it is possible that Jesus spoke twice in regard to the cup. Where Luke received that information is impossible to determine but the scenario is possible – and it may be that Luke has indeed used a source other than Mark – after all he told us in his introduction that he was aware of what others had written. In Luke’s gospel it is only after the supper has finished that Jesus reveals that a betrayer is at hand. Mark had let that word out early in the night. Luke’s words are similar to Mark’s though only Luke tells of the reality that the Son of goes as has been determined but woe to the man who betrays him (Luke 22:21-23). The response of the disciples in Mark carries with it an implied negative response. They all say, “Certainly it is not I.” In Luke the response is far more tentative and it seems all of them know they are vulnerable and that they might be the betrayer. In Luke’s version of the story the betrayer is never identified during the meal – it is only at the moment of betrayal at Gethsemane that it becomes clear that it is Judas. Luke inserts a very interesting section into his gospel at this point. Actually it is something he found in Mark. Mark had spoken much earlier in the story, right after the last time Jesus predicted his death and James and John misunderstand and seek the seats of honor in the kingdom (Mark 10:42-45) – material that Luke had omitted at that time. Luke tells us that a dispute broke out among the disciples at the close of the Passover meal regarding who was the greatest among them – the same problem faced in Mark at that point when James and John claimed the best seats. The words in Luke come right out of the culture of that time – Gentile who lord it over others who are called “benefactors” – benefactors were wealthy people who got others to do their bidding by providing for their living. These wealthy ones really didn’t contribute anything to the society except perhaps a job for some with less – they maintained their high status and the expense of all those around them. The landholder in the parable who sent his son to receive a share may well have been such a benefactor. The Jewish people despised all benefactors – Herod having been both a benefactor to others and in tow to his benefactor, Caesar. Jesus says that the greatest in his kingdom is the one who is servant to all. Once again Luke’s warning about the threat of wealth comes to mind. Luke backs up the words he found in Mark by more words he found in “Q” – Matthew shares these words in a different context in his gospel. Jesus tells his followers that there are indeed appointed to a kingdom and that they shall rule over the twelve tribes in that kingdom – but their rule will be one of grace and benevolence since they will rule as Jesus rules. In Luke’s account Jesus predicted Peter’s denial while they are still at the place of the Passover before they leave for the Mount of Olives. Mark will tell this story after they have arrived there. While it seems clear that Luke has the same event in mind, he has greatly expanded upon the theme and made the story far more ominous. Luke’s skill as a writer shines. Only Luke tells us of Satan’s demand to sift Simon like wheat (Luke 22:31) and as readers we are immediately reminded of Judas and Satan. Only Luke told of Satan’s involvement in Judas’ actions. Will the same thing happen to Simon as to Judas? Luke draws Peter and Judas closer together than any other gospel writer and in the process reminds all of us readers that we are like both Peter and Judas – we have some of each within us. Though Jesus’ words to Peter are ominous they are hopeful – Jesus says that even though Peter will fail that after he has returned he will strengthen his brothers. Only Luke gives this assurance. The familiar words regarding the fact that before the cock crows in the morning Peter will have denied Jesus three times agree with Mark’s account. Before they leave for the Mount of Olives Luke will tell us of one more mysterious event – only Luke tells us about this. Jesus reminds his disciples that they were without need when they were sent on their missionary journey – they were to have no provision along with them. Now Jesus tells them no provision will be made – in fact those who have no sword are to sell their outer garment to buy one. What could Jesus possibly mean by that? So much for non-violence? Luke’s quote from Isaiah 53:12 provides the clue – the suffering servant in Isaiah will be numbered among the transgressors – so must Jesus and the possession of swords will accomplish that. As Jesus is arrested the sword will be used and evidence will be provided to Jesus’ accusers that he is indeed among those who transgress.