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.