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.