Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 5

Luke is also very free in his telling of the trial before Pilate. To begin with Luke provides his readers with some of the accusations Mark and Matthew had only implied and left unspoken. Jesus is accused of perverting the nation, forbidding the payment of taxes to the emperor and saying the he is the Messiah, a king. Luke’s readers know that Jesus has done none of these things – or has he? Luke’s readers remember how Jesus avoided the question of taxes. They also remember the symbolic action of Jesus entering Jerusalem as King. Luke’s readers remember how Jesus had violated the Sabbath, at least from the religious leaders’ point of view. It all depends on your point of view. The story Luke unfolds has an open-ended quality to it.

When Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews Jesus’ response is again the mysterious, “You say so” – the response is indirect and non-committal. Following the response Pilate makes his first declaration that he finds Jesus innocent. The religious leaders protest accusing Jesus of causing sedition throughout the country beginning in Galilee. The mention of Galilee provides Pilate a way out – or so he thinks. Pilate suggests a change of jurisdiction since Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and thus Jesus was his subject. Only Luke tells us this story of Jesus being sent to Herod Antipas. Luke tells his readers that Herod is delighted to receive Jesus and hopes Jesus will provide him with some sort of spectacular sign. He is disappointed. Luke provides no dialogue between Jesus and Herod and only reports that Jesus refuses to speak to the king. Just as Jesus was mocked and abused earlier following his arrest Luke tells his readers that he is abused by Herod’s soldiers too. But in the end Jesus is sent back to Pilate. Herod refuses to pass judgment on him. Pilate’s attempt to “pass the buck” gains him nothing. Pilate surmises that Herod has found Jesus innocent as he had earlier since he sends him back to Pilate. And Luke tells his readers that for the second time Pilate declares Jesus to be innocent.

The religious leaders persist in their demand that Jesus be found guilty and at this point Luke introduces Barabbas to his story. Luke makes is clearer that Barabbas was in fact an insurrectionist and a murderer. At the time of the Jewish War in 66-70 AD a group of assassins had arisen in Jerusalem who attacked Roman soldiers whenever they were vulnerable. Barabbas fits the description of these rebels. At the time when Jesus was alive these rebels had not yet appeared so Luke, and even Mark and Matthew before him, may have been writing the character of these assassins back into their stories. To ask Pilate to release such a person was incredible. For a third time Luke tells his readers that Pilate declares Jesus to be innocent. Pilate pronounces his verdict that he will flog Jesus and then release him. But the religious leaders and the crowd persist once again not accepting Pilate’s verdict and demand that Jesus be crucified. And so Pilate relents. Jesus is handed over and Barabbas is released. Once again we need to remember that the way in which Pilate is portrayed does not match the Pilate of history. The gospel writers have their own interests in implicating the Jews and in the process removing at least some responsibility from Pilate. In reality, regardless of what happened, Pilate however remains responsible for the death of Jesus.

When we consider the three synoptic writers together the similarities in their stories are many although the differences are significant. Mark has the darker picture. Matthew chooses to implicate the Jewish leaders and place more responsibility on the Jews. Luke makes it clear that Pilate knows Jesus to be innocent although that does not prevent his execution. Mark’s Jesus will die alone – abandoned by all. Matthew’s Jesus will die at the hands of the Jews. Luke’s Jesus will die as the innocent one.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 4

We have noticed that Luke has chosen to re-write Mark’s story rather freely throughout the Passion Narrative. That is certainly the case here as well. It is clear that Luke is telling the same story but he has changed the order to a point and added some things while subtracting others. It is clearly his own story that he wants to tell.

Whereas Mark had teased his readers with the mention of Peter only to go on to tell of the trial of Jesus, Luke begins the episode of the trials by telling his readers the whole story about Peter’s denial. As soon as Jesus arrives at the house of the high priest Peter is found in the courtyard and three times denies Jesus. The story is the same as Mark’s but told before the trial of Jesus. Where Mark wants his readers to see these two trials together Luke seems to want to separate them. Peter is none the less the denier but his denial comes ahead of the condemnation of Jesus. And only Luke tells his readers the heart-wrenching words that upon his third denial Jesus turned and looked at Peter.

Readers of Luke’s gospel soon discover why Luke has made this change in order. Jesus is not tried during the night but only when morning has come. During the night Jesus is abused and mocked by those who had arrested him. This is something that Mark has told about only after the condemnation. We might ask if there is any significance regarding why Luke has waited until morning to tell of the trial of Jesus. We have already noted that a trial at night would have been very unusual and in fact illegal. Was Luke aware of this and seeking to make the trial a legal proceeding and not the irregular affair it was in Mark’s gospel? Likely Luke was not attempting to justify the proceedings but he did place the event at a time that would have been acceptable. Of course in a way this makes Mark’s scenario even more believable – usually when someone tries to clean up an “error” the “error” is likely correct. Whatever Luke’s motive was he has re-written Mark by moving the trial to the morning hours.

And Luke’s telling of the story is also more freely rendered than Matthew’s was. Luke splits the question regarding Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God into two questions. When Jesus is asked if he is the Messiah his reply is a frustrating response, “If I tell you, you will not believe and if I question you, you will not answer.” Jesus finally does not answer that question. When the religious leaders ask him if he is the Son of God Jesus response is also vague, “You say that I am.” Actually Matthew had done the same thing with Jesus’ response in his gospel. Only Mark makes the reply of Jesus definite and powerful. Were Matthew and Luke uncomfortable with Jesus’ response as reported by Mark? Or was their way of putting it only a euphemism meaning the same thing? Both Matthew and Luke present us with a puzzle. Only Mark is clear in this regard. Likely Mark represents the actual response of Jesus – especially given what else we know about Mark’s avoidance of letting anyone identify Jesus as the Son of God until his death. At any rate Luke tells his readers that Jesus is found guilty and brought before Pilate.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 3

If we use Mark’s story as the base we can move on now to see what Matthew has done with it. As we read Matthew’s story what we discover is that he has made very few changes to the story he inherited from Mark. The trial scene before the Jewish authorities is essentially the same with some minor word changes. And the denial by Peter is told with almost the same words. And following the trial when morning came Matthew follows Mark in telling his readers that Jesus was now brought before Pilate.

At this point in the story Matthew does make a significant addition to Mark. Matthew tells his readers about the fate of Judas who had betrayed Jesus in the dark of night. Only Matthew tells this story. Luke has a different version of the aftermath of Judas in his book of Acts but its purpose for Luke is mostly to lead to the replacement of Judas by Matthias. Matthew tells his readers the tragic story of the attempted repentance by Judas and his eventual suicide. One cannot help but feel pity for Judas. Repentance seems impossible for him and there is no way out – there is no Jesus to rescue him! Matthew’s story serves mostly to darken his readers’ view of the religious leaders. They are heartless. And the episode does permit Matthew to draw in one more OT reference – the matter of the thirty pieces of silver and the potter’s field. I think there is a way in which the matter of Judas is still left hanging by Matthew. Does he want his readers to pity Judas and his crime? Is there a way left open? One can only wonder since Matthew says no more about Judas, but his little story does make his readers wonder.

Matthew returns now to follow Mark for the trial of Jesus before Pilate. Matthew’s story begins by following Mark quite closely. Matthew does elaborate on the story of Barabbas making him also bear the same name as Jesus. The choice is between Jesus, the “son of the father” and Jesus, the one called the Messiah. Which Jesus will be chosen? Only Matthew makes this play on the names. What significance Matthew gives to all of this is not clear. Barabbas was the real seditionist and belongs to this world. Jesus is the true Messiah. Perhaps Matthew was letting his readers know that the world will choose its own every time and abandon God. But all of that is speculative.

Following the matter of Barabbas Matthew’s story begins to shift away from Mark in significant ways. Matthew takes more and more responsibility away from Pilate and piles it upon the Jews. Only Matthew tells his readers the story of Pilate’s wife’s dream as a warning that Pilate should have nothing to do with Jesus’ death. If Mark seemed to imply that Pilate really wanted to release Jesus, Matthew highlights it. Matthew comes closer than any other gospel writer to exonerate Pilate all together. Only Matthew tells of Pilate washing his hands of the whole event in a symbolic action declaring his innocence. And only Matthew puts the dreadful words, “His blood be upon us and on our children” on the lips of the Jewish people as they cry out for Jesus’ death. Those words have come back to haunt Christians throughout the ages as a justification for anti-Semitism and other prejudice actions toward Jewish people. Matthew’s story betrays a bitter hostility on his part toward Jews who did not follow Jesus and likely reflects a bitter struggle between Matthew’s community and the Jewish community nearby. Though Matthew’s story is basically the same as Mark’s these changes do cast the story in another light. Historically it is still likely that we should view Pilate as the sinister, cruel tyrant who was only playing with both Jesus and the Jews as a kind of morbid sport. This is the way history outside the gospels knows Pilate. Matthew may have had his reasons for heaping the blame upon the Jews but that does not vindicate Pilate.

As Matthew’s story comes to a close he returns to follow Mark closely regarding the story of the mockery of Jesus. But when we listen to Matthew’s story we must notice that he has lost some of the darkness and the punch that Mark built into his story. Mark brings us to our knees. Matthew leaves us standing and observing the story. And so we move on to the death of Jesus.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 2

The Jewish trial has ended and the religious leaders have got what they were seeking but now the matter of fulfilling their goal remains. There is a debate about whether the religious leaders could have simply killed Jesus on their own or not. Likely they could have since in just a few years following the death of Jesus we hear of the stoning of Stephen. But they want to cover their tracks and let someone else be responsible for the death of Jesus. They turn to the Romans and so Jesus is delivered to Pontius Pilate.

Mark’s story of the trial of Jesus before Pilate is rather brief. Mark tells his readers that the Jewish authorities have made many accusations against Jesus but he doesn’t detail any of them. From Pilate’s response it is likely that they have accused Jesus of sedition – claiming to be a king. The high priest’s question was, “Are you the Messiah?” Pilate’s question is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” In truth these questions are virtually the same. The Messiah means “the anointed one” and all of Israel’s kings were known as “the anointed.” So Pilate’s question matches that of the high priest. Jesus’ answer sounds less committal with respect to Pilate – “So you say.” Of course for Jesus to respond to Pilate with the divine “I am” would have been meaningless to him. Mark tells his readers that as before the religious leaders Jesus remains silent. And Pilate is amazed. At this point in his storyline Mark tells of a practice through which Pilate released one prisoner during the festival. When the crowds ask for Pilate to fulfil his practice the suggestion Pilate makes is to release “the king of the Jews” to them. But there was another man in prison named Barabbas – “son of the father” – who the religious leaders manipulate the crowd to ask to be released. Up until this moment the crowd had been the protector of Jesus in Mark’s gospel. But here even the crowd abandons Jesus. There will be no one left to defend him. As Mark tells the story it appears that Pilate wants to release Jesus but in the end the crowd and the religious leaders prevail and when Pilate asks them what he is to do with Jesus they cry out for his crucifixion. And Pilate grants them what they desire. We need to pause at this point and consider Pilate and his role in this story. It would be easy to consider Pilate as the more innocent in this scene. Yet, from everything else we know about Pilate historically he was a cruel, cynical, and evil ruler. It is better for us to hear the responses of Pilate as being sarcastic than genuine. Pilate was not one bit interested in justice. Likely he enjoyed the whole fiasco of the religious leaders coming to ask him to kill Jesus. Pilate sees Jesus as a weak and pathetic person unable even to stand up for himself. What better specimen to brand as the king of the Jews! This weakling is the best king the Jews can put forth. So Pilate makes the most of humiliating both Jesus and the religious leaders – even to the point of releasing a true seditionist, Barabbas. To Pilate all this was a farce! Of course Mark’s readers know that Jesus really is the king of the Jews, the Messiah, and that his death will overthrow both the power of the religious leaders and Rome! The story is ironic through and through.

So both the religious leaders and the Roman governor have condemned Jesus unjustly and both bear responsibility for his crucifixion. The disciples have fled. The crowds have turned against Jesus. There is no one left. All stand accused. And Mark’s readers, including us, must wonder what the meaning of this is? In words that exhibit the worst of humanity Mark tells his readers that Jesus is mocked and beaten and led off to be crucified. Actually at the close of each “trial” Jesus is humiliated by his accusers. Mark’s story has grown very dark.

If Mark was writing his gospel at the very time when the Temple in Jerusalem was under attack and Roman soldiers were about to destroy the city and all hope was lost, or perhaps in the days right after the destruction of the Temple, the dark and foreboding reality in the story Mark is telling would match the dark and foreboding atmosphere of his first readers. Such dark and foreboding days require someone to attempt to interpret their meaning and to point a way forward. That is what Mark’s story is attempting to do. The story of his first readers and the story of Jesus parallel one another. It was not a good time to be alive in either case. And so the story marches on to its climax. Jesus will die alone – abandoned by all. Utter darkness will hover over the whole world. And Mark’s readers will wonder if there is any hope.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 1

Once Jesus has been arrested all four gospel writers tell their readers about the “trial” of Jesus and along with it the “trial” of Peter. Clearly they all have the same circumstances in mind and tell much the same story, but again there are important differences. In this section we will need to consider Mark 14:53-15:20; Matthew 26:57-27:31; Luke 22:54-23:25; and John 11:45-53 and 18:12-19:16.

Mark begins his story by providing his readers with another of his famous “sandwiches” in which the denial by Peter encloses the “Jewish” trial of Jesus. Clearly Mark wants his readers to see these two episodes together and to compare them. Jesus was arrested in the dead of night and so Mark tells his readers that he is also tried before the Jewish Sanhedrin during the night. This would have been a highly irregular and basically illegal proceeding which has led some scholars to doubt the authenticity of the story. But, from Mark’s point of view, he is not attempting to provide a story of a just and fair trial anyway. So, there is no reason to doubt the scenario Mark has provided. The Jewish religious leaders have been exposed by Mark as the opponents of Jesus for a long time and were undoubtedly really “out to get” Jesus so regularity is tossed out the window. Mark’s story makes credible sense. Clearly the “trial” was not one in which the religious leaders were attempting to find the truth – they were intent on convicting Jesus from the very beginning. Mark speaks of false witnesses who simply do not agree with one another. It seems one of the main charges they bring against Jesus is his claim to “destroy this Temple made with hands and build another not made with hands.” In Mark’s storyline this is something that Jesus has never actually said! When we get to John’s gospels, however, we will hear words like this on the lips of Jesus in John’s story regarding the “cleansing” of the Temple – so perhaps Jesus did actually say something like this. Reading the gospels together provides us with a clearer picture of what may have actually happened. At any rate, even though Jesus never says these words in Mark’s gospel, it is abundantly clear that Jesus did in fact intend the destruction of the Temple. Mark’s story of the “cleansing” of the Temple is not a restoration project but a story of destruction – for Mark the Temple must be destroyed! So in an ironic way the “false charge” is in actuality true! The Temple in Mark’s gospel is marked for destruction. And if Mark was writing his gospel at about the time of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD then the destruction of the Temple was about to be or perhaps already was a fact! But it is not this testimony that finally leads to Jesus’ conviction. Jesus does not respond to the accusation regarding the Temple – had he done so likely he would have agreed with the charge. Jesus is silent. So, in what appears to be almost a desperate moment the high priests asks Jesus the question that has been looming throughout Mark’s gospel – “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” That the high priest should have used the words “Blessed One” in replacement for the word “God” reflects reality perfectly since the divine name was not to be spoken! It is highly significant that it is at this point that Jesus speaks and his speech is bold and unmistakable. YES, Jesus is the Messiah! In fact Jesus claims for himself the divine name, “I AM!” Throughout his gospel Mark has prevented anyone from speaking the true identity of Jesus. Here the silence is broken and it is broken by Jesus. Of course Mark has already told his readers from the very first verse of his gospel that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Here that identity is introduced into Mark’s storyline for the first time by a human being who ironically doesn’t believe it. Mark wants his readers to know that this is the true identity of Jesus – he is the “Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One!” And with this revelation Jesus is convicted by the Jewish religious leaders. They have finally got what they wanted. The “Jewish” trial ends and Jesus is doomed to die.

Mark had skillfully mentioned Peter at the beginning of his story and now he returns to Peter in the courtyard below. Mark does not tell his readers how Peter got there – likely he wants them to suppose that, in his attempt to remain faithful, Peter has slipped in. Perhaps Peter will not abandon Jesus after all! But then it all begins to crumble and three times Peter denies Jesus – exactly what Jesus said would happen. At the third denial the cock crows and Peter is moved to tears. What Jesus said would happen did happen! We have seen this “prophecy/fulfilment” scenario a number of times now. This is a dark hour, but readers of Mark’s gospel have heard Jesus say that he would go before his disciples to Galilee and that they would see him there. And even though Mark never tells that story readers of Mark’s gospel can be 100% certain that it will happen. Even Peter’s denial, predicted by Jesus, becomes a strange piece of evidence that the journey to Galilee and the seeing of the risen Jesus will happen. Mark is setting up the ending of his gospel once again. But we must not miss the point that Mark wants his readers to hear the story of the “trial” of Jesus and the “trial” of Peter together – the trial of God and the trial of humanity – that’s why he created the “sandwich” for us. The utter darkness of humanity comes into full view in the two trials. We are all like Peter – all convicted! But this is not the end of the story – the young man at the tomb will tell the women to go and tell the disciples, AND PETER, that Jesus has risen. Mark does not tell us that story either but we know that Peter will be rehabilitated! And all those who find courage to believe in the risen Jesus will also find the rehabilitation humanity so desperately needs. Peter’s denial is the final failure of all humanity and the death of Jesus, the Crucified Messiah, is God’s powerful answer. Jesus will lose his life and in the losing of his life he will gain life for all those who follow him. Peter seeks to save his life and so he loses it. But God’s promise is of new resurrected life given as gift through the death of the Crucified Messiah. It is only when we see ourselves in Peter and his total failure that we too are open to the promise of new life in Jesus, the Crucified Messiah. That is the main point of Mark’s gospel! This is the reason why he has kept the identity of Jesus as the Messiah a secret until the crucifixion, the reason he has painted the disciples in such a disparaging light, and the reason his story enter into such darkness. God is acting to redeem the world helplessly bound in the clutches of death. And the death of Jesus is the powerful act of this redeeming God. So throughout his gospel Mark has been less concerned about providing the actual history of what has happened than he is to proclaim the gospel. Mark has not produced an historical narrative but a narrative of proclamation! And the other gospel writers have done the same. That does not mean that they “made everything up” – the events are historic – but it does mean that they have arranged the events and even adapted the events to proclaim their message. The most important question we need to ask is, “Does Mark’s Gospel proclaim the gospel to us? Does it function as God’s Word bringing us to our own death so that God can raise us to new life?” If Mark’s Gospel does that then he has been successful!

Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 7 We have noticed both the similarity and the differences between the four stories that our gospel writers tell us regarding the movement of Jesus and his followers to what we have conflated to become the “garden of Gethsemane” by combining John’s garden with the synoptic writers Gethsemane where Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested. It is clear that all four have the same basic story in mind. It is likely John who has made the most changes to what actually happened that fateful night. As we read the four gospels together a picture emerges of the final hours of Jesus’ life. We will move on now to think about his trial. Once again we will notice a great deal of similarity but also some striking differences in the way the gospel writers tell their stories.

Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 6 John tells his readers the same story of someone cutting the ear off one of those who come to arrest Jesus – but John provides far more detail. John tells his readers that it is Peter who wields the sword and it is a man named Malchus, the high priest’s slave, whose ear is severed. Like Mark and Matthew, John does not tell his readers that Jesus heals the man – only Luke does that. And Jesus response to Peter’s actions is deeply revealing. Again the emphasis is on Jesus’ submission to arrest and not on the power of those who arrest him. And, when Jesus says to Peter, “Am I not to drink the cup,” readers are immediately mindful of Jesus’ agonizing prayer, “Remove this cup from me!” Likely this is one more clue that John knows the story of the agony in Gethsemane. He knows about the cup and Jesus’ decision to drink it! We have noted earlier that only John tells his readers of a prayer that Jesus’ prayed while the supper was still occurring. There is no prayer here in the garden. Perhaps John was also aware of Jesus praying just prior to his arrest and has moved that prayer back into the meal scene and elaborated upon it changing it beyond recognition. Of course that is very speculative but it is tempting to make this connection. Finally, in Mark and Matthew, Jesus speaks of the desertion of all of his disciples with a special focus on Peter who will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows. Luke has mitigated the desertion on the part of the disciples by limiting it to Peter’s denial and Luke has moved the prediction of Peter’s denial back into the meal scene. Luke does not tell his readers that the disciples fled as Mark and Matthew did – they are simply left hanging in the air. John moves even further away from Mark. John tells his readers that Jesus tells those who arrest him to let the rest of his followers go – and apparently they do! In fact in John’s gospel that they are allowed to go fulfills OT prophecy that Jesus will not lose a single one of those whom he has been given! The disciples do not flee. John is well aware of Peter’s coming denial and will tell that story like the others but there is no story of fleeing followers. John, as we have noticed throughout his gospel, has a far more positive view of the disciples than any other gospel writer.

Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 5 As we turn to John’s gospel it is clear that John has the same basic story in mind as was told by the others. But there are some striking differences we need to observe. First of all, John never mentions either Gethsemane or the Mount of Olives. Instead he tells his readers that the group crossed the Kidron valley which was also to the east of Jerusalem in the direction of the Mount of Olives so likely John is speaking of the same location. John tells his readers that Jesus and his disciples go to a garden in this location – a place well known to Judas as well since Jesus and his disciples had been there often. As we have noted John’s storyline has Jesus in and near Jerusalem for about five months so Jesus and his disciples would have been very familiar with these surroundings. Once the group has gathered in the garden John moves immediately to speak of the betrayal by Judas and the arrest of Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus agonizing in prayer regarding his destiny! We need to pause and ask two questions. Why might Mark have added this story of the agonizing prayer of Jesus to his storyline? Or, why might John have left it out? It seems likely that it is the second question that is really important. Mark told the story in the way he did because the story of Jesus’ agony was imbedded in the earliest traditions about the passion of Jesus – it was likely part of the earliest passion narrative and most likely reflects what really took place that night. We have noticed that we may be uncomfortable with a Jesus who agonizes in prayer struggling to find and do God’s will. It is most likely that the first followers of Jesus found this uncomfortable too – but they knew it was part of the story so they told it. And we can be thankful they did. That leaves us with the question of why John would leave it out. Perhaps to help us sort this out we should think about the way that John has unfolded his story and what John has told his readers earlier in his gospel. Is there any point in his story where John reflects upon Jesus contemplating his destiny? If we turn back a few chapters to the end of chapter twelve we encounter these words of Jesus, “Now my soul is troubled. And should I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.’” John tells his readers this at the very time when Jesus recognizes that his “hour” has now arrived. His “hour” is a code word for John of Jesus’ coming death. The “struggle” of Jesus in John is far less potent than it is in the synoptic gospels and we might even hesitate to call it a struggle but it is interesting that John tells his readers that Jesus’ “soul is troubled” at the realization that his “hour” has come. Perhaps John is well aware of the tradition imbedded in the earliest stories of Jesus agony at Gethsemane after all! Perhaps John has moved it to this point in his storyline and downplayed the agony – but nonetheless it is there. His story of Jesus “troubled in soul” is his Gethsemane! But, this of course, still leaves us with a question. Why would John move the story as he has – why doesn’t he just tell it at the same time as the synoptic writers? To answer that question we need to consider the portrait of Jesus that John has been painting. John tells his readers from the very beginning that Jesus is the God-man. The Jesus he portrays is really in charge of his destiny – he “lays down his life of his own accord and no one takes it from him.” The agony of Jesus in Gethsemane does not work well within the portrait of Jesus that John has been painting. We will see that Jesus controls even his own death – he remains “in charge” throughout. So, in keeping with his own theological and evangelical needs it makes sense for John to modify the story here. And it also makes sense for him to re-write the story in his own way earlier and insert it at the time when Jesus announces that his “hour” has now come. John is able to preserve his own portrait of Jesus and yet be faithful to the story he knows regarding the arrest of Jesus. In fact, as we return to John’s story in the garden we discover once again that John paints Jesus as the one who really is in charge of what happens. The others, especially Mark, told the story of the betrayal by Judas and the arrest of Jesus as a mob scene. Jesus is overwhelmed. John tells the story in a very different way. When Judas and the soldiers and guards arrive Jesus takes charge. Jesus initiates the contact by asking who they are looking for. When they say they are looking for “Jesus of Nazareth” Jesus responds with the divine Name – “I am” – and those who come respond in the only way appropriate before the divine. They fall to the ground in worship! Our English translations betray us by saying “I am he” since the “he” is added only to make the sentence flow. We have noted how John uses the divine name “I am” often in reference to Jesus. John is not afraid to identify Jesus as “I am” in his gospel. So it is “I am” who encounters those who come to arrest Jesus. Jesus is the God-man. And Jesus is fully in charge of what must happen – even his arrest! Jesus is not overwhelmed but freely submits to his captors.

Reading the Gospels Together The garden/Gethsemane – Part 4 We have already noted how Luke tends to re-write Mark’s story at this point of his gospel. Luke had already told his readers of Jesus warning to Peter that he would deny him three times while the group was still in the upper room. Luke does not have Jesus say that everyone will desert him, however, since only Peter is mentioned in that previous scene. Why did Luke move the scene of the prediction of Peter’s denial back into the story of the meal and why did Luke not mention the coming desertion of all the disciples? Likely Luke has made these changes because he wants to portray the disciples in a far more positive way than Mark had portrayed them. They will, after all, soon be the foundation of the church in the book of Acts. And Jesus does not tell his disciples that he will go before them to Galilee as Mark and Matthew had said. In Luke’s gospel Jesus never returns to Galilee but remains in Jerusalem and nearby throughout the resurrection appearances. This is an important change that Luke makes to reflect his own theological perspective. Jerusalem, not Galilee, is the center of further mission for Luke so Jesus does not leave that center in Luke’s gospel. Luke’s changes to Mark’s gospel reflect his own theological views and the plan he is already working toward in the book of Acts. When the group arrives at the Mount of Olives Jesus immediately withdraws from his disciples to pray. Luke does not mention Jesus taking the inner circle of three with him – all the disciples are together throughout Luke’s story. Though the text is not found in many of the older and more reliable manuscripts and therefore is doubtful, some of the later manuscripts contain an account of an angel coming to strengthen Jesus and of Jesus sweating what appears like great drops of blood as he agonized in prayer. Whether or not this part of the story goes back to Luke or has been added later by someone copying Luke’s gospel really doesn’t matter. The event at Gethsemane was one of deep anguish and agony for Jesus in Luke’s view – a view we have also seen was shared by Mark and Matthew. It is clear that all three synoptic gospel writers understood this to be a real and traumatic experience for Jesus! They do not fear emphasizing the humanity of Jesus – and in the process risking the possibility that Jesus might have failed! Had Jesus failed to “drink the cup of suffering” there would have been no gospel writing! But Jesus did not fail and so the story continues. Luke tells the story of the arrest of Jesus in much the same way as Mark had done. He does add a couple of touches to the story though. First of all Luke tells us that Jesus healed the man whose ear was severed – something neither Mark nor Matthew had mentioned. John will not mention this healing either. And Luke ends his account with the ominous words that this is “your hour” and the power of darkness. In the temptation scene near the beginning of Luke’s gospel he had told his readers that the devil “left Jesus for an opportune time.” Now is that time. And it is likely that Luke wants his readers to recall the earlier story. So, while we have noted a few minor differences, we can conclude that the synoptic writers speak with one voice once again as they tell this story. The subtle differences are interesting to note but clearly they all agree for the most part at this point in the story.