Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 7 Points of Contact Shared by Luke and John – Martha, Mary, and Lazarus: In this section we will need to consider Luke 10:38-42 and John 11:1-12:11. Only Luke and John mention Mary and Martha in their gospels. John adds their brother, Lazarus, to the story. A good question to ponder is whether or not they have the same family in mind. My judgment is that they do! John provides us with much more information about the family. They live at Bethany near Jerusalem – just two miles away. If Luke and John are talking about the same family, this means that Luke is aware of a Judean ministry of Jesus. We have noted that John has Jesus move back and forth between Galilee and Judea. Luke is faithful to his main source, Mark, and has Jesus remain in Galilee. We noted earlier that The Galilean Ministry of Jesus is likely Mark’s invention. It is important to Mark’s story! But maybe the presence of Martha and Mary in both Luke and John indicates that in actuality Jesus’ ministry was not limited to Galilee. It certainly wasn’t in John’s gospel! So, once again, reading the gospels together may expand our understanding of the ministry of Jesus. We are ready now to move to the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection. There we will find many more points of contact – and perhaps a few surprises.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 6 Points of Contact Shared by Luke and John – The Samaritans: Luke and John share a number of points of contact with one another that are not found in the other two gospels. We will note some of them as we look more closely at the Passion Narrative. Here we will examine a few points of contact within the realm of the ministry of Jesus prior to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In this section we will need to consider Luke 9:51-56, 10:30-37, and 17:11-19 along with the stories of Samaritans in the book of Acts; and John4:4-42. Both Luke and John place Jesus in connection with Samaritans – something Mark and Matthew never do. The main point of contact in John is the ministry of Jesus to the Samaritan woman at the well and ultimately to many other Samaritans. Luke does not tell this story; however, Luke tells his readers near the beginning of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem that he is passing near Samaria and the potential for contact is made. And Luke makes Samaritans the heroes of at least a couple of his stories. It is a Samaritan who is the hero in the parable of Jesus about the man who falls among robbers – the Good Samaritan. And it is a Samaritan leper who returns to give thanks to Jesus for his healing. In the book of Acts the ministry of the church quickly turns to the Samaritans. Likely Jesus in fact reached out to Samaritans during his ministry – a fact that would have also placed him at odds with the religious leaders. Reading John and Luke together leads us toward this insight. Points of Contact Shared by Luke and John – the Great Catch of Fish: In this section we will need to consider Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:4-8. We have already looked at this story in connection with the call of disciples. The remarkable thing to note in hearing this story is once again how gospel writers craftily use their material in proclaiming the gospel.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 5 The Healing of the Official’s Slave/Son: In this section we will need to consider Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10; and John 4:46-54. All three gospel writers tell a similar story of Jesus healing an official’s slave/son at a distance. Matthew and Luke are closer to one another although there are differences within their stories. John’s story has even more differences to deal with. Some common elements seem to indicate that the same event lies behind all three accounts. The one requesting Jesus is an army official – likely a Gentile in all three stories. The official is connected with Capernaum – although Jesus is in Cana in John’s gospel. The official has great faith knowing that Jesus can heal from afar in all three stories. While one could argue otherwise it seems likely that all three writers have the same event in mind. The minor changes all three make to the story really doesn’t change the main point of the story. Reading the gospels together helps us to see how each gospel writer takes the traditions available to them and shapes them in their own way.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 4 Some Sayings of Jesus – “Gaining and Losing Life”: In this section we will need to consider Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24; and John 12:25. All four gospel writers tell their readers that Jesus told his followers that seeking to gain one’s life will result in losing it, and losing one’s life will lead to gaining life. The words are not exactly the same, but that Jesus made such a statement seems to be confirmed by the reality that all four gospel writers use this saying. The saying, of course, is a challenging and difficult one for all of us to hear and to receive into our own lives. Yet, the presence of this saying in all four gospels indicates that it was an important part of the message of Jesus. In fact, this saying gets at the heart of what it means to be a disciple. The saying drives us to the cross. And the saying in all four gospels comes at that crucial moment when Jesus is pointing toward his own death and resurrection. Reading the gospels together confirms that this is one of those crucial elements of the message of Jesus. We would do well to hear and be transformed by it. Some Sayings of Jesus – “Isaiah’s Prophecy”: In this section we will need to consider Mark 4:12; Matthew 13:14-15; Luke 8:10 and Acts 28:26; and John 12:39-40. All four gospel writers contain the strange prophecy of Isaiah that the effect of Jesus’ words may have the possibility of causing those who have ears not to hear, those who have eyes not to see, so that they might not turn and be forgiven. Mark tells his readers that this is the reason Jesus speaks to those who are “outside” in parables. Matthew and Luke say somewhat the same though each attempts to soften Mark’s rendition. That John also knows these words and tells them to his readers seems to indicate that there is something real behind them and not just Mark’s playing with the words. They mark the frustration of Jesus with those who will not receive him. And, of course, they have power in our world too – there are those who choose to remain blind and deaf to God. The words are filled with tragedy and mystery. Why do some believe and some not? That is a question none of us can answer – we can only dwell with its mystery. This possibility must not deter us from proclaiming the gospel. We proclaim but ultimately it is God who does the work. Some Sayings of Jesus – “The Ripe Harvest”: In this section we will need to consider Matthew 9:37-38; Luke 10:2; and John 4:35. Matthew, Luke, and John all contain a saying of Jesus meant to motivate his followers to bear witness to outsiders. The gist of the saying is the observation of Jesus of a harvest ripe for the harvesting and the need for more harvesters to enter into the labor. The context of the saying in each gospel differs but the impact it the same. Reading the gospels together seems to indicate that it is likely Jesus said something like this since both John and the synoptic writers, Matthew and Luke, contain this saying. Some Sayings of Jesus – “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”: In this section we will need to consider Matthew 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22; and John 1:18, 3:35, and 10:15. As we have read the four gospels we have noted that John has a distinct language of his own – John often launches into theology instead of narrative. The words we find in Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21-22 jump out at us as sounding more like something we expect to read in John than in either Matthew or Luke. Does this indicate that Jesus may well have used words like this in his conversation with his disciples? Or, are Matthew and Luke aware of some of the theological statements that finally make their way into John’s gospel? Were there snippets of John’s gospel known outside of the final document of John? Once again we are unable to answer our own questions, but the point of contact provided by this saying is an interesting one. It remains my view that the synoptic writers are unaware of John’s gospel as we know it today and also that the writer of John’s gospel is not aware of Mark, Matthew, or Luke. But cross-pollination may have taken place in some remote ways as this saying seems to indicate.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 3 The Healing of a Blind Man: In this section we will need to consider Mark 8:22-26 and John 9:1-51. Though these two stories are quite different from one another and it may be pressing the point a bit too far, there is a similarity between them that is at least interesting. Both stories speak of Jesus making mud from spittle and putting it on the eyes of a blind man. And both stories are quite obviously modified by each gospel writer to make a theological point. Mark’s story is that strange episode where Jesus needs to heal the blind man twice – likely the reason both Matthew and Luke drop the story. Mark is using the story to make the point that if the disciples – and for that matter anyone else – are going to truly see who Jesus is they are going to need to see beyond the miracles and wonders that Jesus has done. Mark will go on to drive home the point that the only place to truly see who Jesus is, is to see Jesus dead on the cross – he is the Crucified Messiah! So the double healing of the blind man works for Mark to make a point – even if the story may have been embellished. For his part, John has taken the story of the healing of a man born blind from birth and weaved it into one of his wonderful stories that is more about receiving spiritual sight than physical sight. John’s story also is likely embellished to make a point. An interesting question to ponder – one that we simply cannot answer – is whether or not the same story of the healing of a blind man by Jesus lies behind both of these stories. If this is indeed a point of contact between Mark and John, it is certainly a very indirect connection. The Healing of a Paralytic: In this section we will need to consider Mark 2:1-2; Matthew 9:2-8; Luke 5:17-26; and John 5:1-18. All four gospel writers tell a story of Jesus healing a paralytic man who is told to take up his bed and go home. Mark, Matthew, and Luke tell the same story so we can treat them as one. John’s story is quite different except for the command. The setting of Mark, Matthew, and Luke’s story is in Galilee in Jesus’ home. The setting of John’s story is in Jerusalem at a pool near the Temple. Perhaps it is pressing the point too much to even consider that the same story may lie behind both of these stories. Yet, it is interesting to hear them together – especially to hear the command to take up your bed and go home. Once again if there is any connection between these stories it is very indirect.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 2 The Dispute about the Sabbath: In this section we will need to consider Mark 2:23-28 and 3:1-6; Matthew 12:1-8 and 12:9-14; Luke 6:1-5 and 6:6-11; and John 5:1-18 and 9:1-41. All four gospel writers share the common belief that one of the major conflicts between Jesus and the religious leaders was a dispute regarding the understanding of the Sabbath. The religious leaders accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. Jesus understands the Sabbath as an opportunity to do good to one’s neighbor. Observance of Sabbath gets Jesus into trouble. Because all four gospel writers share this common belief it is very likely that this dispute was at the center of the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. Reading the gospels together confirms this fact.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 2 The Dispute about the Sabbath: In this section we will need to consider Mark 2:23-28 and 3:1-6; Matthew 12:1-8 and 12:9-14; Luke 6:1-5 and 6:6-11; and John 5:1-18 and 9:1-41. All four gospel writers share the common belief that one of the major conflicts between Jesus and the religious leaders was a dispute regarding the understanding of the Sabbath. The religious leaders accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. Jesus understands the Sabbath as an opportunity to do good to one’s neighbor. Observance of Sabbath gets Jesus into trouble. Because all four gospel writers share this common belief it is very likely that this dispute was at the center of the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. Reading the gospels together confirms this fact.

Reading the Gospels Together Some Indirect Points of Contact between John and the Synoptic Gospels – Part 1 We have noticed that John does not tell any of the stories of the Galilean ministry of Jesus other than the twin stories of the Multiplication of the Bread and Jesus Walking on the Water. There are; however, some other indirect points of contact that we might notice as we read John’s gospel and those of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. We are going to look at a number of these indirect points of contact in this section. The references for each will be cited separately. The Relationship between Jesus and His Family: In this section we will need to consider Mark 3:19b-21 and 3:31-35; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21; and John 2:1-5 and 7:1-9. The relationship between Jesus and his family provides an interesting connection especially between the gospels of Mark and John. Though the stories are very different both John and Mark seem to be aware of some tension between Jesus and his immediate family. This is likely very surprising to readers of the gospels. We don’t expect this tension. And over the years the church has had a difficult time with these stories. So did Matthew and Luke. If we begin with Mark, the gist of his story is that the family of Jesus begins to think that perhaps Jesus has “gone out of his mind” and they come to take him home. It is interesting that English translators of Mark have almost universally changed the wording so that it appears the “people” are thinking this of Jesus, but the Greek is quite clear that it is Jesus own family who thinks he is “out of his mind.” Interestingly, Mark has tucked this troubling episode in the middle of a deadly conflict that Jesus finds himself engaged in with the religious leaders and at the conclusion of the episode Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are waiting outside, supposedly to take him home, and Jesus says that his true family consists of those who do his Father’s will. Both Matthew and Luke follow Mark with respect to the rest of this story but both drop out the part about Jesus’ family thinking he is “out of his mind.” Apparently they were very uncomfortable with it; however, in different locations they do include the story of Jesus mother and brothers coming to look for him and being told that Jesus’ true family consists of those who do his Father’s will. But without the first part of the story, Matthew and Luke have softened the punch of the story – the family of Jesus is included by implication by Matthew and Luke. As we read John’s gospel we also become aware of a degree of tension between Jesus and his family. The first hint at this tension is in the strange response that Jesus gives to his mother, Mary, during the story of the wedding at Cana in Galilee. When Mary suggests that Jesus do something about the lack of wine, Jesus’ response seems unnecessarily harsh. In our colloquial English it is as if Jesus were to say to his mother, “What’s it to you?” Of course John is making the point that the “hour” has not come for Jesus, but the language of the story seems to indicate that there may be some tension going on. In an even clearer way John tells his readers that Jesus brothers do not believe in him. The episode is midway through the first part of John’s gospel when the tension between Jesus and the Jerusalem leaders is brewing. John tells his readers that the Feast of Booths is approaching and Jesus’ brothers as much as tempt him to go to Jerusalem knowing that he is facing danger there. John clearly says that his brothers do not believe. It is interesting that both John and Mark contain elements of tension between Jesus and his immediate family. We might ask ourselves why Mark and John would tell these stories. The most likely reason is that there is some truth behind them and that there really was tension within Jesus’ immediately family about him. Why would either Mark or John make up such a thing? It is much easier to understand both Mark and John if we let the tension stand as an uncomfortable fact we simply need to accept. Reading Mark and John together confirms both. Mark never resolves the tension. John seems to do that since he will once again speak of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the foot of the cross. This time the tension is absent. And Luke will speak of both Mary and James, the brother of Jesus, being important leaders in the early church. Reading the gospels together does put us in touch with an interesting bit of insight into the story of Jesus though.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 7 At this point John launches into what might best be described as a blending of theology and narrative – with the emphasis on theology. Jesus interprets the meaning of the multiplying of the bread. And in the process Jesus makes powerful claims about himself. The story is closely connected to the OT story of the people of God in the wilderness and the giving of the manna. God gave them bread from heaven. And now Jesus has given them bread – but it is not just bread from heaven since Jesus is himself the bread of life. Jesus reminds his hearers that it was not Moses who gave them the bread but God and thus Jesus is greater than Moses. The story is heavy on theology at this point. No longer are we talking about physical bread to eat but about Jesus as the bread of life. Though the people seem to desire this bread they do not understand. They see only the human Jesus and so they question by what authority he makes the claims he does. Jesus persists and before we know it Jesus has begun to talk about Holy Communion. Unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood they have no part in him. This is a clear allusion to the Lord’s Supper. But, the interesting thing in John’s gospel is that John never tells his readers about the Institution of the Lord’s Supper in the upper room at Passover. In fact we will discover that Jesus is already dead before the Passover meal is celebrated! When Jesus begins to speak about eating his flesh and drinking his blood the crowd becomes angry and many abandon Jesus. They do not understand. Only the Twelve are left. As we noted earlier this is the only reference John makes to the Twelve. Following this John will not mention them again as a group. And the twelve remain more out of desperation than understanding. As was mentioned as we turned to John’s gospel, John has set this whole event in the midst of Passover. And if we think about the synoptic gospels it was in the event of Passover that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. In this Passover John introduces his readers to Holy Communion. We will look closer at Jesus and the Passover later but it is worth noting this connection here. Actually, the synoptic writers had also made an allusion to the Lord’s Supper in their telling of the story of the multiplication of the bread. So, ultimately for John and likely for the synoptic writers too, this story is not so much about the miraculous feeding of the 5000 as it is to make a connection with the OT story of the manna in the wilderness and how God gave bread to his people. The story becomes important for that reason and that is likely why all four gospel writers included this story in their gospels. As we mentioned earlier these stories are dripping in symbolism. John makes that connection clearer for us through his theological interpretation but it is evident in all four gospels. John does not mention a second feeding of the 4000. In fact he mentions nothing directly about any of the other events in the Galilean ministry of Jesus. There may be some other indirect points of contact but they are at best viewed as possible connections. We will look at some of them in our next section.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 6 The story of the walking on water is also essentially the same as Mark’s story – only this time when Jesus and his disciples reach their destiny following the boat crossing they run into the same crowd that had been present at the feeding. This is a significant difference in John’s story and from here on he will depart from what we find in Mark and the other synoptic writers. John pictures the departure in the boat more as an attempt to get away from the crowd who has just been fed than the others do. John had told his readers that when Jesus had fed the 5000 they sought to make Jesus their king by force. This is really a way of saying they wanted him to be the Messiah of their choosing. Jesus is the Messiah but he is not the Messiah at the beck and call of those he has come to serve. Jesus will not submit to the demands of others. The crowd is persistent in their attempt to make Jesus the Messiah they want. They pursue Jesus to his destiny at Capernaum and the scene of the aftermath of the feeding of the 5000 resumes. Jesus confronts them with the reality that they have come to him not because they have correctly interpreted the sign of the multiplication of the loaves but because they want to have their bellies full.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 5 We are now ready to turn to John’s gospel. As we begin to read the story it becomes very clear that John has the same stories in mind that have been shared by the others. These stories are the only events in the Galilean ministry of Jesus that John shares with the synoptic writers. The gist of the stories is essentially alike. It seems very likely that these two stories – the multiplication of the loaves and the walking on water – were already joined together before Mark found them in the traditions he used and also before John used those same traditions. We need to begin with a few observations regarding the setting that John gives for these stories. John tells his readers that Passover is approaching. This is the second Passover John will tell about in his gospel. The first was earlier when Jesus arrived back in Jerusalem following his brief encounter at Cana in Galilee. That the setting is a Passover is crucial to John’s story. John also tells his readers that Jesus and his disciples have gone to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. We need to remember that we are in the midst of one of the “seams” in John’s gospel – he has given us no reference for what has preceded this story. Just before this story Jesus was in Jerusalem. John will tell his readers that Jesus and his disciples cross the sea to Capernaum following the story of the feeding of the 5000. But, like Mark, the exact location for the multiplication of the loaves is not given. Likely we are to understand that it was on the eastern or southern side of the sea since Capernaum is on the northwest side. John does add a few details to the story but it remains essential the same story Mark told.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 4 As we turn to Luke’s gospel we make in important discovery. Luke only tells the story of the multiplication of the bread to feed the 5000. Luke does not tell the story of Jesus walking on the water. And Luke omits the second story of the feeding of the 4000. In the telling of the feeding of the 5000 Luke is very faithful to Mark and tells the story in virtually the same way. So we need to ask ourselves why Luke omitted the story of the walking on water and why did he leave out the second story of the multiplication of the bread? When we were looking earlier at the storyline of Luke’s gospel we noted what has sometimes been called the “great omission” in Luke’s gospel. Luke not only leaves out the story of the walking on water and the second multiplication of the bread but he leaves out a whole lot more too. In fact, Luke jumps from the story of the feeding of the 5000 all the way to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah and the scene in which Jesus asks his disciples who people are saying he is and finally who they say he is. Gone are the stories of the walking on water, Jesus’ healing of people at Gennesaret, Jesus’ debate with the religious leaders about what makes something clean, Jesus’ encounter with the Gentile Syrophoenician woman whose daughter is healed, Jesus curing a deaf man by putting saliva on his tongue, Jesus feeding the 4000, Pharisees demanding a sign, Jesus upbraiding his disciples in the boat for their failure to understand, and the double healing of the blind man. That’s a lot of material. Frankly, we just don’t know why Luke left out all this material. As we mentioned earlier, perhaps Luke had a version of Mark’s gospel that did not contain this material. It seems unlikely that he would have simply mistakenly left out all these stories. It is easy to understand why he might have dropped the story of the double healing of the blind man – Matthew also got rid of that story. But there is really nothing in all the others that should have moved Luke to leave them out. Like Matthew he may well have softened Mark’s harshness – Luke did that in plenty of other places. In the end we may just have to live with this mystery. We don’t know why this material is absent in Luke’s gospel.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 3 As we turn to Matthew’s gospel we hear almost the same story as we heard from Mark. The story of the multiplication of the loaves is virtually identical to Mark. The story of Jesus walking on water is the place where Matthew puts his stamp on the story. Matthew drops Mark’s allusion to the thought that this is an attempt on the part of Jesus to make himself known by “passing his disciples by.” Though Matthew will still use the words “I Am” to convey Jesus words to his frightened disciples he has removed the revelatory nature of the story. Instead Matthew expands Mark’s story telling his readers that when Jesus spoke identifying himself as “I Am” Peter demands of Jesus that if he really is who he claims to be that he tell Peter to come to him on the water. There is a debate about whether or not this request of Peter is a positive thing or not. Was it a good thing that Peter gets out of the boat and begins to walk toward Jesus? Or should we understand Peter’s request to be a temptation of Jesus since Peter really doesn’t believe what he has heard and seen? It is significant that the only times in Matthew’s gospel that anyone says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God …” it is during times of testing. Satan used those words in the testing scene we looked at earlier. Those taunting Jesus at the foot of the cross will also use those words. So, perhaps we should understand Peter as being in their company here. This is not a positive thing on Peter’s part. It is much better to stay in the boat! And when Jesus gets into the boat the wind seizes and all is well. As the scene comes to an end Matthew tells his readers that the disciples worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!” These are the same disciples who Mark has pictured in a boat being lambasted by Jesus because of their dullness and lack of understanding. Matthew and Mark have differing understandings of just what the disciples were like. Faithfully following Mark, Matthew tells his readers the second story of the multiplication of the bread. He also tells of the religious leaders seeking a sign when a great sign has just been done. And Matthew does follow Mark in bringing the disciples back out into the boat where they are warned about the Pharisees and Jesus does call them “men of little faith” because they fail to understand at first. But Matthew has removed most of the harsh words from Mark and as the scene come to an end he tells his readers that the disciples do finally understand. Matthew has not departed greatly from Mark. Yet, we might ask why he did the things he did. Why did Matthew add the incident about Peter? If we understand that to be a negative thing on Peter’s part then perhaps Matthew was attempting to teach his readers that remaining “in the boat” – “in the church” – is the way to live. After all in the boat they are able to recognize Jesus and worship him as the Son of God! Just so, in the church Jesus is recognized and worshiped as the Son of God. Matthew may well be speaking as much to his own community as he is telling what happened in the boat that day. And why did Matthew soften Mark’s upbraiding of the disciples on the part of Jesus? In general Matthew always softens Mark’s harsh and condemning words about the disciples. He has a far more positive view of them. And this is one more example of that.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 2 In just a chapter or so Mark will tell a similar story of Jesus and his disciples encountering a crowd of people who are hungry and have no food. Once again Jesus has compassion for the people and tells his disciples to give them something to eat. Readers of Mark’s gospel ought to be amazed. It is as if the disciples had not experience the first feeding. They have no idea how Jesus will feed all these people. And so the story is repeated. And once again there are clear allusions to the Lord’s Supper. There is a debate among scholars of Mark’s gospel about whether or not there was one experience of the multiplication of loaves or two. Does Mark tell the same story twice to add emphasis and to highlight the ineptitude of Jesus’ disciples? Or did Jesus multiply the bread on two occasions? We really can’t answer that question and answering it is finally not very important. It is interesting that neither Luke nor John will tell of the second feeding. At any rate the second telling of the story does work for Mark to point out how unknowing and inept Jesus’ disciples are. They do not come off well and that may be Mark’s point. Following the second feeding Mark tells his readers that the Pharisees begin to argue with Jesus and demand a sign from him. This is incredible! Jesus has just given them a great and wonderful sign – he has provided bread in the wilderness just as God did through Moses but they did not recognize it! I mentioned earlier that there is symbolism at work in these stories and the main focus of that symbolism is how Jesus did for the people of his day what God had done for the people in the OT – bread is provided in the wilderness. Jesus will not give the people the sign they desire. They could not see the sign already completed so neither will they see another sign. And following this encounter between Jesus and the religious leaders Mark tells his readers that Jesus and his disciples are once again out in the boat on their way to Bethsaida. Jesus attempts to warn his disciples but they do not understand. And so, they receive some of the harshest words Jesus spoke to anyone. The frustration of Jesus abounds. The disciples have not understood. And so in Mark’s telling of the story Jesus will engage on another course attempting to teach them who he is and what the meaning of his coming will be.

Reading the Gospels Together The Multiplication of the Bread and Walking on Water – Part 1 We have already noted that John tells his readers very little about the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. This ought to be surprising to readers of the gospels since Mark, Matthew, and Luke spend so much of their time telling about that ministry. There is one set of two stories that all four gospel writers tell; however, and it is the only thing they all share in common regarding specific stories of the Galilean ministry of Jesus. In this section we will need to consider Mark 6:30-52 and Mark 8:1-21; Matthew 14:13-33 and Matthew 15:32-16:12; Luke 9:10-17; and John 6:1-71. Mark sets the stage for the story of the feeding of the 5000 by telling his readers that Jesus’ disciples have just returned from the missionary journey he sent them on to preach, heal, and cast out demons. Though Mark does not say so specifically, apparently they have been successful and are anxious to tell Jesus all they have done. Jesus seems a bit uninterested and suggests that they go off by themselves to a deserted place to rest. So they leave on a boat but when they arrive back on land the people have come from far and wide seeking Jesus. Mark tells his readers that Jesus has compassion for them because they are like sheep without a shepherd – a clear allusion to the OT message that God’s people are like those sheep in need of a shepherd. The scene begins with Jesus teaching them but soon a problem arises. They have nothing to eat. The disciples recognize the dilemma and suggest that Jesus dispense the crowd. Jesus simply tells them to give the people something to eat. The disciples have no idea how they might do that and their consternation is fully reasonable. But Jesus has other plans and asks them what they have. It is only a little – five loaves and two fish. But that is enough for Jesus who multiplies the loaves and fishes and 5000 are fed. The way in which Jesus blesses and breaks the loaves is a clear allusion to the Lords Supper which is yet to be narrated by Mark. Immediately following the multiplication of the bread and fish Jesus sends his disciples off in a boat to Bethsaida while he dismisses the crowd. Mark has not told his readers where the feeding of the 5000 took place. If Bethsaida is thought to be across the lake then perhaps we are to think of Gentile territory on the southern bank of the sea. Or, perhaps the location is somewhere near Tiberius on the western shore. The traditional site for the feeding is just to the west of Capernaum; however, Bethsaida is not exactly across from there but actually just to the east and it would have made more sense to simply move their by land. At any rate Jesus sends the disciples out in a boat. And once again they are faced with another challenge. This time the wind is against them and they are unable to make progress toward their destination. Jesus, seeing their plight, comes to them walking on the water. Mark tells his readers that Jesus’ intention is to “pass them by” which sounds very strange. Why would Jesus seek to pass by them? However, it is likely that Mark is using an OT indium when he uses the words “pass them by.” In the OT when God was seeking to make himself known to someone he was said to “pass them by.” So it seems Mark’s intention is to say that Jesus was attempting to make himself known to his disciples. If that is Jesus’ intention it fails. They see Jesus but are terrified thinking that Jesus is a ghost. And when Jesus addresses them with words, “I Am” – which is a clear reference to Name of God in the OT – they do not understand. In fact Mark tells his readers that their hearts were hardened and they understand neither Jesus walking on the water nor the multiplication of the bread. And with that Mark’s readers come to realize that both of these stories were more than the mere reporting of events – they have deep symbolic meaning. But Mark does not fill his readers in any further and leaves them, and us, to ponder what this all might mean.

Reading the Gospels Together The Call of the Disciples – Part 4 We have now come to John’s story of the call of the first disciples. John’s story is strikingly different from the others. John tells his readers that the first two disciples Jesus called were Andrew and an unnamed disciple. Both of them are said to be disciples of John the Witness who had heard John say that Jesus was the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and the one upon whom the Spirit had descended and remained. The second time John the Witness identifies Jesus as the lamb of God, Andrew and this unnamed disciple begin to follow Jesus who turns and asks them what they seek. They say they want to know where Jesus is dwelling. Readers of John’s gospel need to hear in their question an allusion to John’s theological statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus tells the two to “come and see” which they apparently do and Andrew rushes out to find his brother Peter to tell him that they have found the Messiah. Andrew brings Peter to Jesus and in the process John implies that Peter too become a disciple of Jesus. Whether or not Peter had also been a disciple of John the Witness is ambiguous. At any rate John tells his readers that the first followers of Jesus were once followers of John the Witness and that all of this takes place in Judea near the Jordan River. John then tells his readers that Jesus decided to go to Galilee, and the implication from the way the rest of the story unfolds, at least Andrew and Peter go with him. Whether or not the unnamed disciple also goes to Galilee is ambiguous. If the unnamed disciple is the Beloved Disciple who will show up later in John’s gospel, that Beloved Disciple is only mention in connection with Jerusalem and Judea until the very last chapter of John’s gospel. When Jesus arrives in Galilee he finds and calls another disciple named Philip who in turn finds another named Nathaniel. The call stories of Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathaniel are very much alike. Disciples reach out to call others and bring them to Jesus. Witnessing is a major function of any disciple. If we pause for a moment and think about what Mark, Matthew, and Luke have told us there are a couple of major problems to confront. First of all, Peter and Andrew cannot have been called both in Galilee and in Judea near the Jordan River. If we throw Luke into the picture we actually have three versions of Peter’s call – on the shore mending his nets (Mark and Matthew), out in a boat catching fish (Luke), and in Judea near the Jordan River (John). We are presented with an irreconcilable difference here. We need to remember; however, that our goal is not to solve this as if it were a problem, but to ponder why each gospel writer told the story as they did. We have already talked about Mark and Matthew and how Luke modified Mark’s story. Why might John have told the story placing Peter and Andrew in Judea and likely being first disciples of John the Witness? It seems John wants to address the relationship between Jesus and John the Witness in his gospel and the clear message he wants his readers to hear is that Jesus is prominent. John knows this and testifies to it. And John encourages his disciples to leave him and follow Jesus! What better way to emphasize that than to have the most prominent disciples of all, Peter, make exactly that move! The second issue we might ponder is the mention of names. John does not create a list of Jesus’ disciples as the others do. But he does mention some disciples by name – and one mysterious one who remains unnamed and yet is known as the Beloved Disciple. John names a disciple called Nathaniel. The other gospel writers are completely unaware of Nathaniel. There are some who want to argue that they just know him be another name but that is to make the gospel writers say something they never say. The reason Mark, Matthew, and Luke name followers of Jesus is to establish the inner circle of The Twelve. John is aware of The Twelve too but he makes nothing of it. In the theological explanation of the multiplication of the bread, John tells the story of how Jesus’ words lead many to abandon him. So Jesus turns to “The Twelve” and asks them if they too want to leave. Peter, speaking on their behalf confesses that Jesus has the words of eternal life and there is no one else to whom they can go. It is in this connection only that John speaks of “The Twelve” and yet he makes little of them. John never creates a list of the Twelve and he does not tell the story of Jesus selecting them. Yet, it is very important that John mentions the Twelve in his gospel. His mention of them makes it almost certain that Jesus actually did establish this inner core of Apostles! Reading the gospels together often helps us to verify the reality of another gospel through the “off-handed” reference in a gospel in which what may be at question come up. We have seen that twice in a short time. John verifies the ministry of Jesus at Capernaum which is so prominent in the synoptic gospels even though John tells his readers absolutely nothing about that ministry in Capernaum. And here John verifies “The Twelve” which have a prominent role in the synoptic gospels even though they have little or no role in John’s. This is one of the great values of reading the gospels together. We have mentioned the existence of another unnamed disciple who is called at the beginning of John’s gospel. The identity of that disciple has remained a mystery and will continue to do so. But John does mention another unnamed disciple later on in his gospel who he will now call the Beloved Disciple. This disciple shows up in Jerusalem during the last meal that Jesus shares with his disciples before his death. This Beloved Disciple plays a prominent role in the remainder of John’s gospel. Whether or not the unnamed disciple from the beginning of John’s gospel and the Beloved Disciple are the same person is ambiguous. A case can be made for either alternative. It is my judgment that they are the same person. John mentions one other disciple by name – Joseph of Arimethea. He is the man who provides for Jesus’ burial along with Nicodemus who is not specifically called a disciple by John but can perhaps be thought of as one by implication. John tells us specifically; however, that Joseph of Arimathea is a disciple – though he is a secret one because of his fear of the Jews. Mark, Matthew, and Luke also know Joseph of Arimathea. They know him as a respected member of the council – a religious leader – but they do not identify him as a disciple even though he takes the same positive action in all four gospels by providing for the burial of Jesus. The last time John mentions disciples by name is in the last chapter of his gospel. The story is of a resurrection appearance of Jesus. The location of the appearance is at the Sea of Galilee at an unspecified time following the resurrection of Jesus and his two resurrection appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem. Peter has decided to return to fishing. Others have joined him. John names seven disciples – Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee, and two other unnamed disciples. Though John does not named them we can assume that he is indicating that James and John are the two sons of Zebedee who are present. A bit later John reveals to us that one of the unnamed disciples is in fact the Beloved Disciple. Of course an argument can be made that the Beloved Disciple is one of the unnamed sons of Zebedee. This is the traditional understanding and became prominent in the early church. It is the one place where an argument could be made that either James or John is the Beloved Disciple and the early church settled on John. But, as one reads that gospel of John carefully, the argument becomes incredibly weak. The Beloved Disciple is said to be a friend of the high priest. Could John have been such a person? John is clearly associated with Galilee and known as a fisherman. Yet, the Beloved Disciple never shows up in Galilee and is known only in Jerusalem and Judea in John’s gospel. The one exception to that is here where he is along with the others at the Sea of Galilee, but that is very weak evidence that he should be associated with the Galilean ministry. The evidence is far stronger that the Beloved Disciple is not one of the sons of Zebedee. That is the conclusion that I have come to. As we begin to compare this list with the lists of the synoptic gospel writers we note that there are four names in common – Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee (James and John). Only John knows of a disciple named Nathaniel and we have met him earlier at the beginning of John’s gospel. The other three gospel writers do not mention Nathaniel. And then there are the two unnamed disciples. We have already established that one of them is the Beloved Disciple and the remaining one must remain unknown. What are we to make of this? For one thing this is further evidence that “The Twelve” were of little importance to John. Nathaniel apparently was not one of them. Apparently neither was the Beloved Disciple. Of course this does have impact on the story of the last meal which we will look at later. The clear implication in the synoptic gospels is that it was the Twelve who gathered for that meal. We will not be able to reconcile these two differing versions. But, as we will see there will be larger issues to deal with at that time. We can wait to sort all that out when we get to hearing all four gospel writers tell their story of the last meal. The importance of John’s story of the disciples gathering at the Sea of Galilee is to do two things. First, as mentioned earlier, this story is really about the “recalling” of Peter. Peter had denied Jesus three times. Here Jesus calls Peter three times to a return to discipleship. And Peter responds by following Jesus. It is very important that we remember that Luke used this very same story in telling about the initial call of Peter. The story of the great catch of fish is a call story in both the gospel of Luke and the gospel of John. Though each one uses the story in a different context they agree that in some way Peter was called through a great catch of fish. Once again reading the gospels together helps to see both the possibility of a story reflecting at least in some way the reality of what happened and also how creatively respective gospel writers use a story. We need not worry about the context and the apparent contradiction between Luke and John. We can rather marvel at the skill each used in taking a story from the tradition available each of them and letting it help them proclaim the gospel. The final thing that this story in John’s gospel does is speak about the destiny of the Beloved Disciple. Apparently a belief had grown in some circles that the Beloved Disciple would not die until Jesus returned at the end of time. Also from what we read in this last chapter of John, apparently the Beloved Disciple has now died. And the writer of John’s gospel – a gospel that claims to be based on the testimony of the Beloved Disciple – ends his gospel by dispelling the rumor that the Beloved Disciple would not die. We have looked at how all four gospel writers view the calling of the disciples. We have noticed some great differences among them. Our task is not to reconcile those differences but to learn from them how each gospel writer used the stories to further their message and to proclaim the gospel that was their main concern. We have gained much in our encounter of reading the gospels together. We can build on those gains as we move forward.

Reading the Gospels Together The Call of the Disciples – Part 3 Luke tells his readers about the call of the first disciples in a significantly different way. Calling disciples is not the first thing Jesus does when he arrives in Galilee. Luke has moved the story of Jesus’ visit to his hometown of Nazareth to make it the first event in Galilee. We have already talked about that event and its prominence in Luke’s gospel. In fact, the calling of disciples is not even the second thing Jesus does. Instead Luke tells his readers of some of the events that happened in Capernaum first, including the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, and only after that tells about the call of disciples. Luke story of the call of the first disciple, Peter, is much more detailed and “reasonable” than the abrupt call Mark has described. Luke chose to use the story of Peter and the great catch of fish to describe for his readers the call of Peter. Mark does not know of this story or at least he chose not to use it. Neither does Matthew. But John knows this story too and John uses it at the very end of his gospel as a resurrection appearance of Jesus. In a way, as we will see shortly, John also uses this story as a call story of Peter but it has become for him the “recalling” of Peter who has fallen through his denial of Jesus. Why might Luke have used this story in this way? Perhaps this really is the way in which Peter was first called. In fact, it makes a good deal of sense to think of it in this way. At any rate it seems Luke was concerned about making the story of the call of Peter, and likely any other disciple, to hinge on a personal encounter with Jesus in which Peter is confronted both with his sinfulness and unworthiness and with the glory and majesty of Jesus. Being called is a moment of personal confrontation – an existential moment and Luke highlights that. Those of us who follow Jesus all know these moments of confrontation when we come face to face with Jesus. They don’t happen only once in our lives but many times. And they are at the core of being a disciple and remaining one. John makes a similar reference when Jesus confronts the Twelve following the multiplication of bread and Jesus’ words alluding to the Lord’s Supper. There Jesus asks, “Do you too want to go away?” and Peter’s response is “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life?” This is the core of being a follower and likely Luke knows that. So, Peter’s call gets at the heart of things. We can be thankful that Luke has told us this story in this way. His telling of the story has power in our lives too – much more power than the abrupt story Mark told us. And as the story comes to a close we learn that James and John are with Peter and presumably experience a call from Jesus at the same time. Luke does not mention Andrew but again we are likely not wrong to assume that Andrew is also present. Thus the same four fishermen are the first four called and Luke winds up being in agreement with Mark about that. A few verses later Luke tells the story of the call of Levi and now it is apparent that he is using Mark – he tells the story with the exact same words! Luke agrees that the name of this tax collector is Levi and there is no mention of a man named Matthew at this point. Like Mark and Matthew, Luke also tells of Jesus selecting The Twelve from among the many other disciples. Luke’s assumption is also that Jesus called many others whose stories are not mentioned. But the Twelve have significance in all three synoptic gospels and most of all in Luke. Luke also produces a list that is quite like Mark’s and Matthew’s with a couple of small changes. Luke lists Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew (Luke does not mention him as a tax collector following Mark’s lead), Thomas, James the son of Alpheaus, Simon who was called a Zealot (Mark and Matthew had referred to him as a Cananean), another Judas who was the son of James, and Judas Iscariot. Luke has dropped Thaddeaus from his list and replaced him with Judas the son of James. Like Mark, Luke also is aware of an inner core of Apostles – Peter, James, and John, and sometimes Andrew. The Twelve will become a prominent feature of Luke’s book of Acts. In the opening chapter of the book of Acts, Luke tells his readers of the first “necessity” that faced the fledgling church after Jesus’ ascension. The number of Apostles had been reduced to eleven because of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal and subsequent death. But, having only eleven Apostles would not be proper, so Luke tells the story of calling a replacement for Judas Iscariot. And in the process Luke once again lists the same eleven disciples he had listed earlier. Luke will tell the stories of others being called to follow Jesus in the book of Acts, but this call is unique. No one else will be called as an Apostle – a member of The Twelve. Only Matthias who is here chosen is called an Apostle and he will never be mentioned again. The Twelve function for Luke in the book of Acts as the group who insure legitimacy in the ministry of the early church. They bring authentication to the ministry of God’s people.

Reading the Gospels Together The Call of the Disciples – Part 2 Matthew follows Mark quite closely with regard to the call of the disciples but he does add a few pieces of information that either clarify or confuse depending on one’s point of view. Like Mark, Matthew thinks of the first act Jesus does once he has arrived in Galilee is to call the first four disciples. Matthew tells the story in exactly the same way as Mark. Matthew tells the story of the call of a tax collector and it is obvious to readers that he has the same person in mind as Mark in his telling of the call of a tax collector, Levi. Matthew; however, changes the name of this tax collector – he is no longer called Levi but Matthew. Otherwise the story is essentially the same using almost exactly the same words. Why would Matthew have changed the name from Levi to Matthew? This has been a question pondered for a long time. Few of the answers given are fully satisfying. The popular answer is that the writer of Matthew’s gospel was identifying himself at this point. That is actually quite unlikely. As one reads the gospel of Matthew carefully it becomes more and more unlikely that any original disciple of Jesus wrote this book. The question ultimately is whether or not Matthew and Levi are two names for the same person. That is the assumption that the writer of Matthew makes. And likely does that because he wants this fifth disciple who is called to be in the list of the Twelve. In Matthew’s mind it would not be right that the tax collector is not among the Twelve so he solves the problem by collapsing Levi and Matthew into one person. I suppose that could be true and it really matters little but another very possible thought is that Matthew and Levi are two different people – that seems to be Mark’s assumption since he never brings the two names together. We will need to live with a mystery about Levi and Matthew. Like Mark, Matthew tells of Jesus summoning twelve out of what is apparently his many disciples and sets them apart as “The Twelve” Apostles. Matthew names the following twelve – Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew (who he identifies as the tax collector – an addition to Mark), James the son of Alpheaus, Thaddeaus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot. Matthew’s list is identical to Mark’s with the exceptions that he identifies Matthew as the tax collector and he changes the order slightly placing Andrew second to be listed with his brother, Peter. Like Mark, Matthew is aware of the inner core of Peter, James, John, and sometimes Andrew. And like Mark, Matthew assumes that Jesus has called other disciples.

Reading the Gospels Together The Call of the Disciples – Part 1 All four gospel writers tell stories of the call of disciples by Jesus. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are quite similar in their stories. John is significantly different in his. In this section we will need to consider Mark 1:16-20, Mark 2:13-17, and Mark 3:13-19; Matthew 4:18-22, Matthew 9:9-13, and Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 5:1-11, Luke 5:27-32, Luke 6:12-16, and Acts 1:12-26; and John 1:35-51, John 6:66-71, John 19:38, and John 21:1-19. According to Mark immediately after Jesus arrives in Galilee and announces that the Kingdom of God has dawned Jesus calls four disciples. Calling these four disciples is the first thing Jesus does. Once Jesus has called these disciples he is ready to begin his ministry so Mark tells the story of Jesus moving on to Capernaum and recites a glorious first day in the ministry of Jesus. The names are of these first four disciples are Peter, Andrew, James, and John and they will become the core members of the Twelve. They are all fishermen and Jesus finds them on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. The exact location is not specified by Mark. Their call is abrupt and, typical of Mark, told with an economy of words – Jesus calls, they follow. A bit later in his gospel Mark tells the story of Jesus calling a fifth disciple named Levi. Levi is a tax collector and his call is somewhat startling – at least to modern ears but also most likely to Mark’s first readers. Levi is an outcast and a despised person who would not have “belonged” anywhere else. The story of the call of Levi is almost identical to the call of the first four – it is abrupt and short as Jesus calls and Levi follows immediately. It is obvious from reading Mark’s gospel, or any of the others for that matter, that Jesus called others who are not mentioned in the gospels to be his disciples. In Mark’s gospel we hear only of these five by name. But, just a short time later, Mark tells his readers that Jesus selects twelve out of the many Jesus has called to follow as disciples and names them Apostles. These twelve will be the inner circle of Jesus’ followers with Peter, James and John, and occasionally Andrew as an inner core of the inner circle. Mark names these twelve – Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheaus, Thaddeaus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot. Mark will refer to these followers as “The Twelve.” Mark has mentioned nothing about the call of at least seven of these men – and perhaps eight of them. It is questionable that Mark thinks of Matthew as Levi whose call he has recorded. There is much that Mark does not tell his readers about these people. And, as mentioned earlier, it is apparent that Jesus called many others.

Reading the Gospels Together The Movement of Jesus to Galilee – Part 2 Whereas John does agree that following his anointing with the Holy Spirit as witnessed by John the Witness, Jesus moves to Galilee, his story if very different. There is no mention of the arrest of John the Witness. Instead John tells his readers that Jesus called his first three disciples while yet in Judea – Peter and Andrew are among the three along with an unnamed disciple who will become a prominent personality in John’s gospel. It is only after having called these three that Jesus moves to Galilee where two more disciples are called. The place in Galilee to which John brings Jesus is Cana – a city never mentioned in the other three gospels. And following the sign of the water turned into wine John brings Jesus to Capernaum. John will tell his readers no stories of the ministry of Jesus in Capernaum – the only locations in Galilee John mentions where any action takes place are Cana and beside and on the Sea of Galilee. But it is highly significant that John mentions Capernaum at all. In a strange sort of way his mention of Capernaum lends great credence to the fact that much of Jesus’ ministry in the synoptic gospels was centered there. John knows about that ministry even though he says nothing about it. Reading the gospels together does reveal a clearer picture of the story of Jesus. Following the brief episode at Cana in Galilee John does a surprising thing – he brings Jesus back to Judea and Jerusalem. Once Jesus reaches Galilee in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus will not leave again until he takes his fateful journey to Jerusalem where he will be betrayed, suffer, be killed, and on the third day rise. In the synoptic gospels Jesus will travel only outside Galilee to nearby Gentile territory on occasion but the focus is completely on a Galilean ministry. How are we to explain this major difference in perspective between John and the synoptic writers? It is likely Mark who is responsible for creating an exclusively Galilean ministry for Jesus. Likely a good deal of Jesus’ ministry really did take place in Galilee, but not necessarily all of it. What might have been Mark’s reasons for creating the story as he has? For one thing, keeping Jesus away from Jerusalem does serve Mark well in the ending of his story. It makes the story far more dramatic and powerful – Jesus makes a single journey to Jerusalem where he encounters the religious leaders and where his destiny as the Crucified Messiah is fulfilled. Mark’s story is a “journey to the cross!” The cross is the focus, the destiny, and the final revelation of who Jesus is. What better way to make that point than to construct the story in such a way that Jesus moves in a relentless way to his destiny! Mark takes Jesus and his disciples to Caesarea Philippi which is in the farthest north part of Galilee to begin the journey and then marches Jesus to Jerusalem and his death all the while Jesus is attempting to teach his disciples the meaning of his death as the Crucified Messiah. Mark may also have been speaking to the community to which he was writing warning them that Jerusalem is the place of danger – and consequently Galilee is a place of safety. If it is true that Mark was writing his gospel just before, during, or even right after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, then such a warning about the perils of Jerusalem would make sense. And some of that warning likely had to do with the religious leaders of Judaism who were themselves attempting to make sense of the destruction of the Temple. Beware of Jerusalem. Mark’s community may well have needed such a warning. So Mark has created his storyline with a purpose. The storyline serves his purpose. The exclusive ministry in Galilee, the determined journey to Jerusalem, the relentless movement of the Messiah to his destiny as the Crucified Messiah – all of these and more are served well by Mark’s storyline. Without John’s gospel we would likely not be asking many of these questions. But John tells a different story – Jesus moves back and forth between Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem. Could it be that John’s storyline reflects reality more accurately? Of course we cannot answer that question definitively. We could ask why John would write the story as he has if in fact Mark was accurate in his story. And there are reasons we could observe. We will look later at John’s use of Passover in his storyline and that could be a clue about why John might write as he did. But it seems to me that the better conclusion to arrive at is that John is actually more accurate in the picture he paints of Jesus’ ministry – a ministry that was not exclusively limited to Galilee. We have not mentioned Matthew and Luke to this point. It is likely that they inherited Mark’s storyline and are thus not responsible for the exclusive ministry of Jesus in Galilee. In fact, Luke seems aware of some stories that do not fit in the Galilean ministry – the Mary and Martha story to name an obvious one. Both Matthew and Luke may have maintained Mark’s storyline without investing near the purpose in it that Mark does. As we continue our investigation we need to be aware of the movement of Jesus to Galilee and the reality that all four gospel writers share that movement near the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. We will have more to say about the interaction of Mark’s and John’s gospels later, especially when we consider the Jerusalem Controversy.

Reading the Gospels Together The Movement of Jesus to Galilee – Part 1 Following the baptism/anointing of Jesus, all four gospel writers tell their readers that Jesus left Judea and moved on to Galilee. But that is about as far as the similarity goes. In this section we will need to consider Mark 1:14-15, 21; Matthew 4:12-17, Luke 4:1-16, 31, and John 1:43 and John 2:1, 12. As is usual, Mark is the briefest in his description. After announcing to his readers that John the Baptist has been arrested, he tells them that Jesus came to Galilee and there he made his first proclamation – “The time is up, the kingdom of God has dawned, repent and believe the good news.” In many ways that is Mark’s programmatic statement of Jesus’ ministry. Mark tells his readers that Jesus is passing by the Sea of Galilee, the first geographical reference as to where he is in Galilee, and calls four disciples. And from there he moves on to Capernaum which will be the center of Jesus’ activity in Mark’s gospel. It is significant that Mark locates the focus of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee in Capernaum. For the most part Matthew is faithful in following his primary source which is Mark. But Matthew does add some information. He tells his readers that that Jesus “heard” of the arrest of John the Baptist and thus he “withdrew” to Galilee. Perhaps we should not make too much of the way in which Matthew has put it, but he seems to emphasize that the arrest of John the Baptist was the trigger that led Jesus to Galilee. Matthew inserts one of his OT “proof texts” at this point remembering the words from Isaiah 9. He also implies that Jesus first went to his hometown of Nazareth before moving to Capernaum. Following his insertion of this material Matthew returns to Mark’s first proclamation of Jesus but Matthew has shortened it significantly. Jesus only says, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has dawned” which is exactly the same message that John the Baptist had proclaimed. Gone is Mark’s comment that “the time is up” and that those who hear are to “believe the good news.” Matthew softens the urgency of Mark’s proclamation. We might ask why Matthew has done all of this. Was he simply seeking to clarify what is at best implied in Mark’s gospel? Why does Matthew want his readers to see this movement as fulfilling OT prophecy? Why soften Mark’s urgency? Again, it may be that Matthew is concerned with the legitimacy of Jesus. Any evidence that Jesus was indeed fulfilling OT prophecy would be helpful for Matthew. And perhaps he was attempting to portray Jesus as being more deliberate in his actions. Jesus went to Galilee purposefully to fulfill OT prophecy. At any rate, Matthew has remained faithful to Mark while providing his readers with a bit more information. Matthew follows Mark fully in describing the call of the first four disciples as Jesus walked along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, but then Matthew does not announce that Jesus moves on to Capernaum. Perhaps that is because Matthew has already told his readers that Jesus has made that move. But Matthew also omits the magnificent first day in the ministry of Jesus that Mark tells his readers when he brings Jesus to Capernaum. Again; however, it is significant that Matthew also places Jesus in Capernaum at the focus of the Galilean ministry of Jesus. While there are traces of Mark’s story in Luke’s gospel, Luke has essentially re-written the script. Luke had already told of the arrest of John the Baptist even before the baptism of Jesus so he does not mention it here. Luke also omits the first proclamation of Jesus that Mark and Matthew had mentioned and replaces it with the episode of Jesus at this hometown of Nazareth – an event that he finds later in Mark’s gospel and moves forward to this point making it his programmatic statement regarding the ministry of Jesus. Quoting from Isaiah, Jesus claims that the words of Isaiah have been fulfilled in his reading of them – perhaps this is Luke’s way of saying, “The Kingdom of God has dawned.” Mark had made reference to the Sea of Galilee as the first place Jesus appeared after his move from Judea to Galilee. Luke places Jesus first in Nazareth and will only later tell his readers of the appearance of Jesus in Capernaum. Yet it is significant that Luke does mention Capernaum as the place where the main focus of Jesus’ ministry will take place. And one final change that Luke makes to the scenario is that Luke does not mention the call of the first four disciples by the Sea. Instead, Luke tells the story of the call of Peter in a very different way from Mark. Again, we might ask why Luke made all these changes to his primary source. Luke made a deliberate choice to move the story of Jesus in his hometown of Nazareth forward from where it is found in Mark’s gospel. Likely he did that in order to emphasize that Jesus came to his own people and was rejected by them – the visitation of God to his people generates either acceptance or rejection. And the location for that first story of God’s visitation at Nazareth works well for Luke. And Luke wanted to make the call of disciples more “reasonable” to his readers – thus the story of Peter and the great catch of fish.

Reading the Gospels Together Baptism/Anointing and Testing of Jesus We have already looked at the baptism/anointing of Jesus when we were considering the stories of Jesus and John the Baptist. Our focus here will be strictly on the reports of Jesus’ baptism and of his testing. In this section we will need to consider Mark 1:9-13, Matthew 3:13-4:11, Luke 3:21-22, Luke 4:1-13; and John 1:24-34. Mark, Matthew, and to a lesser extent Luke, all share basically the same story regarding the baptism of Jesus. Jesus comes from Nazareth in Galilee to John the Baptist at the Jordan River and is baptized by him. At the time of his baptism the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove and God speaks from heaven announcing that Jesus is his beloved Son. We have already discussed the minor difference we encounter and will not speak of them again here. In the gospel of John, John the Witness also speaks of the sign that God had given him that the one upon whom he sees the Holy Spirit descend and remain is the one who is mightier than he and the one to whom he is to bear witness. The writer of John’s gospel never says specifically that Jesus was baptized and there is no voice from heaven confirming that Jesus is the Son of God. John the Witness makes that declaration and adds to it that Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. One might even speak of John’s story as the “anointing of Jesus” since he does not mention the baptism. These two versions are not significantly different from one another to the extent that they contradict each other. One can easily “blend” them together into one story without violating any of the stories. All of the stories function for their authors as a way of indicating the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus and that is their chief purpose. Following his baptism, Mark, Matthew, and Luke all tell a story of Jesus being taken into the wilderness to be tested by Satan. They vary slightly in the way in which they speak of Jesus being taken into the wilderness with Mark using the strongest language – Jesus is “cast out” into the wilderness – and the others using a softer way of saying the same thing as Jesus is “led” into the wilderness. It is the Holy Spirit that is active in all three gospels. Mark provides a significantly shorter version of the story. Both Matthew and Luke expand Mark’s account and speak of three specific tests that Jesus must face. Once again it is tempting to think that Mark did not know the story in its fuller form and that Matthew and Luke found the story in their common source. That may indeed be the truth but not necessarily so. Again Mark may be the one who omitted the greater detail because he did not think it served his purpose to “rush” Jesus to the cross. At any rate Matthew and Luke share the same three tests although their order is reversed for the second and third test. The first test is whether or not Jesus will satisfy his own needs for bread or live by the bread God alone provides. The allusion is to the OT story of manna in the wilderness. The second test Matthew speaks of, which is placed third by Luke, is whether or not Jesus will cast himself down from the Temple and tempt God to save him. And the third test in Matthew, placed second by Luke, is whether or not Jesus will seek to gain the whole world by worshiping Satan. Jesus meets each test and is thus ready for his public ministry. Though it really matters little, it is likely that Luke is the one responsible for the switch in order since placing the Temple test last puts Jesus in the Temple which is central to Luke’s story. The story of the testing of Jesus in all three gospels serves the purpose of preparing Jesus for his public ministry. Where the OT people of God fail Jesus succeeds. Jesus is found faithful. He is indeed God’s chosen one, the beloved Son of God. Interestingly John mentions none of this. Perhaps John simply was unfamiliar with the story of the temptation/testing of Jesus. But even if he was John likely would have omitted it. We need to remember that for John, Jesus is the God-man. To suggest that Jesus should be tested to see if he would measure up to God’s expectation would have been ludicrous to John. How one perceived Jesus is important in the telling of the story. Mark, Matthew, and Luke think of Jesus more in terms of his humanity. Likely those who first encountered Jesus encountered him as a man – they did not think or realize that Jesus was more than a mere man. It took a great deal of thinking for the first followers of Jesus to realize that Jesus was more than human. John has already arrived at that conclusion in his gospel so he portrays Jesus as he has come to understand him to be – God in human flesh. And that influences how John tells his story. Of course we can benefit greatly from all four gospel writers. It is not a matter of one being more accurate or sophisticated than another. All are brilliant in their work and we benefit from each.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and John the Baptist – Part 7 Now that we have finished listening to what the author of John’s gospel has to say about John the Witness we can make some conclusions. What is important for this author is not that John is Elijah who was sent ahead of the Messiah to prepare the way. In fact, John says clearly and definitely that John the Witness is not Elijah. Neither is it important to the writer of John’s gospel that what happens to John the Baptist foreshadows what will happen to Jesus. To be sure this author is aware that John had a ministry of baptism, but it is not baptism that is important either. What is important is that John’s function is to bear witness to Jesus. Thus, we have referred to him as John the Witness. That is John the Witness’ only function in John’s gospel. It is also clear that the author of John’s gospel is aware of at least the potential competition between John the Witness and Jesus and likely very aware of competition between the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus at that time and surely at the time when the gospel of John was being written. In some ways the material that the author of John’s gospel provides his readers functions mostly to downplay John and lift up Jesus – John must decrease and Jesus must increase. And that message was meant as much for the time when the gospel of John was written and for the community to whom it was written than anything else. Now that we have heard all four gospels together what are we to make of what we have heard? First of all there are similarities that we should note. All four gospels understand that John viewed Jesus as the one who was mightier than he – the thong of whose sandal he is not worthy to untie. All four gospels agree that John engaged in a baptism that in some way served to prepare the way for the coming mightier one. All four gospels agree that the sign of the Spirit descending upon Jesus was a signal that Jesus was the Son of God. All four gospels agree that the word of Isaiah regarding the “voice in the wilderness” is a good description of John. These are significant similarities. But, as we have already noticed there is at least one glaring difference that cannot be easily overcome. John disagrees with the synoptic writers regarding the identity of John as Elijah. As said above, there is no way around simply acknowledging this glaring difference. And as was said above perhaps what we need to learn is that followers of Jesus can disagree without casting one of the other out. On a far more minor scale we might also notice that the synoptic writers, especially Mark and Matthew, do not imagine any competition between John the Baptist and Jesus. John, and to a far lesser degree, Luke seem to be aware of that competition. Both are likely reflecting upon their own time when they were writing their gospels and their own community which more than likely was also aware of a competitive group known as the disciples of John. Of course we are unable to say with any degree of certainty whose perceptions were more in line with reality at the time when John and Jesus encountered one another. But, as we listen to the gospels together a case can be made that the competition comes later. Was John the Baptist Elijah? Are Mark, Matthew and Luke right, or is John right? Perhaps the best way to address these questions it to acknowledge that in their own way both the synoptic writers and John are right. It all depends on how you see Jesus. John sees Jesus as the one who came to “turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents” so Jesus is Elijah in his mind. Mark, Matthew and Luke envision the need of one to prepare the way for the coming Messiah – taking their cue from the words of Isaiah and Malachi. So John is Elijah. In the end it really doesn’t matter much. Both testify that Jesus is the Messiah and that is finally all that really matters.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and John the Baptist – Part 6 It is when we turn to the gospel of John that our understanding of John the Baptist become more complicated and more challenging. Clearly John has the same character in mind and is aware of some of the same encounters. Yet there are bold and challenging differences to address as well. John weaves his first mention of John the Baptist into his theological statement regarding Jesus as the God-man. But the emphasis for John is that John the Baptist is a witness rather than a baptist. We would be better to refer to the John introduced to us by the writer of John’s gospel as “John the Witness” than John the Baptist. John is introduced as one who came to testify to the light which is Jesus. John was not the light but a witness to the light. Following his theological beginning John turns to the issue of who John the Witness is. John agrees with the other gospel writers that John the Witness does have a ministry of baptism. And that ministry of baptism leads to questions regarding why John has come to baptize and who John is. The writer of John’s gospel makes it abundantly clear that John the Witness is not the Messiah. But he also proclaims clearly and boldly that John the Witness is not Elijah either, nor is he the Prophet like Moses who was to come. We will recall that Mark, Matthew and Luke had all declared that John the Baptist was in fact Elijah. We are confronted here with a major and irreconcilable difference between John and the other gospel writers. There is no other way to put it than to say that they differ with one another about the identity of John the Baptist. Why does the writer of John’s gospel insist that John the Witness is not Elijah? His reason is that he understands Jesus to Elijah. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the Prophet like Moses. And Jesus is Elijah. All three of these images mean the exact same thing to the writer of John. It is also quite clear that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all believe that to think of Jesus as Elijah is to be guilty of misunderstanding and they all say that quite clearly in their gospels. The only conclusion that is available to us is to realize that followers of Jesus sometimes came to different understandings. That is not a bad thing. In fact it ought to lead us to realize that sometimes we also come to different conclusions than other believers in Jesus. And when that happens it’s not a matter of battling it out to decide who is right and who is wrong but to try our best to understand one another and accept our differences. And, by the way, this is one more piece of evidence that defends the position that each of the gospel writers is responsible for their own writing. The inspiration of God’s Word does not mean that there is no human element involved. God certainly could not have inspired Mark, Matthew and Luke to write that John the Baptist is Elijah and then inspire John to insist that he is not. The inspiration of the Word of God is far more nuanced and complicated than that. And that, in itself, ought to make us more cautious in our use of scripture, especially our use of it as a “proof text” or weapon against those with whom we disagree. So John introduces his readers to John the Witness whose main function is to testify to Jesus. As a witness John is the same voice Mark, Matthew and Luke had mentioned quoting from Isaiah. John can use the same quotation without its further understanding that John is Elijah. John does not use the book of Malachi where the connection to Elijah is more strongly implied. And John does agree with the others that Jesus is the one mightier than John the Witness – the one whose sandal he is not worthy to untie. This statement is the only one that all four gospel writers place on the lips of John. The writer of John’s gospel seems more intent than the others to subjugate John the Witness to Jesus. It is only after the identity of John the Witness has been established that the writer of John’s gospel speaks of the encounter between Jesus and John. And that encounter has nothing to do with baptism. Immediately when John the Witness encounters Jesus he identifies Jesus as the “lamb of God” who takes away the sin of the world. And John goes on to testify that Jesus is mightier than he is. In fact John claims that Jesus is not only mightier than he but that Jesus had also come before he did. The writer of John’s gospel is remembering his theological introduction – the Word was in the beginning with God and was God and the Word became flesh. Identifying Jesus as the “lamb of God” will be important to John. As the “lamb of God” Jesus will die on the day of preparation for the Passover exactly when the lambs to be used in the Passover meal are being slaughtered. And in this encounter John says specifically that he did not know Jesus. Readers of Luke are reminded of Luke’s story and wonder how this can be. Clearly the writer of John’s gospel wants his readers to understand that the encounter between John the Witness and Jesus is the first contact between these two people. So, how does John the Witness know that Jesus is the “lamb of God?” John the Witness testifies that he came baptizing with water for the very purpose that Jesus might be revealed to Israel. And then John goes on to testify that he saw the Spirit descend on Jesus as a dove and that had been the signal to John from God that Jesus was the mightier one. John does not tell his readers that John the Witness baptized Jesus. In fact there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus at all in John’s gospel. It is only because we are familiar with the other three gospels that we assume John the Witness baptized Jesus. Perhaps the gospel of John has a veiled implication that John the Witness baptized Jesus but we could just as likely come to the other assumption which is that he did not. Once again we are reminded of the way in which Luke told the story. We remember that Luke told his readers of the arrest of John the Baptist prior to the baptism of Jesus. Is there something in the traditions that rest behind the gospels that indicate the John did not baptize? Of course we cannot determine that, but reading the gospels together does open new thought for us. At the very least we can presume that the emphasis for the writer of John’s gospel is not on the baptism but rather on the witness of John the Witness that Jesus is and always was the Son of God – in fact the God-man. The writer of John’s gospel goes on to tell of how some of the disciples of John the Witness are led to become disciples of Jesus. As John tells the story it is now the next day – the third day – and John once again identifies Jesus as the “lamb of God” and his audience is his own disciples. They leave John and follow Jesus. And the clear implication within John’s gospel is that they go with John the Witness’ blessing and encouragement. We will talk later about the call of disciples but that story blends together here in our discussion of John the Baptist/Witness. And with that the emphasis in John’s gospel switches from John to Jesus. It is only after Jesus has begun his ministry in Galilee by calling more disciples and attending a wedding at Cana returning to Judea for the Passover which leads to the cleansing of the Temple which is followed by the encounter, presumably in Jerusalem, between Jesus and Nicodemus that John will mention John the Witness again. Readers of Mark, Matthew, and Luke will remember that they tell their readers that John the Baptist had been arrested prior to Jesus first venture to Galilee. In fact, they lead their readers to think that it is the arrest of John the Baptist that motivates Jesus to go to Galilee in the first place. Once again we are confronted with an irreconcilable difference between the synoptic writers and John. This time, when the writer of John’s gospel mentions John the Witness, it is to speak of the competition that has apparently come about between the followers of John the Witness and the followers of Jesus. He tells his readers that Jesus and his disciples have gone into the Judean countryside and are engaged in a ministry of baptism. There is little doubt here from what John says that his readers are to understand that Jesus also is baptizing. John is also in the region and is still engaged in his ministry of baptism. Almost as an aside, the writer of John’s gospel tells his readers that, “of course,” John the Witness had not yet been put in prison. It is almost as if the writer of John knows that his report conflicts with that of the synoptic writers. Of course, it may be that these words are a very late addition to the gospel of John as we have it today to account for that discrepancy. At any rate it is important to note that the writer of John’s gospel is also aware of the imprisonment of John. But the timing of that imprisonment is different from that of the synoptic gospels. Soon readers learn of a potential conflict between Jesus and John the Witness since a report comes to John’s disciples that Jesus is baptizing more people than John. Allegiance to John is transferring to Jesus. Readers of John’s gospel should remember that this transference had already come very early when the disciples of John leave him to become disciples of Jesus – they left with John’s blessing. So here too the main force of the conversation is to highlight the reality that John the Witness is not dismayed by rather pleased that people are leaving him to follow Jesus. John the Witness makes a clear statement – “He must increase and I must decrease.” If there was competition between the disciples of John and those of Jesus at this time or later, the message is clear that Jesus must prevail. At this point the writer of John’s gospel interrupts his narrative with a section of theology that likely fits better with the story of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus that had come just prior to the story of Jesus and John baptizing in the same area. After this theological interruption John returns to tell his readers once again that the Pharisees have heard that Jesus is baptizing more disciples than John. Nothing more is made of the observation; however, this time the writer of John’s gospel inserts a denial that Jesus was doing any baptizing. Within a few verses John’s gospel says two contradicting things. When we were examining the storyline of John’s gospel we mentioned these “seams” that open up in John’s narrative. We need to remember what was said then – that these “seams” may well indicate that John’s gospel is a work that grew over time and that sometimes differing information is left side by side. The last time John the Witness is mentioned in John’s gospel is during a time of controversy in Jerusalem between Jesus and the religious authorities there. The authority of Jesus is under attack. John the Witness becomes a defense witness for Jesus. Jesus reminds his opponents that they had sent to John to ask him about his identity and ministry and John the Witness had told them that he was not the Messiah but was sent to bear witness to Jesus who was the Messiah. John is referring back to the very first story he told about John the Witness. And with that the author of John’s gospel will mention John the Witness no more. It is significant that John the Baptist should enter into the controversy between Jesus and the religious authorities in both John and the synoptic gospels. We will look at this Jerusalem Controversy in more detail later but we need to not the connection here.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and John the Baptist – Part 5 As mentioned earlier, there is one more time when Luke will mention John the Baptist and that is in his second volume, the book of Acts. The story comes fairly late in the story. Paul is at Ephesus and there he encounters some followers of John the Baptist who know only of John’s baptism. Paul is successful in providing them with the proper instruction so they are baptized with the baptism of Jesus. That little story does provide readers of the gospels with a bit of very important information. We often think that the story of John the Baptist and his followers must have ended with the story of Jesus. But it is likely that a group of followers of John the Baptist persisted for a time following the death and resurrection of Jesus. We will see that John seems also to be aware of this group. And John is also aware that there is at least some degree of competition going on. Luke shares this perspective regarding such a group of followers of John the Baptist. His awareness of this group may have influenced his presentation of John the Baptist in his gospel and Acts. Overall, though, we can conclude as we did with Matthew that Luke is nearly in complete agreement with Mark regarding John the Baptist. All three synoptic gospel writers proclaim the same message to their readers. John the Baptist is to be understood as Elijah who was to come to make ready a people to receive the coming of God into their midst. All three gospel writers understand that John the Baptist fulfils the prophecies of both Isaiah and Malachi. So we might say they speak as one regarding John the Baptist.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and John the Baptist – Part 4 As we turn to Luke’s gospel we will discover that, like Matthew, Luke is quite faithful in following Mark with respect to John the Baptist; although Luke does provide his readers with some interesting twists. Luke adds more material than Matthew did and in a peculiar way Luke also subtracts a few things. The first thing that jumps out at readers of Luke’s gospel is that Luke adds information regarding the birth and origin of John the Baptist. We have already looked at Luke’s beginning and noticed that he has written the story of the birth of John the Baptist in such a way that it parallels both that of Jesus and of Samuel in the OT. Luke wants his readers to know that John the Baptist, like Jesus, comes from faithful people who are fully in line with the OT. John’s parents are faithful Jews waiting for the coming of the Messiah – the visitation of God to his people. In fact, Luke at least implies that the mother of John the Baptist and the mother of Jesus are kinsfolk. It is from Luke that we get the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus are related as cousins. This does add a measure of complication to the story when one reads all four gospels together since the implication at the time of his baptism is that John does not know Jesus – the gospel writer, John, will say that specifically. Given what Luke has told his readers, we are left to imagine that somehow John the Baptist and Jesus have totally lost connection with one another over the years. Of course it is likely that neither the writer of John, nor Mark, or for that matter Matthew ever imagined what we are led to imagine. Luke’s story of the birth of John the Baptist does present readers of the gospels with a great challenge. It is difficult to read all the gospels together and meld their stories into one. It will be helpful if we are willing to “sit a little loose in the saddle” and not force Luke to be concerned about telling “historical facts” instead of creating a story to proclaim the gospel. If we can look at Luke in this way we see that what Luke is doing is providing his readers with the information that John the Baptist is to be known as Elijah from the very beginning. While Zechariah is in the Temple he is told that this child to be born to Elizabeth and him “will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” which is exactly what Malachi had said of Elijah. And when John the Baptist next appears in Luke’s gospel he will have this exact role. When Luke picks up the story he begins by using his major source, Mark. For the most part Luke is quite faithful in using Mark to tell the story of the emergence of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. Like Matthew, Luke adds material to the story by presenting more of the words that John proclaimed. Matthew and Luke are in agreement about that. And, as we mentioned earlier it may be that Mark also knew some of these words but omitted them. Luke’s words of John the Baptist are harsh like they were in Matthew; although Luke has mitigated some of the harshness by providing instruction for those who hear how they might respond through better actions – those who have two coats are invited to share with those who have none, tax collectors are to collect no more than prescribed, and soldiers are to avoid extortion. This theme of the care for the poor will be emphasized by Luke later in his gospel. When it comes to the story of the baptism of Jesus, Luke does a couple of interesting things. First of all he tells his readers that John the Baptist was arrested by Herod before he tells the story of the baptism of Jesus. Is Luke implying that John may have not been the one who baptized Jesus? The order of Luke’s story seems to indicate that. Why might Luke have done that? Was Luke attempting to downplay John the Baptist because Luke was aware of a degree of competition between the followers of John the Baptist and the followers of Jesus later on in time? Luke tells his readers an interesting story of Paul encountering some followers of John the Baptist in the book of Acts. These followers have heard only of the baptism of John and need to be instructed about the baptism of Jesus. Luke’s ordering of things does present some interesting possibilities for his readers. Perhaps Luke is intentional in leading his readers to at least contemplate that John did not baptize Jesus since he was already arrested and put in prison. And we should notice that Luke tells his readers up front that the one who arrested John the Baptist was Herod because of Herod’s indiscretion regarding Herodias. Mark and Matthew will provide their readers with this information much later and interestingly when Luke relates the same story he will omit the gruesome story of John’s beheading. Luke also tells the story of the descent of the Spirit in the form of the dove and of the words of God regarding Jesus as his beloved Son in a slightly different way. Luke takes the emphasis off of the baptism of Jesus. He tells his readers that Jesus is out of the water and engaged in prayer when the Spirit descends and God speaks. In spite of all these differences Luke has not strayed far from Mark. The main points are essentially the same. Like Mark, Luke presents John the Baptist as Elijah who comes to prepare the way for Jesus who is the mightier one. John the Baptist is the fore-runner of Jesus. He takes the role that Malachi and Isaiah had foreseen. The next time Luke mentions John the Baptist is in the story of the religious leaders and the disciples of John fasting while the disciples of Jesus do not fast. Luke is extremely faithful to Mark in telling this story using virtually the same words. The next time Luke mentions John the Baptist he provides his readers with almost exactly the same words that Matthew had provided his readers about the followers of John the Baptist coming to question Jesus and Jesus’ further praise of John. Like Matthew, this is material that is interjected into Mark’s gospel. Mark does not mention any of this. And the exact same things that were said regarding Matthew could be repeated here with respect to Luke. Luke and Matthew are in full agreement. Again following Mark, Luke next mentions John the Baptist in connection with Herod’s mistaken identity that somehow Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead. Luke’s story follows Mark’s faithfully; although, as was noted earlier, Luke omits the story of the beheading of John. Luke is also following Mark when he tells the story of Jesus asking his disciples who others think Jesus is. Thinking of Jesus as John the Baptist is to engage in a mistaken identity. Jesus is the Messiah. John is not. When it comes to the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus, Luke does an interesting thing. He tells the story of the actual Transfiguration in almost the same words as Mark, but then Luke omits the story of Jesus and his disciples coming down from the mountain and the disciples asking Jesus about Elijah. Both Mark and Matthew had used that occasion to solidify that John the Baptist is Elijah. Why might Luke have dropped that story from Mark? This is a difficult question to answer since earlier in his gospel it is clear that Luke agrees that John the Baptist is Elijah. He does not omit this story from Mark because he disagrees with Mark about the identity of John the Baptist as Elijah. The fact is that there appears to be nothing in what Mark says that might have bothered Luke and caused him to leave it out. Perhaps all we can say is that we are left with a mystery about why Luke did what he did. The next time Luke mentions John the Baptist is in material that is unique to Luke’s gospel. There are similarities here with what Luke had said earlier in connection with the disciples of John the Baptist coming to question Jesus about whether or not he is “the one” and Luke likely got it from that story. The point that Luke makes is to set John the Baptist as a line of demarcation between the OT and the proclamation of the good news in Jesus. The law and the prophets are until John but now something new has dawned. Jesus is the new act of God, fully in line with the old, but expanding it in a new and bold way. As we saw earlier in Matthew, Luke understands John as something of a bridge from the old to the new. Like Mark and Matthew, the last time Luke specifically mentions John the Baptist is in the controversy between Jesus and the religious leaders regarding the authority of Jesus and of John. Luke follows Mark faithfully relating the same story in nearly the same words. And that is the last time Luke will mention or even allude to John the Baptist. Luke does tell the story of Jesus dying on the cross but he omits the cry of despair on Jesus’ lips and consequently Luke also omits the story of a bystander mistakenly thinking Jesus was calling for Elijah to come.