Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 3 For his part Matthew follows Mark very closely making only a few minor changes to the story. Some of those changes were perhaps Matthew’s attempt to “correct” Mark since Mark speaks of Jesus returning to his sleeping disciples three times but departing only twice – Matthew speaks of all three. Matthew also expands the dialogue somewhat both in the reactions of Jesus to his disciples and his reaction to the cutting off of the ear by a bystander. And, as mentioned, Matthew drops out the story of the young man fleeing naked. But these changes are only minor and unimportant so we can conclude that Matthew has followed his source very closely in this part of the story.

Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 2 Mark then tells his readers that the group arrives at a place called Gethsemane where Jesus invites his disciples to sit and pray. Taking the inner circle of three with him Jesus challenges them to watch and pray and then enters into what can only be described as agonizing prayer pleading with God to spare him from the death that Jesus knows is coming. This may seem rather strange since Jesus had predicted his suffering and death. Mark portrays a very human Jesus at this point. It is one thing to know you must die and quite another to actually experience it. The human Jesus struggles with his destiny! Because we have come to think of Jesus as “God” we are tempted at this point to view this episode as play-acting on the part of Jesus. Mark would not have thought of it in that way. For Mark, and for Jesus, this was a real experience of agony and pleading on the part of Jesus. And that means, of course, that the human Jesus may have failed! He does not. We are confronted with the paradox that Jesus is at one and the same time both human and divine. In fact, the first disciples (and likely Mark) only knew Jesus as a human being up to this point. It was only after the resurrection and a great deal of soul-searching and the passage of time that the followers of Jesus came to understand him as also divine. We are very much in need of capturing again the deep sense of the humanity of Jesus. Jesus’ pleading that some other way might be provided goes unheeded and after three attempts Jesus submits to the will of God. Jesus had told the disciples to watch and pray – but they fail miserably by falling asleep instead. Perhaps it was the message conveyed to Jesus in the sleeping disciples that motivated him to take the final journey to the cross. No sooner has the decision been made by Jesus than Judas arrives with a crowd carrying swords and clubs. They have been sent by the religious leaders. Mark’s description is little more than a mob scene. Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss and Jesus is apprehended. Mark tells his readers that one of the bystanders makes an attempt to defend Jesus by cutting off the ear of one of the slave of the high priest. Mark does not identify this attacker and readers are left to speculate that it must have been a disciple. Mark had condensed the Jerusalem Controversy to one day but here he tells us that Jesus protests his arrest by stealth since he had been “day after day” teaching in the Temple. This small reference indicates that Mark had his hand in condensing what likely was a longer period of time for the Jerusalem Controversy as we have noted elsewhere – Mark knows full well that the controversy did not happen on one day. In the end Jesus is deserted by everyone – including a strange young man who has come to Gethsemane wearing nothing but a linen shroud and must flee naked. Just who this young man is continues to escape modern readers of Mark. Speculation that this is perhaps a reference on the part of the author to himself is really unfounded and highly unlikely. Mark will tell his readers of another young man who will appear at the empty tomb wearing a dazzling white linen cloth. Perhaps these two are meant to be connected, but that also is a matter of speculation. We are better off just admitting that this young man remains a mystery. Matthew and Luke were also likely clueless regarding this young man since both of them drop this story from their respective gospels. And so Jesus is arrested and the story moves on.

Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 1 As the meal comes to an end all four gospel writers tell their readers that Jesus and his disciples leave the city of Jerusalem and go to the foot of the Mount of Olives apparently to spend the night. While there Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested. In this section we will need to consider Mark 14:22-52; Matthew 26:31-56; Luke 22:31-34, 39-53; and John 12:27-36, 13:36-38, and 18:1-11. As Jesus and his disciples leave the supper and arrive at the Mount of Olives, Mark tells his readers that once again Jesus speaks ominous words telling his disciples that they will all become deserters. Jesus backs up his prediction by reminding them of the words from Zechariah 13:7, “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” Earlier Jesus had warned them that one of them would betray him. Now all are implicated. Peter protests and receives the sign that will indicate his failure – before the cock crows twice Peter will deny Jesus three times. Readers of Mark’s gospel know that this tragic prediction will happen – everything Jesus has said will happen does. So when Jesus tells his disciples that after he has been raised up he will go before them to Galilee we can be sure that this too will happen – even though Mark will never tell us that it did! Mark’s technique of telling his readers that Jesus first predicts something and then whatever Jesus has predicted happens will be especially useful as Mark’s gospel comes to an end which is so open-ended that readers feel compelled either to hypothesize that Mark must have written more or Mark’s ending has the effect he likely intended – it drives his readers back to the beginning of his gospel and finally out into the world to tell the story the women are afraid to tell. That Jesus will and did appear to his disciples in Galilee certainly happens even though Mark has not included it in his storyline! That is the function of all these “prophecies” of Jesus which come true. Mark has been craftily setting up his brilliant ending!

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 7 And so we have compared these two very different stories of the meal in Jerusalem as told by Mark, Matthew, and Luke on the one hand and by John on the other. We have also noticed that while there are vague similarities between the stories there are also powerful and irreconcilable differences – especially regarding the timeframe. Mark, Matthew and Luke all know that the meal is the Passover. John knows that it was not. Both cannot be correct historically. So what are we to make of this? From a historical point of view it is almost certain that Mark, Matthew and Luke are correct about the timeframe. The meal was the Passover. Otherwise how could Paul have known of the same words regarding the meal on the night in which Jesus was betrayed as the tradition handed on to him and passed on by him? So why might John have disregarded what was historically correct to tell a different story? Likely the answer is not so much to be found in this story but in John’s story of the crucifixion of Jesus. For John, Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world – the Passover lamb. So what better time to tell of his death than to have Jesus slaughtered along with the Passover lambs! But the slaughter of the Passover lambs happened at noon on the day prior to the evening of Passover. John could not tell of the death of Jesus in the way that he did if he told the story of the meal as a Passover meal. So it is likely that John sacrificed the historical accuracy of when this event really happened in order to tell his more powerful story of the death of Jesus as the Passover lamb. If our goal were to press for historical accuracy we would need to fault John for doing what he did. He was not a very accurate historian. But that was not John’s purpose anyway. His purpose is to bear witness to Jesus in such a way that we might come to faith in him. John was an evangelist – a gospel preacher! If we can make our way around this historical discrepancy we must note then we can begin to hear the power behind the stories of all four gospel writers. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are crucial to us because they carry the message of truth about the institution of Holy Communion. We can treasure the sacrament because Jesus really does stand behind its institution. Without Mark, Matthew, and Luke much would be lost. But much would be lost without John too. It is John who provides is the wonderful words of hope that God does not abandon us when Jesus must be absent from us because he has returned to the Father. It is John who gives us the words of the coming “advocate” who makes Jesus present to us. We can be thankful that John took so much space in his gospel to tell us of Jesus’ concern for us and of Jesus’ provision for us through the Holy Spirit. It is John who reminds us that Christians are to love one another and that love is at the foundation of our faith. And it is John who gives us the practice of foot washing – even if we cannot find a good way to continue it. Reading these gospels together does challenge our understanding and expand our vision. We can be thankful for the witness of all four gospel writers.

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 6 We have noted that John shares with the others the ominous words of Jesus regarding his betrayer. We noticed that Mark and Luke mention no names as they tell the story. Matthew mentions Judas as the betrayer who betrays himself with his own words. John makes the identification of Judas even clearer. It is at this point in his gospel that John introduces his readers for the first time to an unnamed disciple known mysteriously as the “beloved disciple.” And it is to this disciple that Jesus clearly marks out Judas as the betrayer. Judas is the one to whom Jesus gives the bread and once Judas has taken it Satan enters into his heart and Judas becomes the betrayer. Mark, Matthew, and Luke had not told their readers when Judas left. John does and he does it with ominous words. When Judas leaves John tells his readers that it is night. The reference to night is more than simply to say it was dark outside – it was also “night” in a symbolic sense.

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 5 Not only has John added much but John has also omitted much which is of great significance. Of course the most important thing that John has omitted is any mention of the way in which Jesus transformed the Passover meal into what Christians have come to know as Holy Communion. There is no talk of Jesus taking bread and blessing it and giving it to his followers with the words, “This is my body.” And there is no mention of Jesus taking the cup of wine and saying, “This is my blood shed for you.” John mentions none of this. There is eating and drinking but no mention of what we have come to know as the “Words of Institution” which Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Paul share together. Because John has omitted these words there are some who have argued that John is anti-sacramental and that John does not know of the Sacrament of Holy Communion which has been a fundamental practice of the Christ church from the very earliest days. Nothing could be farther from the truth. One only needs to look at the sixth chapter of John and Jesus words in interpretation of the multiplication of the bread to know that John and John’s community share the sacrament of Holy Communion with other Christians. What else can Jesus have been referring to when he said in John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you!” John knows of Holy Communion! But he does omit the mention of it in this scene. Why does John do that? The answer is in the radically different time frame of John’s gospel compared to that of the others. We have noticed that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all believe that the meal Jesus was sharing with his disciples was the Passover meal. Luke especially makes that unmistakably clear. But for John this meal cannot be the Passover meal since in his storyline Jesus is killed at noon on the day when the Passover lambs are being slaughtered and therefore Jesus is already dead when the Passover arrives. We will need to say more about that in a little while but for now that is the reason why John does not mention the transformation of Passover into Holy Communion. There is no Passover to transform! As we look closer at John’s gospel we will notice that he has also omitted any mention of Jesus sending two disciples ahead of the others to prepare for the Passover meal. In fact, as we read John’s gospel closely we discover that when Judas leaves the meal after he has been identified as the betrayer the other disciples mistakenly think that perhaps Jesus has sent him out to make preparations for the coming Passover! This is one more proof that John does not view this meal as a Passover meal. The disciples can mistakenly think that perhaps Judas is going to prepare the Passover only if it has not yet arrived! So John’s timeframe puts this meal in the evening on the day prior to the day of Passover.

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 4 First of all, John adds the significant story of the foot washing – in fact in some ways that is the heart of the event for John. Mark, Matthew, and Luke know nothing about this – or at least they do not tell their readers anything about it. As important as foot washing is for John and how important the concept which lies behind the foot washing is it seems strange that the others say nothing about it. Was John’s community so separated from the communities of the others that they had developed a whole new practice? This is one of the things that leads to the hypothesis that John’s community was not connected to what has sometimes been called the “Great Church” tradition out of which our own understanding of Christianity flows. So one might come to the conclusion that at least two forms of Christianity came forth following the death and resurrection of Jesus – the form which stands behind John’s gospel and the other that stand behind the “Great Church” of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. It is significant that these two forms do agree fundamentally with one another and that they are not really in conflict with one another. But it is interesting to ponder that perhaps there was more than one way in which the Christian faith unfolded. If that is so then a good question to also ponder is to ask what happened to the expression of the church that grew up around the community of John’s gospel. Of course the final answer is that if there was another expression of the church represented by John’s gospel that expression was finally swallowed up by the “Great Church” when the gospel and letters of John were accepted as part of the Biblical cannon. And along with that came the practice of foot washing – a practice that still seems somewhat foreign to the “Great Church” to which we belong. A second thing that John adds to the story is an emphasis on love within the community of God’s people. This is something that has been a major theme of John’s gospel all along. The theme is carried through in the letters of John too – “God is love. We love because God first loved us!” In a way this emphasis on love goes hand and hand with the foot washing. Both are signs of the love and service that believers give to one another. A third thing that John adds to the story is perhaps the most important contribution he makes. In John’s story Jesus is deeply concerned about how the followers of Jesus will survive once Jesus has departed from their midst. This is the main focus of John’s material and the reason John’s story gets so long. Jesus is concerned that the disciples do not experience abandonment and so he gives them the promise of the “advocate” who is the spiritual presence of Jesus himself with his disciples following his departure. John tells his readers that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to be with them and to sustain them and to guide them. The Holy Spirit is the presence of Jesus even though Jesus has returned to the Father. And a final addition by John is a lengthy prayer by Jesus in which Jesus prays for his followers and for those who will come to believe in Jesus through their witness. Jesus prays for all who come to believe – and that includes us. We will notice that once the story moves to the garden at the Mount of Olives John will not include the story of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. Could it be that John is aware that Jesus prayed on that fateful night and that he moves that prayer within the meal scene? Of course there is no way to answer that question with certainty but it is at least interesting that John knows of Jesus praying at the end of our just after the story of the meal in Jerusalem. John has added much. We can be thankful for all that he has included. Nothing that John adds conflicts with the story told by the others. We would be greatly lacking without John’s longer story of the meal and its extended discussion in the upper room. Before we leave this section it is important to note that there are problems within John’s gospel with respect to the flow of things. At the end of John 14 John seems to bring the story to an end only to pick it up again for three chapters. We do not need to discuss that here but only to notice this issue.

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 3 As we begin to read John’s gospel we might wonder if we are even reading about the same meal. For one thing John’s story is much longer – 150 verses compared with Mark’s 14, Matthew’s 13, and Luke’s 28. John has invested 10 times more space than either Mark or Matthew and 5 times more than Luke to this event – three times the space all three synoptic writers combined give it. That in itself indicates that this event was very important to John. But it’s not only the length that differs – the content is so different that John’s story is almost unrecognizable compared with the others. But there are some similarities. And we will start with those. John agrees with the others that this is a meal that Jesus shares with his disciples on the night in which he was betrayed. We will need to discuss further what sort of meal this is but at least John is in agreement that a meal is shared. John also shares with the synoptic writers Jesus’ ominous announcement that one of the twelve will betray him. Mark and Matthew wait until just after the meal to tell of Jesus’ warning to Peter that he will deny him but they do share this story with John who includes it within the meal as does Luke. Aside from these connections there is very little in common between John and the others. John’s story differs in two ways – a number of things John adds to the story and a number of things that John omits. Of course an argument could be made that it is the others who have done the adding and the omitting but for the sake of comparison we have been using Mark’s gospel as the base line for the story. John also differs fundamentally with regard to the time frame of this event. We will look at each of these differences in turn.

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 2 It is when we arrive at Luke’s gospel that we notice some very significant changes in the story. Luke begins by following Mark nearly word for word as the story of the preparation for the Passover meal is told. And then the changes begin. Luke re-writes Mark’s story in such a way that it is only vaguely recognizable. To begin with Luke adds a compassionate note that Jesus has longed to eat this Passover with his disciples. There can be no doubt that Luke understands this meal as the Passover meal. Of course, Mark and Matthew had also viewed this meal as the Passover but Luke makes that unmistakably clear. This is really important to note when we turn to John’s telling of this meal. John will make it unmistakably clear that the meal Jesus ate with his disciples was not the Passover meal. We will deal with that later. As we return to Luke we will notice that he does not mention his betrayer until after the supper. Mark and Matthew had begun on that ominous note. Instead Luke moves right from Jesus’ passionate words of longing to eat the meal to the actual eating. Luke begins with the cup of wine, moves to the bread, and then back to the wine. This should not be viewed as strange since wine was consumed on several occasions in the Passover meal. Though Luke has made this change his words are significantly like those of Mark and Paul before them both so that it is clear he knows the story of the transformation of Passover into Holy Communion. Luke has been quite free with his use of Mark at this point. It is only after the meal that Jesus begins to speak of his betrayer. Luke’s story is much like Mark’s and like Mark he mentions no names. And then Luke adds three significant pieces to his story of the meal in the upper room. First Luke adds a story of the disciples arguing about who is the greatest in the kingdom of God. Mark had told a story quite similar to this one after Jesus had predicted for a second time that he would suffer, die and on the third day rise from the dead. Luke had followed Mark in telling about that second passion prediction including Mark’s words about the argument over who is the greatest. So Luke tells that story a second time here and adds to it. Jesus confronts his disciples regarding how their actions are no better than those of the Gentiles as long as they value what is great in the same way they do. Greatness in God’s kingdom is “upside down” in comparison. Having made his point Jesus goes on to tell his disciples who have remained with him in all his trials that they are soon to receive a kingdom – the kingdom of God which will dawn in the death and resurrection of Jesus – and they will sit on thrones in that kingdom judging the tribes of Israel. But they will judge by the standards of the kingdom as servants and as the least. Luke vision of the kingdom dawning has begun. At this point Luke tells his readers of Jesus’ prediction that Peter will deny Jesus. Mark, and Matthew following him, will tell that episode as the group comes to Gethsemane. And then Luke adds one more peculiar reference to Jesus instructing his disciples to take up a sword. He reminds them of the fact that they lacked nothing when they were on their missionary journeys earlier even though they took little for their journey. Now they will be in need – even of a sword. Interpreters of Luke have long puzzled over what Luke says here. It seems so strange knowing what else we know about Jesus. Perhaps Luke is only setting the stage for what he says about Jesus being numbered among the transgressors and has no other point to the swords. At any rate the sword will appear at the arrest and Jesus will tell his disciples to put their swords away. Luke has modified Mark’s story significantly. Yet, it is clear that he is telling the same story in roughly the same way. In the end, Mark, Matthew, and Luke agree on the basic points – Jesus knew of the arrangement for the preparation of Passover even before it happened so his words are true, Jesus spoke ominous words about his betrayer, and Jesus transformed Passover in Holy Communion. These are the core elements that unite the synoptic writers.

Reading the Gospels Together The Story of the Last Meal – Part 1 All four gospel writers tell their reader about the last meal that Jesus shared with his disciples in Jerusalem on the night in which he was betrayed and arrested. While there are certainly similarities there are huge differences as well, especially between John and the synoptic writers. In this section we will need to consider Mark 14:12-25; Matthew 26:17-29; Luke 22:7-38; John 13:1-17:26. It will also be important for us to read 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and John 6:52-56 and remember the story of Jesus feeding the multitude in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Mark begins his story by telling his readers that it was now the day of preparation when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered. The killing of the Passover lambs began at noon. Jesus tells two of his disciples to go into the city of Jerusalem and make preparations for them all to eat Passover that evening. This story sounds much like the story of Jesus telling his disciples to go and find the colt for him to ride as he entered Jerusalem earlier. The story is told in such a way to demonstrate Jesus’ ability to predict what will happen and that what Jesus says will happen does happen. The disciples go and find everything just as Jesus had told them and they prepare the meal in an upper room. Later that evening Jesus and presumably the rest of the disciples join the two. The meal begins on an ominous note as Jesus informs his disciples that one of them will betray him. The disciples are unsure of who this will be and know that each one is very capable of the act. Mark is very skillful in the way he tells the story. Jesus tells his disciples that the betrayer is one who dips into the bowl with him – but they all dip in the bowl! In Mark’s gospel Jesus does not finally identify his betrayer – all are left hanging and wondering, “Is it I?” Judas is never specifically mentioned by Mark – nor is the name of any of the others. Mark does not mention when Judas made his exit – and readers of Mark’s gospel can only presume that he made his move as the rest were on the way to Gethsemane. Having dropped this ominous prediction of a betrayer into the setting of the meal Jesus proceeds to take bread and wine and ritually transform what was the Passover meal into what Christians have come to know as Holy Communion. It is at this point that Paul’s words to the Corinthian church are important – they are not exactly the same as in Mark but close enough to be certain that from the very beginning of the Christian experience words like these were used and that Holy Communion was a very early practice of the church. As the meal ends Jesus again predicts his death by saying that he will not drink again until the kingdom has arrived. Mark’s story is really quite short and compact. We can imagine that the disciples were confused and frightened with the whole event and totally “in the dark” about what this might mean. As we will see Mark does not do much to relieve their situation – he leaves that for the imagination of his readers. If we use Mark as the basis for our discussion we can see how Matthew has built upon Mark’s story. Matthew drops out the reference to the slaughter of the Passover lambs. Why Matthew does this is not apparent from the story or from the rest of his gospel. Perhaps there is no meaning behind this omission. Matthew follows Mark quite closely in the story of how the disciples come to prepare the meal. Following Mark, Matthew tells of how Jesus informs his disciples about his betrayer but Matthew adds one important piece of information. He mentions the name of Judas. Mark had mentioned no names and Matthew mentions no others but he clearly lets his readers know that Judas was the betrayer. Matthew concludes his story using almost the same words as Mark regarding the bread and wine.

Reading the Gospels Together The Plot to Kill Jesus and Judas’ Decision to Betray Him We have already touched on much of this material already so we do not need to say much more other than to emphasize the agreement among all four gospel writers at this point. In this section we will need to look at Mark 14:1-2, 10-11; Matthew 26:1-5, 14-16; Luke 22:1-6; and John 11:45-54. We have already looked in detail at how Mark and Matthew used this material. It is likely Mark who has given shape to the story by sandwiching the story of the woman anointing Jesus within it. We also noticed how Luke pulled the story of the woman out of Mark’s version and moved it elsewhere. But Luke also provides a bit more detail regarding Judas. Luke tells his readers that it was Satan who entered into Judas and motivated him to do what he did. In Luke’s gospel Judas is viewed as a pathetic person and much of the sinister nature with which we usually regard Judas is removed. It is interesting that John is the one who tells his readers that Judas as nothing much more than a petty thief and that his motive for criticizing Jesus was driven by his lust for money. But John also will tell his readers that it was finally when Jesus offered the bread to Judas at the meal that Satan entered into him and Judas does his deadly deed of betrayal. John provides his readers with the information regarding the plot to kill Jesus a bit earlier in his gospel and again prior to his actual passion narrative. Seeing that the whole world is now going after Jesus once he has raised Lazarus from the dead, John tells his readers that the Jewish authorities meet and decide that Jesus must be destroyed. We will see later that this is actually the trial of Jesus before the religious authorities in absentia in John’s gospel. He will not speak again of a Jewish trial. The point here is to note that, like the others, John tells his readers of the plot to kill Jesus and of Judas’ decision to participate in it. One more little connection among all four gospel writers regarding Judas needs to be noted. All four introduce Judas Iscariot as the one who betrayed Jesus. When they first mention Judas it is connected to this ominous marker. In the scene during the interpretation of Jesus as the Bread of Life and Peter’s confession on behalf of the Twelve Judas is identified as the one of the twelve who betrayed Jesus (John 6:71). When Mark first lists the Twelve he ends by listing Judas as the betrayer (Mark 3:19). Matthew (Matthew 10:4) and Luke (Luke 6:16) do the same. There can be little doubt that Judas was the betrayer of Jesus. Understanding why and how Judas became that tragic one who betrayed Jesus varies among the writers which ought to indicate to us that he was a far more complicated character than simply an evil man. We may even come to a place where we feel pity for Judas. And we may learn from viewing his tragic life that it is not our place to judge anyone.

Reading the Gospels Together Anointed by a Woman – Part 3 John also tells a story of a woman anointing Jesus just prior to the fateful Passover during which Jesus would be killed. John tells his readers that it was six days before Passover. And John provides the identity of the woman. She was Mary, the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus had just raised from the dead and who lived at Bethany, the same location Mark has given to his story. As we read John’s story it seems clear that he has the very same story in mind that Mark has told. There are many similarities, though a few significant differences. Mark told his readers that the ointment was costly. So does John. Mark told his readers that unspecified people in the house protested what the woman did for Jesus. So does John, although John specifies that is was Judas who protested and John gives Judas’ motive – he was the keeper of the money bag and a thief yearning for the money the woman wasted on Jesus. Mark tells his readers that the woman has anointed Jesus in preparation for his burial. So does John. The similarities are strikingly evident. This is the same story. One significant difference does emerge. Mark had told his readers that the woman anointed Jesus’ head. John says it was Jesus’ feet – a remark that strikingly matches Luke’s version of the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with her tears and ointment. Another minor difference is that Mark identifies the house as belonging to a leper named Simon. John says it was the home of Lazarus, Mary’s brother. And John has placed this story just slightly earlier in the sequence of events near the end of Jesus’ public ministry but not quite attached to the passion narrative. Some questions we might ask are these. Why did Mark place this story where he did? Why did John tell the story in a way that removes it slightly from the passion narrative? And why did Luke move it to a completely different place in his story? Those are all questions we cannot answer with complete certainty. For Mark the story becomes a kind of trigger that launches his passion narrative. For John the story contrasts the sinister plots of the Jewish religious leaders who not only plot the death of Jesus but now of Lazarus as well. For Luke the story highlights the power of forgiveness. We hear one story with many uses. What a wonderful story! Thankfully we do not need to decide which version is right. They are all right in their use by these gospel writers.

Reading the Gospels Together Anointed by a Woman – Part 2 When we turn to Luke we find some interesting developments. Luke begins in much the same way as Mark and Matthew did. He tells his readers that Passover was now near – he does not mention that it was two days away. We have noticed how Luke seems to want to stretch the timeframe out a bit. And then we encounter the startling fact that Luke has omitted the story of the woman anointing Jesus. He moves right on to tell of the decision by Judas to betray Jesus. What happened to this story that Mark told his readers would be remembered and told wherever the good news is proclaimed? What we discover is that Luke has already told this story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman but Luke has moved it forward in his gospel and used it in a completely different way. The woman Luke tells about comes into the house of a Pharisee named Simon (same name as in Mark’s story) and anoints Jesus feet with her tears and with ointment out of gratitude to Jesus for his gracious forgiveness of her sins. In doing this she stands in stark contrast with Simon the Pharisee who provides at best the minimum of hospitality for his guest. And Jesus uses the whole episode to emphasize the greatness of God’s loving grace. And so the woman disappears from Luke’s story at this point because it would have been awkward to tell the same story twice. There are some who argue that the two stories have enough differences between them that they are really not the same story. Of course that could be true, but then we are left to wonder why Luke omitted the second story here. I think a much better argument can be made that Luke moved the story because he wanted this woman to be seen in contrast with the self-righteous Simon. By the way it is only Luke who tells the story about Simon the Pharisee and the woman. Another possibility, of course, is that Luke has the connection right and it was Mark who moved the story of the anointing woman – but that line of reasoning creates far more problems than it solves, especially when John is brought into the picture.

Reading the Gospels Together Anointed by a Woman – Part 1 All four gospel writers tell a story of Jesus being anointed by a woman. They do not share the same timeframe regarding when this anointing happened. In this section we will need to consider Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-13; Luke 7:36-50; and John 12:1-8. Mark begins his passion narrative by telling his readers that Passover will arrive in two days. He also informs them that the religious leaders are searching for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him – though they are wary of making a move during the feast. A bit later, Mark tells his readers of Judas’ decision to betray Jesus which is really a continuation of what we have just read about the religious leaders. And in the middle of this sinister plot of the Jewish religious leaders and Judas’ decision to betray Jesus Mark tells his story of an unnamed woman who anoints Jesus with costly ointment. Mark tells his readers that the setting for this story is at Bethany, the city at the summit of the Mount of Olives which is identified as the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in John. The anointing takes place in the home of a leper named Simon. The actions of the woman are questioned by those who were there – Mark does not identify who they were. The protest of those present is that the costly ointment was wasted on Jesus and could have been sold so that money might be given to the poor. Jesus, in turn, praises the woman for her kindness since she has now anointed Jesus for burial – a rather strange thing to welcome. This is another of Mark’s messages to his readers that Jesus knew his death was near – the issue we just looked at in the previous section. And Jesus remarks that this woman will be remembered forever where the good news is proclaimed. Mark does not say what that good news is but Mark’s readers likely can figure out that it is the good news of the resurrection. The actions of the woman are a foreshadowing of what is to come. And the actions of the woman stand in stark contrast with that of the religious leaders and of Judas – the episode Mark has told to surrounded this story. Mark’s skill as a writer is amazingly on display! Matthew follows Mark quite closely although he does provide a few interesting twists to the story. Mark had simply told his readers that it was now two days before Passover. Matthew puts those words into the mouth of Jesus. Mark had mentioned the religious leaders without mentioning any names. Matthew names Caiaphas is the chief instigator. Mark had left unspecified the people who criticize the woman for wasting the ointment. Matthew says it was the disciples who complained. Mark gives less details regarding Judas’ betrayal. Matthew points out that the religious leaders paid Judas thirty pieces of silver. All of these are very minor details and likely only serve for Matthew as small ways of clarifying what Mark had written. And in the end Matthew has told essentially the same story told by Mark.

Reading the Gospels Together Passion Predictions – Part 3 So, we have discovered that all four gospel writers want their readers to know that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection prior to their occurrence. This is an important point of contact. It has sometimes been debated whether Jesus actually did predict his coming death and resurrection. There have been some who have speculated that the words of Jesus about his death and resurrection have simply been written back into the story by his followers. As one reads the gospels together there is very little evidence that would lead to such a conclusion and every reason why we should come to the opposite conclusion – that Jesus actually did perceive his impending death and believe that his death would be followed by his resurrection! Such a belief on the part of Jesus would not be unusual in the world of that time. Most Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead. That Jesus should believe in his own coming resurrection was not a novel idea! But what is earthshattering is that the resurrection of Jesus should have happened so soon after his death and before anyone else of those who wait for the resurrection. It is very likely that Jesus knew very well that his actions would lead to his death. Whether or not Jesus also knew that his resurrection would be immediate might be debated but that Jesus expected he would be raised should not be – most people expected that. For the record, we must say that all four gospel writers want their readers to know that Jesus did anticipate his immediate resurrection although it is likely they also want their readers to know that the followers of Jesus did not understand or believe Jesus about that while he was still alive and telling them what must happen. What the followers of Jesus needed to struggle to understand was that Jesus was raised from the dead almost immediately following his death. That was something they never expected – the last thing they expected – because it had never happened before! Another thing they need to struggle to understand is that the Messiah must die. Messiahs do not die and if a so-called Messiah died that was proof that he was not a Messiah! The last thing the disciples of Jesus or anyone else expected what that he would die. The gospel writers make a bold claim for the truth of both. Jesus is the Crucified Messiah who died and Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day in anticipation of the coming resurrection at the end of time. And they want their readers to believe that Jesus knew and predicted both as well. We have spent a good deal of time investigating the “passion predictions” of Jesus. There is much to be learned from reading the gospels together in this area. The important thing to keep in mind is that all four gospel writers speak the same message regarding this – they all want their readers to know that Jesus did predict his death and resurrection. The evidence leads us to conclude with them that Jesus actually did so. We are now ready to enter into the Passion Narrative itself.

Reading the Gospels Together Passion Predictions – Part 2 As we turn to John’s gospel it may at first appear that John does not share the perspective of the synoptic writers. John does not use any of their words. John is unaware of Mark’s tight construction and skillful method of highlighting Jesus’ words about his death. But as we read closer we discover that John has his own way of telling his readers that Jesus was well aware of his impending death in Jerusalem and that his death would lead to his return above to his Father – John’s way of talking about resurrection at this point in his narrative. One of the ways in which John alerts his readers regarding the certainty of the coming death of Jesus is by his use of the “hour” which is coming. We are not going to look at all those references but they are sprinkled throughout John’s gospel. By the time John’s readers have reached the moment just prior to John’s “Passion Narrative” they are well aware that Jesus’ “hour” has now arrived and that “hour” is marked by his death. But John has other ways in which Jesus speaks of and thus predicts his coming death and resurrection. In the story of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus we noted that it is sometimes difficult to determine when the words spoken are to be understood as the words of Jesus and when they have morphed into the words of the narrator about Jesus. Clearly by the time we have come to John 3:16 it is the narrator providing his interpretation of what Jesus has just said to Nicodemus. But, just prior to that, we read that just as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness so must Jesus be lifted up. An argument could be made either way about whether these words are to be understood as the words of Jesus or words about Jesus. In the end it really matters little what we decide about that, but it is important that we note that this is the first mention of Jesus being lifted up like the serpent which is a theme that will be repeated later in John’s gospel and clearly there it is Jesus who is speaking. When Jesus arrives in Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths he soon entering into debate with the religious leaders he finds there – this is part of what we have noted as the “Jerusalem Controversy.” During the debate Jesus tells the religious leaders that he will be with them only a little while longer and then he will return to the one who sent him. John has filled this scene with a great deal of ambiguity and irony. Typical of much of John’s gospel, the religious leaders do not understand and as a consequence they wonder if Jesus plans to go to the Jews spread across the Roman Empire which, of course, is exactly what does happen as Christianity spread around the world. The unwitting response of the religious leaders is ironic. John does not have Jesus say clearly that he is going to die and in the process of dying return to the Father (resurrection). But readers of John’s gospel understand that that is what Jesus means. So, in his own ambiguous and ironic way John wants his readers to know that Jesus spoke of his coming death and resurrection. Just a little later in John’s gospel and still during the growing and bitter debate with the religious leaders, John tells of a second time when Jesus tells the religious leaders that he is going away and they will not be able to follow him. Again the telling of the story is ambiguous and ironic. The religious leaders do not understand and when they wonder whether Jesus is considering killing himself – they speak more than they know. Jesus will indeed die – he will lay down his life – and his death will be like the serpent lifted up in the wilderness and when Jesus is “lifted up” they will realize that he is “I am” – God active in what has happened. The religious readers cannot understand but John’s readers do! And it becomes clear that John wants his readers to know that Jesus has again spoken of his coming death and resurrection. When the bitter debate between Jesus and the religious leaders has run its course John tells his readers that Jesus speaks of himself as the good shepherd. And in that conversation, likely meant mostly for the followers of Jesus and John’s readers, Jesus speaks more clearly about his coming death. Jesus tells those who will hear that as the good shepherd he will lay down his life for the sheep. John makes it clear that Jesus is the one who is really in charge of what is happening – no one takes his life from him but it is Jesus who lays down his life and has the power to take it up again (resurrection). It is clear the John wants his readers to know that Jesus has spoken of his death and resurrection prior to their actual occurrence. And finally at the close of the public ministry of Jesus John tells his readers that Jesus spoke of his coming death. The “hour” has now come! Like a seed put into the ground, Jesus will die. And John returns once more to his theme of Jesus being lifted up in the same way as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness. In the lifting up of Jesus (crucifixion) he will draw all people to himself. There is one more related passage that we should consider in John’s gospel that connects with the “passion predictions” in the synoptic gospels. We noted how the first passion prediction in Mark is connected with Peter’s correct confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Even though Peter goes on to reveal his complete misunderstanding of what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah, his confession is none the less absolutely right – Jesus is the Messiah. John does not tell the same story but we might notice that at a crucial time in the revealing of Jesus’ identity it is Peter who makes the right confession once again. During the story of the multiplication of the loaves and its aftermath, Jesus had confronted those who hear with the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to truly know who he is (Holy Communion) and come to have life in him. And in the process many had left Jesus. So when he asks the Twelve, of whom Peter is the leader, if they too want to go away, Peter responds with the positive confession – “You have the words of life, to whom shall we go?” The words are not the same but the confession is.

Reading the Gospels Together Passion Predictions – Part 1 We find ourselves on the brink of entering into what scholars often refer to as the Passion Narrative – the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Before we do that there is one more indirect point of contact that we need to consider. In their own ways, each of the four gospel writers tell their readers that Jesus spoke of his coming death and resurrection during the course of his public ministry. In this section we will need to consider Mark 8:31-33, 9:30-32, and 10:32-34; Matthew 16:21-28, 17:22-23, and 20:17-19; Luke 9:21-27, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34; and John 3:14, 6:66-71, 7:32-36, 8:21-30, 10:11-18, and 12:20-36. We have already noticed how Mark has created a very tight and skillfully crafted narrative that centers on a three-fold prediction on the part of Jesus that he must go to Jerusalem where he will be handed over to the religious authorities, be killed and on the third day be raised from the dead. This is all part of Mark’s attempt to tell his readers about Jesus’ attempt to help his disciples learn of his destiny as the Crucified Messiah. It is also a part of Mark’s persistent march of Jesus from the farthest north point of Galilee toward his death in Jerusalem. In each of these three passages Jesus says essentially the same thing. In the first Peter provides the correct response to the question of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah – however, Peter also does not understand that the Messiah must die and so he protests. In fact, all three “passion predictions” are followed by misunderstanding on the part of those who hear. The main point for our consideration at this time is to understand that Mark wants his readers to know that Jesus did predict that he would die and be raised from the dead. Matthew follows Mark very closely and requires no further comment at this point. As far as the content of the “passion predictions” is concerned, Luke also follows Mark quite closely; however, Luke does add so much information into his story that he essentially unravels Mark’s tight narrative and the emphasis is no longer on the persistent march to Jerusalem and the misunderstanding of the disciples regarding Jesus’ predictions. But for our purposes here it is enough to note that Luke also wants his readers to know that Jesus did predict his coming death and resurrection during his public ministry prior to his arrival in Jerusalem. So we can summarize that Mark, Matthew, and Luke speak with one voice regarding the “passion predictions” of Jesus.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and the Passover – Part 4 Of course the question that lurks in the background at this time is the question of just how long the ministry of Jesus lasted. It is because John mentions three Passovers that we have come to think of the ministry of Jesus lasting about three years. But if John spoke of three Passovers for theological reasons rather than historical reasons, which is what I think is the case, then we are left without any reference about how long the ministry of Jesus actually lasted. We have seen how Mark condensed the Jerusalem Controversy into a day or two at most for his own reasons to make his story more powerful. There we sided with John who does not have anything invested in collapsing the timeframe and came to the conclusion that perhaps John reflects actuality better and that the Jerusalem Controversy likely unfolded over several months. Here it is John who has a whole lot invested in Passover and likely expanded one Passover into three with Mark reflecting more accurately what likely happened by speaking of one climatic Passover in which all the elements also mentioned by John happened. Reading the gospels together helps us to make these judgments. We will need to talk more about all of this later as we draw some conclusions about our present study. But for now it is worth saying that even though gospel writers tell the same story in strikingly different ways does not mean that the events that underlie these stories are not true. We can be sure that Jesus did cleanse the Temple in connection with Passover and that he also instituted the Lord’s Supper in connection with Passover and that he was crucified at Passover. That remains true even if we cannot finally decide which gospel writer is closer to historical accuracy than another. And that truth is all that is really important anyway.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and the Passover – Part 3 So as we move back to our questions it seems more likely that it is John who has taken one Passover and divided it into three to help emphasize his view that Jesus is the Passover lamb who takes away the sin of the world. It is far easier to think of the climatic event of Jesus death during a single Passover when all three elements these four gospels share together occurred than it is to imagine Mark collapsing them into one. It is critically important that the Passover in which Jesus instituted Holy Communion happened in the way in which Mark has told it. And we can lean on Paul to substantiate this view. Paul wrote prior to any of these gospel writers and he tells his readers that it was on the night in which he was betrayed that Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it and gave it to them to eat saying that it was his body. And after supper he took the cup and blessed it giving thanks and saying that it was his blood poured out for many. Paul agrees with the synoptic writers and says that it was the tradition he received and is passing on to his readers. But we must not miss the point that reading all four of these gospels together adds more power to each of them than reading them alone. They enhance one another. And they expand our understanding. Certainly Passover is itself an important point of contact among these gospel writers. As we listen to them together we come to a fuller understanding of each.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and the Passover – Part 2 We have already noticed that John has a whole lot more invested in Passover than Mark, Matthew, and Luke do. John’s first hint of Passover is when John the Witness first identifies Jesus as the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Jesus is the Passover lamb. This happens at the very beginning of John’s gospel and these are the first words spoken about Jesus. Following Jesus’ identification as the lamb of God, John takes Jesus briefly to Galilee. But very quickly Jesus returns to Jerusalem because the Passover is about to take place. And what does Jesus do during this first Passover? He cleanses the Temple and claims that the function of the Temple now rest in him. John then takes Jesus back to Galilee with a stop in Samaria. After one more journey back to Jerusalem for an unnamed festival, John again finds Jesus in Galilee on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. It is Passover time once again. This is the second Passover in John’s storyline. And what does Jesus do during this Passover? Jesus multiplies the bread and claims that he is himself the Bread of Life. And in the process of discussing the meaning of the multiplication of the loaves John clearly alludes to the Sacrament of Holy Communion – “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you do not have life.” We will notices that John does not tell the story of Jesus transforming Passover into the Lord’s Supper when he tells of the meal in Jerusalem during the final Passover. There is no institution of Holy Communion in John’s storyline at that time – but here is the clear implication that such an institution has taken place and John’s community knows very well about Holy Communion! In the second Passover, Jesus indirectly institutes Holy Communion in his explanation regarding the multiplication of the Bread. We have also noticed how even the synoptic writers make allusion to Holy Communion in their telling of the story of the multiplication of the bread. As the end of the public ministry of Jesus is coming to a close, John alerts his readers that it is now six days before Passover – the third Passover in John’s storyline. In a scene that looks very much like that in Mark, John tells his readers that a woman, Mary, anoints Jesus using oil she has bought for his burial. It is in the days just ahead of this Passover that Jesus is encountered by the Greeks who desire to see him and the announcement is made that Jesus’ hour has now come. This Passover will be the moment for which the Messiah was sent into the world. We have now arrived at the third Passover in John’s gospel. It is during this Passover – in fact just prior to the meal itself, when the Passover lambs are being slaughtered, that John tells his readers of the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus hangs on the cross while the Passover lambs which will be eaten that evening are being killed! So, in John’s storyline Jesus does not live long enough to actually celebrate the Passover with his disciples. We can be sure that this is what John means since he informs his readers that the Jewish religious leaders refuse to enter into Pilate’s headquarters because they do not want to defile themselves and thus be unable to celebrate the Passover. How are we to understand the difference between the synoptic gospel’s storyline which tells of only one Passover in which Jesus cleanses the Temple, transforms Passover into Holy Communion, and is crucified and John’s storyline which tells of Jesus taking part in three Passovers? Was there only one Passover or was there three Passovers? It seems again to be irreconcilable to attempt to merge these two storylines. And we have already looked at the issue of the cleansing of the Temple and came to the conclusion that Mark is likely reflecting historical accuracy better than John in that regard. Did Mark condense three Passovers into one? Or, did John expand one Passover into three? As we move forward to consider answers to our questions it is important that we notice what all these gospel writers share together. Their differences are so glaring that they might get in the way of the great similarity we need to recognize. All four gospel writers connect the Passover with the cleansing of the Temple. All four gospel writers connect Passover with Holy Communion. And all four gospel writers know that Jesus was crucified at Passover. Those are three very important and powerful things that all four gospel writers share together and we need to not forget that.

Reading the Gospels Together Jesus and the Passover – Part 1 All four gospel writers tell their readers that Jesus was crucified during the celebration of Passover. We will notice later when we look at the death of Jesus more closely that John and the synoptic writers differ regarding when the crucifixion of Jesus takes place, but for now it is important to note that they all share the same point of view that Jesus was killed at Passover. As we read these gospels; however, we need to notice that they differ also about the number of Passovers involved in the story. Mark, Matthew, and Luke speak of only one. John speaks of three. How are we to understand this difference? In this section we will need to consider Mark 14:1, 12-25, and 15:6; Matthew 26:2, 17-29, and 27:15; Luke 2:41 and 22:1, 7-28; and John 1:29-36, 2:13-23, 6:4, 52-59, 11:55-57, 12:1, 12-20, 13:1, 18:28, 30, and 19:31. By simply looking at the number of verses and the many places in which John refers to the Passover we ought to be alerted to the reality that the Passover plays a much bigger role in John’s storyline. We will return to John but, as usual, we will look at Mark, Matthew, and Luke first. Mark’s first mention of Passover comes two days prior to the actual feast when a woman at Bethany anoints Jesus for his burial. Jesus has entered into Jerusalem as King Jesus, he has cleansed the Temple, engaged in a bitter controversy with the Jerusalem leaders, and predicted the destruction of the Temple. Mark locates this part of the story in Bethany, the place at the summit of the Mount of Olives from which Jesus has acquired the colt and rode into Jerusalem a few days before. Mark tells his readers specifically that it was on the next day after the woman had anointed him, the Day of Preparation for the Passover when the Passover lambs are slaughtered, that Jesus sends two of his disciples into the city to make preparations for them to celebrate Passover together. It is during this Passover meal that Jesus transforms Passover into the Lord’s Supper. And that evening after celebrating the Passover meal with his followers Jesus is arrested and eventually crucified on the next day. There are three important things that we should notice in Mark’s story. Passover comes on the heels of the cleansing of the Temple. Passover is also the time when Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper. And Passover is the time when the Messiah is crucified. All three of these events happen in close proximity with the Passover and during the same Passover – the only one Mark mentions. For his part, Matthew follows Mark very closely in all of this. He too associates the cleansing of the Temple, the institution of Holy Communion, and the death of Jesus with Passover – the one and only Passover Matthew mentions. Luke also follows Mark very closely in all of this. We will notice some minor differences along the way but the story is essentially the same. Luke has mentioned on Passover much earlier in the life of Jesus – when he was twelve and went there with his faithful parents. He was lost to them for three days which perhaps foreshadows the three days when Jesus was in the tomb, but that is to get away from the main point. To summarize, the synoptic writers all tell of only one Passover during which Jesus cleanses the Temple, institutes the Lord’s Supper, and is crucified.

Reading the Gospels Together The Jerusalem Controversy – Part 3 What might we make of this similarity between John and the synoptic gospels? I think a strong case can be made that they are both reflecting the same Jerusalem Controversy between Jesus and the religious leaders. So, why does John stretch that controversy out over several months and why does Mark, and Matthew and Luke who follow him, condense that controversy to a day or at most two? When we ask the question in this way it becomes somewhat obvious that if they are in fact reflecting the same controversy that it is Mark that has done the condensing of the story to fit his theology and way of telling the story to pack the most impact into the Jerusalem Controversy. Mark’s story only works if Jesus makes a grand entry into Jerusalem at the end of his life, engages in this fierce Jerusalem Controversy over a short period of time, and as a result becomes the Crucified Messiah. It is for the sake of the story that Mark does what he does. In fact, if we read the synoptic gospels carefully we discover that a slightly different scenario unfolds within them too. Luke has already tipped his hand when he states that Jesus taught many days in the Temple following his cleansing of it (Luke 19:47). And, even Mark gives hints of a longer time of Jesus’ teaching during the arrest scene in his gospel. There Jesus will say to those who came to arrest him, “Day after day I was with you in the Temple teaching” (Mark 14:49). Was Mark aware that his single day of debate was really his own construction? Likely he was! John has nothing invested in telling the story of the Jerusalem Controversy as a short, single day that is part of the climax of events leading to the death of the Crucified Messiah. Only Mark makes this investment in the telling of his story. So, we could conclude that John’s storyline in which Jesus actually spent a fair amount of time in Jerusalem engaged in a harsh debate with the religious leaders of Jerusalem may in fact reflect more accurately what actually happened. Of course there is a good deal of speculation going on in this line of reasoning and there is no way to verify any of that speculation. But to make this connection is at least interesting – and I would add possible. One only comes to this possibility when one reads the gospels together. If one begins to think that perhaps John is reflecting more accurately what actually happened then that amplifies the idea that Mark has created a storyline to emphasize his powerful claim that Jesus is known only in his death as the Crucified Messiah. We begin to understand Mark better as we let John speak along with Mark. So, in conclusion, it is my judgment that John is telling the story of the Jerusalem Controversy more accurately from a historical point of view than Mark is. And the reason for that is because Mark is seeking to proclaim his gospel most effectively so he adjusts the story to help him do that. And in the process we get a glimpse into the brilliance of Mark! If our concern is “historical accuracy” then we are likely troubled. But if our concern is the proclamation of the gospel we can delight in the mastery of these writers. But, Mark was likely not the only one who shifted events to serve his purposes. We will turn now to an examination of Jesus and the Passover. There we will put John in the spotlight as we view his use of Passover.

Reading the Gospels Together The Jerusalem Controversy – Part 2 So what might this have to do with John? As we begin to read the sections of John’s gospel I have suggested, we discover that a debate is also raging between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem in John’s gospel as well. The events and episodes are different but the content is similar. Let’s take a look at how John unfolds this debate. We begin with the story of Jesus and Nicodemus. Actually this debate is much more civil than all the rest. The words are not harsh but the fact that it is a debate is important. Nicodemus cannot understand Jesus. Jesus speaks of one thing and Nicodemus hears another. And in the end John uses this debate to declare his primary understanding of just who Jesus is – he is the one who came from above, from God and will return above, to God. Jesus has come to save the world. But not all will welcome the savior because they love darkness rather than light. Only those born from above will believe. This debate with Nicodemus happens in Jerusalem at an unspecified time fairly early in the public ministry of Jesus. After a journey through Samaria into Galilee where Jesus heals the official’s son as the second of his signs, John brings Jesus back to Jerusalem because there was an unnamed festival happening there. John does not specify the time of this festival. During the festival Jesus heals a paralytic man on the Sabbath and immediately a debate begins to rage between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem. The debate is about the authority of Jesus. What right does Jesus have to break the Sabbath and, more pointedly, what right does he have to claim to be the Son of God thus making himself equal with God? Strong words are exchanged between Jesus and the religious authorities. Again, after a brief journey to Galilee where Jesus celebrates the second Passover and multiplies the bread and fish, John brings Jesus back to Jerusalem. This time John identifies the festival that brings Jesus back as the Feast of Booths which would have taken place in late October or early November. In John’s storyline, from this time on Jesus will remain in Jerusalem or in Judean territory near Jerusalem. This is now about five months before the final Passover during which Jesus will be crucified. The important thing to notice in this visit, which seems to extend over a lengthy period of time in John’s storyline, is that Jesus is in a continual debate with the religious leaders of Jerusalem. Again the debate is about the authority of Jesus, his identity, and most pointedly, that he claims God to be his Father and thus that he is the Son of God. This time the words exchanged are incredibly harsh. Jesus calls the religious leaders children of the devil. They wonder if he is possessed by a demon. The exchange is very polemical and difficult to read. One cannot overstate the harshness of this exchange. In the midst of this debate John tells the story of the healing of the man born blind. The story, as John tells it, serves mostly as a metaphor of how the religious leaders are the ones who are truly blind. Though one need not doubt that Jesus healed the blind man, this story is more about the obstinate rejection of the religious leaders. They are truly blind. The harsh debate is softened a bit by John’s inclusion of the story of Jesus as the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, but soon the debate rages on. John tells his readers that it is now the time of the Feast of Dedication – a feast that would have taken place in late December or early January to commemorate the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple following the Maccabean revolt of 165BC. Again at the center of this debate is the authority of Jesus. In response to Jesus’ words the religious leaders take up stones to kill him, but Jesus escapes because his “hour” has not yet come. In less than three months the Passover will come and with it the “hour” of Jesus “lifting up” in order to draw all people to himself. The point of all of this is to notice that John does speak of a Jerusalem Controversy! He does not use any of the stories that Mark used in his version of that controversy but the cause of the controversy is the same – Jesus’ authority and identity as the Son of God. Mark will still disguise that identity until the death of Jesus has occurred and human beings can finally know that the Crucified Messiah is indeed the Son of God, but underlying this debate is the question of Jesus’ identity.

Reading the Gospels Together The Jerusalem Controversy – Part 1 In the aftermath of the Triumphal Entry and the Cleansing of the Temple the synoptic writers tell of a series of debates between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem – we might call it The Jerusalem Controversy. We have also seen how John moves from the Triumphal Entry to the announcement by Jesus that his “hour” has now arrived, an hour which brings much distress to Jesus who yet welcomes its coming and moves steadily to his “lifting up” through which he will draw all people to himself, and then on to the Last Supper. In effect, the public ministry of Jesus comes to a close with the Triumphal Entry in John’s gospel. John does not tell the story of the Jerusalem Controversy – at least not at this point in his gospel. But as we read John’s gospel we discover a surprising thing – much of the same controversy which is found in the synoptic gospels in this Jerusalem Controversy section is spread out earlier in John’s gospel. Jesus does enter into debate with the religious leaders of Jerusalem in John’s gospel! That debate; however, is stretched out over a much longer period of time – about five months! Could there be a connection between these very different ways of telling the story of the Jerusalem Controversy? I think there is. In this section we will need to consider Mark 11:27-12:44; Matthew 21:23-23:36; Luke 20:1-21:4; and John 3:1-21, 31-36; John 5:1, 19-47; John 7:10-10:42. Mark, Matthew, and Luke tell essentially the same story with only a few differences so we can discuss them as one. There are seven episodes that these gospel writers include in the Jerusalem Controversy. In the first episode the religious leaders question Jesus regarding his authority – presumably his authority to cleanse the Temple. Jesus avoids a direct answer by asking a question of his own regarding John the Baptist and the first conflict scene ends in a draw. The second episode is a parable that Jesus tells which clearly identifies the religious leaders as those who kill the son of the vineyard owner – as clear a reference to the killing of Jesus as can be made. Everyone gets the point of the parable. The religious leaders want to arrest Jesus but cannot because of the crowds. The third episode is really a clever attempt on the part of the religious leaders to trap Jesus with a question regarding the paying of taxes. They do not succeed as Jesus again skillfully avoids the issue – a second draw. The fourth episode brings the Sadducees into the conflict. They are the conservative aristocratic rulers of Jerusalem and one of the few members of Jewish society at that time who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of God’s people. They attempt to ridicule Jesus with a ridiculous story of a woman who married seven brothers and now would be confronted with the dilemma of who would be her true husband at the time of the resurrection. They are not successful. The fifth episode is really not much of a controversy but is rather Mark’s skillful way of placing Jesus at the very center of the Jewish faith as Jesus claim for himself allegiance to the great commandment to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and also the second great commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. Luke has made one change at this point having moved the episode of the great commandment earlier in his gospel when he told the parable of the Good Samaritan. The sixth episode is initiated by Jesus where once again the question of authority is at the fore. Only if Jesus is the Messiah and at the same time the Son of God can the words of David in Psalm 110 be true. The Jerusalem Controversy concludes in the synoptic gospels with Jesus denouncing the religious leaders in condemning and harsh language. Mark’s version is really quite short and to the point – the religious leaders devour widow’s houses for the sake of appearance. Matthew expands Mark’s story at great length providing a series of woes regarding these religious leaders. His words are harsh and condemning. Luke follows Mark very faithfully, although he has placed most of the words Matthew includes here earlier in his gospel. Likely Luke and Matthew share these words from their common source unknown to Mark. Following immediately on the denouncing of the religious leaders Mark provides the contrast of a widow who gives everything she has to God – one of the very widows whom the religious leaders devour becomes for Mark the prime example of a follower of Jesus. Luke joins Mark in ending the Jerusalem Controversy with the story of this woman – Matthew leaves out the story of the widow. It is better for him to end on a harsh note of condemnation. The point of looking at all of these stories here is to point out that a fierce debate took place between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem in which harsh words of condemnation are declared by Jesus against them. At the heart of the debate is the authority of Jesus and the religious leaders’ rejection of it. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have placed this debate at the very end of Jesus’ life and condensed it to one day or at most two, although Luke mentions many days. By placing this debate in this place Mark has made it another of the climatic events leading to the death of the Messiah. The battle is fierce. The language is harsh. The outcome is deadly. And for the most part Matthew and Luke have followed Mark’s lead. Matthew has added a couple of parables but essentially his narrative is like Mark’s.

Reading the Gospels Together The Cleansing of the Temple – Part 3 Turning to John’s gospel we run immediately into a challenge. John does not tell the story of the cleansing of the Temple as an event that happened near the end of Jesus’ life but rather as one of the very first things that Jesus did in his public ministry. Of course we need to ask some questions at this point. Is it possible that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice – once at the beginning of his ministry as John reports and once again at the end as the synoptic writers report? Of course, that may be possible but it is very unlikely – especially when we consider the report that Jesus did this at the end of his public ministry. It is much harder to explain why John would have omitted it at that point in the story if he knew that the event happened twice than it is to accept the idea that John moved the story. It is very unlikely that John would have been unaware of the cleansing at the end of Jesus’ ministry. After all, the gospel of John does claim to have an actual participant in the story at the foundation of this gospel – the beloved disciple. And we have already seen how Luke, begrudgingly it seems, includes the story because he must since it was so ingrained in the tradition. If the event happened a second time near the end of Jesus’ life John would have reported it. So we can likely answer the first question by saying that the event happened only once. That leaves us with two more questions. First, was it Mark who moved the story from early in the ministry of Jesus to this point? A case could be made that this is exactly what Mark did. Mark has taken great lengths to construct his story with Jesus’ ministry taking place exclusively in Galilee with one journey to Jerusalem at the end of Jesus’ ministry in which he is crucified and raised from the dead. There would be no room in Mark’s gospel to tell the story of the cleansing of the Temple at any other point than at the end. In fact, if there were two cleansings the whole structure of Mark’s storyline would begin to crumble. And if there was only one cleansing at the beginning then if Mark wanted to include the story he would have needed to move it to the end. Even though a case might be made that it is Mark who moved the story it is very unlikely that this is what took place. It is almost certain, given what we have noticed, that Mark, in fact, tells this story in the right place and at the right time – near the end of the life of Jesus at that climatic moment when the conflict comes to a head and Jesus becomes the Crucified Messiah. So, that leaves the last question to be answered. Was it John who moved the story forward in his gospel? And if he did that, why did he do it? To answer the first question in the affirmative is the most sensible answer to the challenge of why the gospel of John tells this story near the beginning of his gospel and why the synoptic gospels place it at the end. It is almost certainly John who moved the story. So, why might John have done that? Getting at an answer to that question is not easy. There may be several factors involved. First of all readers of John’s gospel have noticed a kind of “replacement theory” in John’s theological understanding. Jesus replaces the feasts and the heart of Judaism. So, in his telling of the cleansing of the Temple, John is telling his readers that Jesus replaces the Temple as the locus of God’s presence. The Temple is no longer the place to locate God but Jesus is. This makes a lot of sense in John’s theology and likely is part of the reason he tells the story at all. But there may well be another reason behind why John moved the story. In all four gospels the cleansing of the Temple is connected with the feast of Passover. And we will be spending time looking at Jesus and the Passover shortly. The synoptic gospels tell of only one Passover. John tells of three Passovers. But, to anticipate what will be discussed later, the striking thing is that John tells about one element of what happens at Passover in each of the three stories and the synoptic gospels tell of those three events all happening in the one Passover. In the first Passover in John’s gospel Jesus cleanses the Temple. In the second Passover in John’s gospel Jesus speaks of Holy Communion. And in the third Passover in John’s gospel Jesus is crucified. What the synoptic gospels include in the one Passover John separates into the three. Could it be that John is communicating something through this arrangement? If that is the case then John’s construction of a three year ministry of Jesus which conflicts with the one year ministry as told by the synoptic gospels can be explained on theological grounds. That does not end the questions around why the gospel writers assume the length of Jesus ministry in different ways but it may help move a little further down the road to discussing that reality. But we will need to come to that later. So in conclusion it is likely Mark, Matthew, and Luke who are historically correct in placing the story of the cleansing of the Temple at the end of Jesus’ life and connected with the Triumphal Entry. Before leaving John’s telling of the story of the cleansing of the Temple we should note that while John tells basically the same story he has included some differences. John does not mention directly the quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah but he does include a quotation from Psalm 69. And John includes the saying of Jesus that he will build again the temple in three days after it has been destroyed. Interestingly it is this very accusation that is falsely used again Jesus in his trial in the synoptic gospels. We will say more about that later. As we read these gospels together we discover that perhaps there is more to the story than can be seen reading them alone.

Reading the Gospels Together The Cleansing of the Temple – Part 2 For his part, Matthew has followed Mark fairly closely. We noted that he tells of Jesus cleansing the Temple on the same day as he entered the city as King Jesus. That is not a huge difference. But Matthew embellishes Mark’s story by telling his readers that Jesus not only cleanses the Temple but he also heals the blind and lame who came to him there. And Jesus not only quotes from Isaiah and Jeremiah but he also quotes from Psalm 8 in response to the amazement of the religious leaders at what Jesus has done. Once the symbolic act of cleansing is complete and Jesus has healed the blind and lame he retreats to Bethany much as he did in Mark’s story. Matthew has not forgotten about the fig tree; however, so now he tells of Jesus going to the tree to find figs and upon finding none curses the fig tree which withers at once and dies. By changing Mark’s story from a two-stage event and collapsing it into one Matthew has spoiled Mark’s effect. For Mark the withering fig tree is a metaphor of the condemned Temple and by surround the cleansing of the Temple with this strange story Mark has made his point. The way Matthew has changed the story leads to a major question about the meaning of the cursing of the fig tree in Matthew’s gospel and in the end it likely has little meaning. It is just a strange story that Matthew felt obligated to repeat because he found it in Mark. On the whole Matthew and Mark are quite close however in the telling of this story. As we read Luke’s story it becomes apparent that he was not very impressed with Mark’s story of the cleansing of the Temple. He barely tells the story. Luke does not mention the fig tree. One gets the impression that he may well have rather not told this story but it is so important to Mark and likely was so ingrained in the minds of Christians that he must tell it. Luke uses the least possible number of words and moves quickly to report that Jesus spent a number of days teaching in the Temple. We will see that Mark has condensed the teaching to a day or at most two. Why did Luke change Mark’s story in the way he did? We need to remember that the Temple is the central location for Luke. Likely, in the end, he did not share Mark’s negative view of the Temple. So, why did he include the story at all? As mentioned above it was likely because the story was so well known and had become a standard part of the tradition. All of this adds credence to the likelihood that Jesus actually did engage in this symbolic act of cleansing the Temple. Luke could not set it aside because it really happened and Luke knew that even though he might have wished otherwise. The point here is that Luke has downplayed the story in significant ways. It does not have the import for him that it has for both Mark and Matthew. For Mark and Matthew this event is the crucial event that galvanized the death of Jesus. There would be no turning back for the religious leaders in Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels once this event has taken place. Not so for Luke. There may still have been room for repentance and the actual welcome of the visitation of God – but, as we know, this did not happen. Yet, the Temple remains an important feature and location in Luke’s gospel and in the book of Acts. The followers of Jesus find a home in the Temple in the book of Acts.

Reading the Gospels Together The Cleansing of the Temple – Part 1 We have noted about how the Cleansing of the Temple is closely connected with the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in the synoptic gospels. We have also noticed how John has separated these two events by placing the story of the Cleansing of the Temple near the beginning of his gospel. In due time, we will need to ask why each of these writers have ordered their story in the way they did. In this section we will need to consider Mark 11:12-25; Matthew 21:12-22; Luke 19:45-48; and John 2:13-25. We have noted how Mark tells the story of Jesus’ Triumphal Entry in such a way that it seems to be meant more for the followers of Jesus than anyone else – the event may have gone unnoticed by almost everyone else. Mark has also told his readers that Jesus retreated to Bethany after having surveyed the Temple upon his entry into the city. It is now the next day and Jesus proceeds back down the Mount of Olives and into the city once again. But before he does that Mark tells a peculiar story of Jesus looking for figs on a fig tree even though it is the wrong season for figs to bear. And when Jesus finds no figs he proceeds to curse the tree. It is at this point that Mark tells the story of the cleansing. Knowing something about the structure of the Temple area is important to Mark’s story. The Temple area was a series of courts surrounding the actual structure in which the inmost room was the Holy of Holies where no one entered except the high priest and he entered only once each year on the Day of Atonement. In the outermost court even Gentiles were welcome. Next came the court of Jewish women who could proceed one step closer than the Gentiles but no more. Then came the court of Jewish men and finally the Temple structure itself where only priests and Levites could enter. The very design of the structure hindered approaching God. And the sacrificial system that had built up over time also hindered such an approach. It was this barrier that Jesus came to destroy more than anything else. Jesus’ words are instructional in understanding that. Jesus quotes two OT passages, one from Isaiah and the other from Jeremiah. Jesus’ complaint is that the religious leaders have destroyed the sense of the Temple being a house of prayer for all nations and turned it instead into the hideout of robbers. So once again Jesus engages in a symbolic act attacking the very structure of the religious leaders. This symbolic event does not go unnoticed as Mark tells his readers that the religious leaders seek to kill Jesus. But they cannot because of the crowds who are spellbound at Jesus’ teaching. In many ways the cleansing of the Temple is, for Mark, the straw that broke the camel’s back and is the event the precipitates the death of Jesus. It is the climatic event in a long chain of events leading to the death of the Messiah. After a day of teaching following his symbolic action Jesus and his disciples again leave the city. And the next day as they pass the fig tree the disciples notice that it has withered and died. Mark has craftily surrounded the cleansing of the Temple with another symbolic action on the part of Jesus – the cursing of the fig tree. As the fig tree will no longer bear fruit, the religious system of the Temple is no longer useful as a means of God’s grace – the religious leaders have perverted it and there is no other alternative than to destroy it. The cursing of the fig tree is, for Mark, a powerful metaphor of the needed destruction of the Temple system in Jerusalem. The story of the cursing of the fig tree is such a difficult and strange story so perhaps it is fair to say that Mark did not mean it to be understood literally but used it figuratively. It works well as a metaphor and not so well as an actual event. And so Mark concludes these two events with his readers pondering the meaning of both of them. What does it mean that Jesus enters Jerusalem as King Jesus and what does it mean that the Temple has been overthrown? Mark will proceed to unveil that meaning in what follows.

Reading the Gospels Together The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem – Part 4 For now it is important that we think about what we have read in all four gospels. There is much in agreement among them in spite of some differences! It is important that we notice that agreement. All four gospel writers tell of Jesus using a symbolic action as he entered Jerusalem in which Jesus makes it clear that he comes as King Jesus! The fact that all four gospel writers tell this story makes it almost certain that Jesus really did participate in the symbolic action and that he meant to do so. And that is the most important thing in the story. We have gained a good deal in hearing these gospels together as we seek to understand. We will need to think more about what it means for Jesus to be King Jesus, but that he meant to convey that message is clear. We will see how that works out as we move forward in the story.

Reading the Gospels Together The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem – Part 3 In his gospel John also tells his readers of Jesus making a triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem and clearly he has this same scene in mind. The striking thing about John’s gospel is that in his storyline Jesus has been in or near Jerusalem for the past five months! This is not the first entry of Jesus into the city! But John also wants his readers to know that this is a symbolic action of Jesus in which Jesus want to convey that he is indeed entering Jerusalem as King Jesus. John reorders the story by telling his readers that Jesus’ disciples first gather branches to spread on his way as he enters the city and cry out Psalm 118. It is only after that, that Jesus finds a young donkey to ride upon. To make sure his readers understand, like Matthew, John quotes from Zephaniah – Jesus is the king who comes humbly riding upon a donkey! John tells his readers that Jesus’ disciples actually did not understand what they were doing at the time but came to understand later after the resurrection. And then we learn that at the heart of this whole matter, as far as the followers of Jesus were concerned, was a celebration of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. So, in the view of those who were with Jesus, this is more about Lazarus than about the triumphal entry of King Jesus. But for Jesus, and clearly for John’s readers, the point of the story is in fact such an entry. John also tells his readers that the Pharisees notice and they are dismayed since now the whole world is going after Jesus! Readers of John’s gospel already know that the religious leaders have already put Jesus on trial in absentia and decided that he must be put to death. They also know that they have also decided to kill Lazarus since he is a powerful witness to Jesus. The battle lines of the conflict have been drawn and all that awaits is the playing out of the action. John follows up the scene with two more actions. First, some Greeks come seeking Jesus and Jesus announces that his “hour” has now come. Readers of John’s gospel know that this hour is the hour of his crucifixion – his lifting up so that all might be drawn to him. Following the announcement of the arrival of the “hour” Jesus proceeds to struggle with what is coming. The scene sounds a lot like that at Gethsemane and we will look at it later when we get to that part of the story. Jesus decides that he must proceed to the end and laments the unbelief of so many people. It is at this point that John tells of the prophecy of Isaiah that many will have eyes but not see and ears but not hear and thus they will not turn and be healed. The passion of Jesus is on display in John’s gospel in a way that is unusual. And with this struggle and its resolution John will proceed to the Last Supper in Jerusalem. Readers of John’s gospel will notice that John does not tell the story of the cleansing of the Temple at this point in his story. He has already told that story way back at the beginning. We will look at that difference when we take up that part of the story.

Reading the Gospels Together The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem – Part 2 Clearly Matthew has the same event in mind and he often uses the very same words that Mark used. But Matthew also makes some significant changes to Mark’s story. First of all he drops out the name of the village called Bethany. Why Matthew does that is a mystery – not that this matters much. But, more significantly, Matthew also has the disciples go into the village of Bethany and find both a donkey and its colt. Mark had mentioned only one animal – Matthew tells his readers there are two. Why might Matthew have done this? The answer comes quickly as Matthew adds the quotation from Zephaniah which says that the king comes riding on a donkey and a colt, the foal of the donkey. We have noticed that Matthew uses these OT “proof texts” at other times to bolster his point. And, in an almost humorous way, Matthew takes the quotation from Zephaniah very literally since Zephaniah mentioned both a donkey and a colt. Likely Matthew has just missed the OT use of parallelism which we find often in the Psalms. Instead of thinking of two animals the use of parallelism would have made the second mention of the colt a kind of reinforcement of the first. But that really doesn’t matter. At any rate Matthew is very literal here and tells his readers that Jesus rides on both the donkey and the colt. That is a difficult sight to picture. But perhaps we should not make so much of that. Other than picturing two animals Matthew’s story is the same as Mark’s. The disciples and others place their garments on the animals and the ground and spread branches to welcome the king. The way in which Matthew tells the story, especially his direct quote from Zephaniah, makes it clear that we are to see this symbolic action on the part of Jesus as a demonstration that Jesus intended to enter the city as King Jesus. Matthew makes what Mark has implied completely clear. And Matthew adds one more touch to the story by telling his readers that when the crowds begin to ask who this is they are told that this is the prophet Jesus from Galilee in Nazareth. Whereas Mark’s scene may well have not brought much notice, Matthew wants his readers to know that the event drew at least some attention. Finally, Matthew proceeds to tell his readers that when Jesus entered the Temple – something Mark had also said and then told his readers of Jesus’ retreat back to Bethany for the night – Jesus immediately cleansed it. We will need to wait a bit to work our way through that part of the story. As we look at Luke’s story we notice that Luke is also clearly following Mark. In fact, Luke is far more faithful to Mark than Matthew was. He includes the name of the village of Bethphage and he quotes Mark word for word throughout the telling of the securing of the colt and the entry into Jerusalem. It is only at the very end of the story that Luke makes some significant changes. Luke changes Mark’s scene at the foot of the mountain and tells his readers that some Pharisees in the crowd notice and demand that Jesus make his disciples end the charade as they see it. Clearly they see that in this symbolic action Jesus is entering the city of Jerusalem as King Jesus and they protest! The battle is already on. The event does not go unnoticed! And then Luke adds a heart-wrenching scene. As Jesus sees the city – for the first time in the storyline of the synoptic writers – Jesus weeps! How God desires to gather his children but they will not be gathered. And Luke provides his readers with the significant words, “you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God!” This has been Luke’s driving motif from the beginning of his gospel and it comes to a head here in this clear statement. The passion of Jesus and of God is on full display. Will anyone receive the visitation of God? This is not the first time Luke has pictured Jesus weeping for the city of Jerusalem. Earlier in his gospel as Jesus is making his way to Jerusalem and some Pharisees come to warn him of Herod’s threat Jesus weeps and speaks almost the same words. These words work so well for Luke as he lays forth his theme of the visitation of God to his people. God is willing but will the people be willing? Matthew also knows these words of Jesus weeping for the city of Jerusalem. He saves them for that time when Jesus’ disciples asked him about the beauty of the Temple and they are told of its complete destruction. Likely both Matthew and Luke found these words in the common source they share apart from Mark. And, like Matthew, Luke tells his readers that upon entering the city Jesus goes directly to the Temple and proceeds to cleanse it. We will work our way through that scene shortly.

Reading the Gospels Together The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem – Part 1 We have now reached a critical point in our exercise of reading the gospels together where all four gospels coalesce and from here on they will all be basically telling the same story in nearly the same order. The scene has now shifted to Jerusalem and the area just to the east of the city. We begin with the story of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. In this section we will need to consider Mark 11:1-11; Matthew 21:1-11; Luke 19:29-44; and John 12:12-19. We will also look briefly at Matthew 23:37-39 and Luke 13:31-35. Mark has been leading his readers to this place and this time. Jerusalem has been the destiny of Jesus for some time and Jesus has warned his disciples that he is going there to by handed over to the religious leaders, to be killed and on the third day rise from the dead. They have not understood. And now they have trudged up the mountain from Jericho and arrived at the summit. Mark identifies the villages of Bethphage and Bethany. Mark’s readers know nothing about these two villages. It is with some fear and trepidation that Mark’s readers come to this place. The action begins as Jesus engages in a symbolic action entering the city by riding on a colt – an action certainly alerting Mark’s readers that Jesus is entering in the way kings of old entered the city. The way in which Mark tells the story fills it with mystery and some ambiguity. Without any preparation for the event, Jesus sends two of his disciples into the village and tells them they will find a colt there upon which no one has ridden. They are to take the colt and bring is back for Jesus to ride. The owner of the colt has no warning or preparation that this will happen but Jesus says he will let the colt go anyway since the master has asked for it. Are we to think that Jesus has somehow got word to this owner? – likely not in the view of Mark’s storyline. Jesus commands and the owner complies. Mark is beginning a pattern where he will emphasize that the words of Jesus come true. Once the colt has been brought to Jesus the disciples place their garments on it and Jesus begins the descent down the Mount of Olives and into the city of Jerusalem. The disciples and others join in the parade and begin to recite Psalm 118 announcing the coming one and the coming kingdom of David. Likely, in Mark’s telling of the story, outsiders viewed this act with wonder and confusion. The religious leaders are not mentioned and for all intents and purposes the whole event likely went unnoticed by most people. The event seems to be aimed mostly at the followers of Jesus. Once Jesus has reached the foot of the mountain he enters the Temple, looks around, and returns back up the Mount of Olives to Bethany. Readers of Mark’s gospel suspect more action is coming but Mark’s way of telling the story adds suspense. Clearly this is a symbolic sign of the entry of King Jesus. But what will it mean?