Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 7

At this point we need to notice something else about John’s story – there is no mention of darkness covering the whole earth. John has told his readers that Jesus was crucified at noon which was the time when Mark and the other synoptic writers reported that darkness covered the earth from noon until about three o’clock in the afternoon. John does not provide his readers with any further time references – in fact the mention of noon comes during the trial before Pilate. John’s next reference to time is ambiguous as his readers are reminded only that evening is coming and with it both the Passover and the Sabbath. We are again at a point of wondering why John does not mention the darkness or why Mark added it to his story. Certainly the engulfing presence of darkness works well in Mark’s dark story – it is appropriate that at the moment of greatest despair the “lights should go out.” One might argue that talking about the whole world being engulfed in darkness works well for Mark and may be his own contribution. On the other hand John has written the story in such triumph that darkness likely would have spoiled the atmosphere for him. Thus one might argue that John conveniently omitted the darkness to serve his own gospel purpose. We simply can’t decide this one since theological motives are present in both Mark and John. Ultimately it really doesn’t matter in the scope of the whole story.

There are two more things missing in John’s gospel – there is no mention of the curtain in the Temple being torn in two at the point of Jesus’ death nor is there mention of the centurion’s declaration that Jesus was the Son of God (Mark) or innocent (Luke). Nor is there any mention of Matthew’s report that the tombs were opened and the saints rising and entering the city. John knows none of this. In its place John tells of the sparing of Jesus’ bones being broken because he is already dead and of a soldier who pierced Jesus’ side and the flow of blood and water that came from that piercing. If Mark’s story of the tearing of the curtain is symbolic of both the opening of access to God and that God is now “out of the box” and loose in the world, John’s report is not without symbolic value too. As John tells the story it begins with the concern that the bodies of those crucified would remain on their cross and defile the solemn Holy Day about to arrive. Though he did not say so that might have been Mark’s concern as well in the story of Joseph of Arimathea asking for the body of Jesus – though Joseph does not seem concerned about the other two criminals in Mark’s gospel, perhaps because they would survive through the day of Sabbath and present no problem since it was the dead body of Jesus that was of concern. At any rate John tells his readers that it was the Jews who were concerned about all three people who were crucified – they must be removed from their crosses. So John tells his readers that they go to Pilate and ask that the legs of all three be broken thus hurrying their deaths. The soldiers come and break the legs of the first and then the other. At that point the soldiers discover is that Jesus is already dead so they do not break his legs. John tells his readers that this fulfills the scripture regarding the bones of the Passover lamb – not one bone of the Passover lamb’s body was to be broken. Not one bone in Jesus’ body is broken. Furthermore the soldiers pierce Jesus’ body with a spear and again unwittingly fulfill OT prophecy from Zechariah. That blood and water came forth from Jesus’ side presents somewhat of mystery for modern readers of John’s gospel. What does John mean by this, if anything? Some have seen sacramental value in the blood and water – both Holy Communion and Baptism. Others have remembered that Jesus had said that rivers of life would come from within welling up to eternal life. John is not clear in what he means. But we can live with that mystery.

John has not yet mentioned Joseph of Arimathea who now makes his appearance. John describes Joseph as a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because he was afraid of the Jews. We have noticed the presence of disciples who wish to remain secret for fear of the Jews earlier in John’s gospel. To be sure there more than likely were people like that in Jesus’ time but the reference also likely refers to disciples in John’s community – especially if John’s community was in a hostile and bitter relationship with the nearby Jewish community from which they had been expelled. Joseph is an ambiguous character in John’s gospel. John does not mention that he is a part of the council or that he was rich. Still, Joseph does not emerge as a disciple to be admired fully. John has little time for those who seek to remain secret. There is another man who comes with Joseph to bury Jesus. His name is Nicodemus and we have met him twice before in John’s gospel. He was the religious leader who came to Jesus at night early on in John’s gospel story. And he was the one who at least attempted to defend Jesus before his fellow council members by declaring that Jesus deserved a hearing before he was condemned. Nicodemus is also an ambiguous character in John’s gospel. Is he a faithful disciple of Jesus? John leaves that up to his readers to decide. At any rate Nicodemus adorns Jesus with an abundant amount of spices and ointment weighing about 100 pounds. That would have cost Nicodemus a fortune! Joseph and Nicodemus take the body of Jesus and wrap it in a linen cloth along with the mixture of myrrh and aloes and place the body in a new tomb where no one else has been laid. John tells his readers the tomb was in a garden near the place of crucifixion and Jesus was placed there since the hour was getting late and the Sabbath, and with it Passover in John’s gospel, was about to arrive. John does not mention that a stone was rolled across the door of the tomb though that can be assumed since John will tell his readers that when the Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early on the first day of the week the stone had been rolled away.

We have listened to how all four gospel writers tell the story of the death and burial of Jesus. We have noticed that they have a good deal in common with one another – a basic story of Jesus being crucified between two others, of Jesus being verified as really dead, and of Jesus being placed in a tomb with a stone rolled in front of the door. About that all four gospel writers agree. But we have also noted how very different each gospel writer’s story is from the others. That may be troubling to us. We would like a cleaner picture. We are left wondering exactly what happened. How are we to deal with all these discrepancies? Do they somehow violate our confidence in the Bible or in the gospel? They need not do that. In fact, if we can get beyond our own preconceived notions about the Bible and let the Bible say what it wants to say we can gain a great deal from seeing one story unfold in four very different ways. We have been attempting to let the Bible speak for itself – to listen to the Bible literally. And that leads us to this place where we can value the brilliance and contribution of four gospel writers all who are deeply concerned to witness to Jesus, the Crucified Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. When we let them all speak in their own terms we begin to gain the richness of the message. They proclaim God’s Word to us and that Word changes us, captures us, and frees us. We have one more part of the story to consider – the resurrection of Jesus. Once again we are in for dealing with differences in the story. But we are also open to hear the message of God in these gospel writers. And once we have heard the story from beginning to end we will be in a position to make some conclusions about what we have heard. It’s a wonderful story! It’s a powerful story that is finally the only story that really matters. So we press on.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 6

As we turn to John’s gospel it is good for us to note the many things that John shares in common with the synoptic writers. All four gospel writers name the place where Jesus was crucified as Golgotha, the Place of the Skull. All four tell their readers that Jesus was crucified between two others. All state that a sign which listed the accusation against Jesus was attached to his cross and identified Jesus as one who was dying as “The King of the Jews” – though the wording is slightly different among them. All four mention that Jesus clothing was divided among the soldiers who crucified Jesus. All four mention that there were women who witnessed the crucifixion – though John will add a male disciple to the group and place them at the foot of the cross and not at a distance. All four tell their readers that Jesus spoke his last words just before he died – though those words are different from one another. All four mention the short time Jesus was on the cross and that he died rather quickly and before a move was made to hurry his death and remove him from the cross. All four identify Joseph of Arimathea as the one who asked Pilate for the body and the one who took Jesus from the cross and buried him in a rock-hewn tomb. That is a considerable amount of agreement! We can be quite certain that the crucifixion of Jesus happened as these events have unfolded. It is only when we get “inside” these events and look at the details that differences emerge. We can be very sure that Jesus was crucified in the way these four gospel writers come together in telling the story. He was nailed to a cross. He died. And he was buried in rock-hewn tomb, a dead man. All of that is factual information shared by all four gospel writers. And these facts are crucial to the truth of the gospel. They are all that really matters.

Having listed all these things held in common we are now ready to look inside John’s story and note the differences we find there and perhaps begin to think about why John told this common story with a peculiar twist.

First of all, as the trial of Jesus before Pilate was concluding John tells his readers that it was about noon. Mark had told his readers that it was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified Jesus. We have also noted that John has placed the crucifixion of Jesus on the day when Jewish people were preparing to celebrate Passover that evening – in John’s gospel Jesus dies before the Passover feast occurs. Significantly it was at noon on the day of preparation for the Passover that the lambs used in the Passover were slaughtered at the Temple. Jesus dies with the lambs – he is the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” It is most likely that it is for theological reasons and not historical reasons that John has placed the timing of Jesus’ crucifixion at noon on the Day of Preparation for Passover when the lambs are slaughtered. Consequently, if we care about historical accuracy, it is likely that Mark and his synoptic companions are reflecting the actual historical sequence – Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples, was betrayed, arrested and tried at night, and crucified in the morning on the day after the Passover was celebrated. Though John is not reflecting historical accuracy – something none of the gospel writers were much concerned about – his story does proclaim a powerful message. Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Jesus is the Passover lamb! To eat his flesh and drink his blood is life-giving. That is what John wants his readers to hear.

As we move forward we notice that Simon of Cyrene is missing from John’s story – Jesus carries his own cross. As we think back over John’s gospel we have noted that Jesus is fully in charge at all times. Jesus marches through John’s gospel as the God-man. Jesus has said that no one takes his life from him but that he lays down his life of his own accord. When those who came to arrest Jesus ask him if he is Jesus of Nazareth, his response, “I Am!” causes them to fall to the ground in worship. Jesus is in charge. Jesus carries his own cross.

Moving along we notice that John makes more of the sign placed on the cross to document the crime for which Jesus is being crucified. John speaks of a debate between the Jewish religious leaders and Pilate regarding what the sign should say. The Jewish leaders want the sign changed to read that Jesus had claimed to be the “king of the Jews” because in their opinion he was not. Pilate insists on keeping the language as he had put it – Pilate was thoroughly enjoying rubbing this humiliation in the face of the Jewish people – this poor, helpless excuse for a man was the best “king” the Jews could put forward. The sign remains.

John makes more of the dividing of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers who crucified Jesus. He makes the deliberate connection with Psalm 22 – something Mark and the others had only implied.

We might notice two things at this point. John has mentioned that two others were crucified with Jesus but they have receded into the background. And, more importantly, John does not tell of anyone mocking Jesus while he is hanging on the cross. There is no taunting of Jesus. The religious leaders have no role to play. There are no passers-by. No soldiers taunt Jesus. Those crucified with him are silent. That had been a prominent feature of the synoptic writers. Why has John omitted this from his story? Or, maybe we should ask why Mark and the others included it. John is intent on portraying Jesus as the one in charge of what is going on. It is Jesus’ actions on the cross that are important. So, perhaps a scene of humiliation and taunting would have taken away from Jesus autonomy on the cross. In place of his enemies John places Jesus’ mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross. Incidentally there is a question of whether three or four women are listed here. Was Jesus’ mother’s sister Mary the wife of Clopas? That is one way to read the story. But that would mean that there were two sisters both named Mary in the same family. Not impossible, but also not likely, so it is likely John lists four women. Along with the women is another male disciple of Jesus – the mysterious disciple whom Jesus loved. We have met this “beloved disciple” before and we are no closer to providing a name for this disciple here as we were before. His identity must remain a mystery. But his function in John’s story becomes clearer as we listen to the story.

Jesus speaks three times in John’s gospel – none of which match what is said in the others. The first thing Jesus says from the cross is to acknowledge his mother and the beloved disciple and then give them to one another. John has mentioned the mother of Jesus once previously in his gospel at the story of the changing of water into wine at Cana. We may remember that she did not come off very well in that story. Here she is placed in the care of the beloved disciple and he is placed in her care. A community is established. John likely has in mind the community of the church. Jesus’ mother and the beloved disciple – neither of whom are named by John – represent the infant church which will emerge following the resurrection of Jesus.

The second thing Jesus says from the cross is that he is thirsty. John tells us that Jesus said this to fulfill the scripture. A sponge of vinegar is place on a sprig of hyssop and lifted to Jesus lips to drink. Incidentally, it was hyssop that was used to spread the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts of the house. In actuality hyssop would have been too flimsy to lift a sponge to the lips of Jesus but John is not worried about that but rather to make one more connection to Passover. Exactly which scripture John has in mind is not fully clear but most likely he is thinking of Psalm 69 where the psalmist says “they gave me vinegar to drink.” In an even more profound way the thirst of Jesus speaks of God’s thirst for God’s people.

Right after saying that he is thirsty Jesus proclaims his final words from the cross. They are not words of despair (Mark) or even words of resignation (Luke) but words of triumph. “It is finished!” The mission has been accomplished. And with those triumphant words John tells his readers that Jesus “gave up his spirit.” No one took it from Jesus. He gave up his spirit of his own will. Jesus had said to his followers in chapter ten, “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.” Jesus is in charge of his own death. He has fulfilled his mission of laying his life down and John’s readers will await his taking it up again. There is no hint of defeat in the death of Jesus in John’s gospel. There is only the victory shout of one who has come from the Father and is now returning to him.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 5

Luke’s story is significantly different from Mark’s – so different that it is difficult to hear them together. They clash with one another. This is one of those challenging places where it is not helpful to pretend that Mark and Luke are “on the same page” telling the same story. To be sure the “grist” of the story is the same but their meaning and understanding of the events is quite different. We do violence to both Mark and Luke if we make them say the same thing and not acknowledge their disagreement. Why has Luke changed Mark’s story so radically? The likely reason is that Luke did not appreciate what Mark had done with the story. We have noted all along that Luke, and to some extent also Matthew, has softened Mark’s harsh and unforgiving appraisal of the disciples – especially the Twelve. By the time of the crucifixion Mark has removed the male disciples completely from his story – they have all fled and failed. And Mark will not bring the Twelve back with a story of how they finally got it all together and understood. Mark’s story ends badly for the Twelve – in fact for every human being. From a strictly historical point of view we all know that eventually the Twelve and many other followers of Jesus did in fact return to follow Jesus in faith. Historically, there is a “happy ending” for them. Mark chooses not to tell us that story – for reasons we will discuss later. Luke knows that “better ending” and so the Twelve and the others are not abandoned by Luke in the telling of his story. The Twelve will play a significant role in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts, and he cannot bear to have them portrayed so harshly. Mark has abandoned Jerusalem and the Temple with the understanding that the Temple must be destroyed. Jerusalem and the Temple will have a prominent place in Luke’s Acts. And maybe most tellingly of all, how can the Messiah cry out to God accusing God of abandoning him? Mark’s words are just too harsh for Luke – a confusing harshness that still plagues readers of Mark’s gospel, including most of us. And so Luke tells the story differently. He makes the changes he does because what Mark has said does not help him in proclaiming the gospel to his own community and in his own way.

Of course we are tempted at this point to ask, “Who is right?” What is the real story? But, as we have said before, that is the wrong question – a historical question we finally cannot answer. A better question to ask is, “Why did Mark tell the story in the way he did?” “Why did Luke tell the story in a different way?” To get at the answer to those questions another question is needed: “What does Mark’s story do to Mark’s readers?” And, “What does Luke’s story do to his?” Mark has written a powerful story that is beginning to grab ahold of his readers and pull them into the story. We will see that more clearly as we get to the very end of Mark’s story. By portraying the crucifixion in the way he does, in fact by telling the whole story in the way he does, Mark has put all of humanity on trial and brought all of humanity to its knees. Mark’s skillful and brilliant story is pulling us in and will propel us forward as witnesses for Jesus or leave us mired in bewilderment. So Mark has told the story in the way he has for the effect he want to generate. Mark’s is a brilliant story – a brilliant proclamation that preaches the Word of God to us as hearers. Mark is not much concerned about historical accuracy but rather that we are moved by his story – moved to become a faithful witness for Jesus. Luke has something of the same purpose in mind. But Luke is more interested in the bigger picture of the church in the days following the death and resurrection of Jesus. And so he tells a story that leads forward to the book of Acts. Both are effective in their proclamation. Both proclaim the Word of God to their hearers. And that’s what is really important.

Before we leave Luke’s gospel we have one more event to consider – the burial of Jesus. At this point Luke is more in line with Mark’s story. Luke has made a few minor adjustments to Mark’s story but it is essentially the same. Luke elaborates a bit regarding Joseph of Arimathea by telling his readers that, though he was a respected member of the council, Joseph had not agreed with their plan of action – his motive was in sympathy of Jesus so Luke has eliminated one possible motive that Mark left with his readers – Joseph does not bury Jesus in a tomb to make sure his body will stay there. Luke has also eliminated Pilate’s surprise that Jesus is already dead and simply tells his readers of Joseph’s request for the body and Pilate’s granting of it. Luke adds the information that the tomb in which Jesus was laid had never been used before. Luke gives no reason why this might be important and likely it is just a fragment of data he gathered among the traditions which underlie all the gospels. We have noted that Luke does not name the women who witnessed the burial as Mark had but he does tell his readers that they have witnessed where Jesus was buried. Luke also adds to his story that they have prepared spices and ointment – apparently to be used at a later time to give Jesus a more proper burial. And then Luke concludes his story by telling his readers that the women rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment – they are good and faithful Jews. Luke refuses to abandon those Jewish people who were awaiting the coming of God’s kingdom. He has spoken of Joseph of Arimathea in much the same way and he and the women stand in the long line of faithful watchers beginning with Elizabeth and Zechariah who have welcomed the visitation of God to his people.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 4

As we have noted throughout the Passion Narrative Luke is quite free in his re-writing of Mark’s story. Clearly most of the events and the sequence of events in Luke are the same as in Mark but the content of those events is very different. Following Mark, Luke mentions that Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry Jesus’ cross behind him. There is no mention of Rufus and Alexander. At this point Luke adds a significant event to the story. He tells his readers that a great crowd of people are following the procession to the site of the crucifixion and that the women of Jerusalem are beating their breasts and wailing for Jesus. Already there is great remorse for what is happening – at least on the part of some of the people. There are still those who are at least sympathetic to Jesus. Mark has made it clear that everyone has abandoned Jesus and he is all alone. Jesus directs those who wail for him to weep not for him but for themselves regarding the awful fate that awaits the city – a clear reference to the coming destruction of the city at the hands of the Romans in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD.

On the way to the cross Luke mentions the two criminal who were led away with Jesus to be crucified with him. As with Mark and Matthew, Luke uses only a minimum or words to tell his readers that Jesus was crucified – there is no description of any kind of the agony and suffering. He is crucified with one criminal on his left and the other on his right. Almost immediately Jesus speaks declaring words of forgiveness to his accusers and to those who have crucified him. The text is disputed since some of the more reliable older manuscripts do not contain this verse while others do. Whether or not Jesus actually said the words is less important than the message which fits Luke’s story. That Jesus would have forgiven his accusers fits well with Luke’s theology. By telling of Jesus making this proclamation Luke is moving far from the mood and message that dominates Mark’s gospel. That movement will be increased as we move forward. In spite of Jesus words of forgiveness those surrounding the cross still taunt Jesus. Mark had mentioned those who passed by, the religious leaders, and the other two criminal as those who mocked Jesus. Luke leaves the people standing by and not mocking Jesus and speaks only of the religious leaders and the soldiers and only one of the criminal joining in the taunting. Mark had brought every human being under trial and found wanting. Luke does not share Mark’s pessimism. Only Luke tells his readers of the encounter between Jesus and the two criminal who were crucified with him. One mocks Jesus. The other chastised the mocker and requests of Jesus that Jesus remember him when he comes into his kingdom. Jesus grants his request with his second words spoken from the cross – “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Already, the story Luke is weaving together has the assurance of a positive outcome. Readers of Luke’s gospel are not led into the awful darkness and utter despair that Mark’s readers must endure.

Following Mark, Luke tells of the darkness that engulfed the whole world from noon until three o’clock in the afternoon. Luke tells his readers that it was during this darkness while Jesus is still alive that the curtain in the Temple was torn in two – a change in Mark’s order. And at three o’clock when Jesus speaks his final words they are not words of despair but rather words of assurance and even hope. Jesus says, “Father into your hands I commit my spirit,” and with those words Jesus breathes his last – not in a death cry but in a release of his life into the certain arms of God. Once Jesus has surrendered his spirit the centurion speaks but his words are not the same as in Mark. Luke’s centurion does not declare Jesus to be the Son of God but rather that Jesus was innocent. A great injustice has taken place and the response of the crowd bears that out – they leave the scene of the cross beating their breasts in repentance. Mark had mentioned that only the women watched from a distance. Luke tells his readers that all of Jesus acquaintances – presumably even his male disciples including the Twelve – including the women stood at a distance and watched. The disciples have not fled after all. Luke has not mentioned the names of any of the women as Mark had done. The group of followers in Luke’s gospel is much larger and remains faithful to Jesus throughout.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 3

As we turn to Matthew’s gospel we discover that Matthew has followed Mark very closely in telling about the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Matthew has dropped out Mark’s reference to Rufus and Alexander (perhaps because they were unknown in Matthew’s community) and he has added the taunt of the bystanders that Jesus had trusted God so let God deliver him since he claimed to be the Son of God. Other than that his story mirrors Mark’s. Matthew follows Mark’s timeframe perfectly and at three o’clock Jesus cries out his painful lament – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” and dies.

At this point Matthew makes a peculiar and very confusing addition to Mark’s story. Matthew tells his readers that not only is the curtain of the Temple torn in two from top to bottom but, in what sounds much like an earthquake, the earth shook and the rocks split and the tombs of many of the saints were opened and their bodies were raised. After the resurrection, three days later, these saints entered the city of Jerusalem and appeared to many. Matthew leaves what happened to them after that dangling. Did they return to their tombs? Did they continue to move about the city? Did they die again? Matthew’s story is strange indeed. Only Matthew tells us this part of the story and the story likely leaves us scratching our heads searching for meaning and understanding. After this rather bazaar story Matthew returns and picks up Mark’s story regarding the centurion’s observation that this crucified one was the Son of God.

Like Mark, Matthew mentions the women who stood at a distance watching. They are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph (the name change from Joses to Joseph matches the same name change Matthew makes when speaking of these two brothers in his version of the Nazareth story) leaving, once again, the plausibility that readers are to think of the mother of Jesus in connection with this Mary, the mother of James and Joseph. Matthew does not mention a woman named Salome but rather tells his readers that the mother of the sons of Zebedee was the third woman. Are we to surmise that Salome was the name of the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee? This mother of James and John had shown up previously in Matthew’s gospel as the one who asked Jesus, on behalf of her sons, if they could have the places of honor at the left and right hand of Jesus in his glory. She is unnamed there too.

Like Mark, Matthew tells his readers that Joseph, a rich man from Arimathea, asks Pilate for the body of Jesus. Matthew does not mention that Joseph is a member of the council but rather identifies him as a disciple of Jesus thus leaving none of the ambiguity that Mark had left with his readers. Matthew mentions nothing of Pilate’s surprise that Jesus is already dead or of Joseph’s boldness in asking for the body. Matthew also changes Mark’s story by telling his readers that Joseph laid the body of Jesus, wrapped in a linen cloth, in his own new tomb and rolled a “great” stone against the door. Though Matthew does not make this specific, something he usually does, perhaps Matthew is thinking of the scripture which spoke of one who was “buried with the rich.” With the tomb securely shut with the great rock Matthew tells his readers that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary keep watch sitting opposite the tomb.

At this point in his story Matthew makes an important addition to Mark’s account. Matthew tells his readers that the religious leaders are worried about the claim of Jesus that he would rise after three days and go to Pilate to ask Pilate to make the tomb secure and place a guard until after the third day has passed. They want to be sure that the disciples of Jesus do not come and steal his body and then claim that he has been raised from the dead. Once again risking ritual purity they would have had to go to Pilate on a holy day. Pilate does not comply with their wishes and tells them to use their own guards which they then do. Only Matthew tells us about the guards at the tomb. This story will become important for Matthew following the resurrection and we will visit it again at that time.

All in all, Matthew has not changed Mark’s story very much. He has followed his source faithfully making only those changes that will be helpful to him later in his story of the resurrection.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 2

The moment Jesus dies Mark’s story takes a turn. He tells his readers that the curtain of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Readers of Mark’s gospel are reminded immediately of the heavens being “torn open” at the time of Jesus’ baptism. As shocking as Mark’s story has become in the death cry of despair from Jesus lips Mark’s readers are thrust back to the beginning of Mark’s gospel. This is part of Mark’s genius! We will have more to say about that later. What is the meaning of the tearing of this curtain? To understand what Mark is up to we need to think about some of the architecture of the Temple. The curtain Mark is talking about is almost certainly the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple. The people of God had come to understand that God dwelt within the Holy of Holies and the curtain was there to prevent someone from entering into God’s presence which would have meant certain death. Now that barrier is removed. There are two ways in which we should think about this. First of all, God is now accessible. The barrier that separates God from humanity is removed and humanity is welcomed into God’s presence. But, even more importantly, the tearing of the Temple curtain is likely thought of by Mark’s as God’s invasion into the world – much like the tearing open of the heavens was God’s invasion. God is “on the loose!” That is both a comforting and a very frightening reality and Mark wants his readers to feel both of these emotions at once. And not only is the curtain of the Temple torn in two from top to bottom but when the Roman centurion who oversaw the crucifixion witnesses the death of Jesus he says the words, “Truly this man was God’s son.” Did he mean those words sarcastically much like Pilate’s sarcasm in identifying Jesus as the “king of the Jews?” Or did he say them truthfully knowing that Jesus indeed was the Son of God? Likely we should hear them as words of sarcasm. And once again Mark’s wonderful irony takes over. The Roman centurion says more than he means. Either way Mark’s readers know that the truth has been spoken – Jesus is the Son of God! And Mark wants his readers to know the mystery that it is only when looking at the Crucified Messiah – the dead Jesus – that any human being can truly recognize that he is the Son of God! Mark has finally revealed the true identity of Jesus – he is the Crucified Messiah, the Son of God. Of course Mark had told his readers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, in the very first sentence of his gospel. Once again the ending sends us back to the beginning.

At this point Mark tells his readers that some women had been watching from a distance. Readers are reminded that all the male followers of Jesus have fled – never to be seen or heard from again in Mark’s gospel. Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope in the presence of these women. We will need to wait and see. The identity of these women is striking and important. The first woman is Mary Magdalene. Mark has not mentioned her before. Mary Magdalene is the only woman that all four gospel writers place at the empty tomb following the resurrection. The second woman is named Mary and identified as the mother of James the younger and Joses. Interestingly another Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also the mother of four brothers of Jesus two of whom are named as James and Joses. That story is in the sixth chapter of Mark when Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth. Is this the same Mary? And if it is has Mark told his readers that Jesus’ mother was one of those who viewed his crucifixion from a distance? We will hear John tell his readers that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was right at the foot of the cross. Do Mark and John finally agree? Of course we cannot be sure one way or the other but it is plausible to make the connection. Likely in the traditions that underlie both Mark and John there was a story of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the scene of the crucifixion. Together Mark and John witness to that reality. The last named woman was Salome. This is also the first time Mark mentions her. Other than Mark’s mention of her here and at the tomb we know nothing else about her. Without any further names Mark speaks of many other women who have come from Galilee with Jesus. Mark has not mentioned women as followers of Jesus before this time in his gospel but here they are and Mark tells his readers that they had followed Jesus from Galilee. Until this point in Mark’s gospel we have only a vision of male followers. All the male followers have fled – will the women finally “come through” and remain faithful to Jesus?

Mark tells his readers that it was now Friday evening and with the coming of darkness the Sabbath would begin. Joseph of Arimathea, who Mark describes as a respected member of the council who was waiting expectantly for the Kingdom of God, makes the bold request of Pilate that he might have the body of Jesus. Mark provides no motive for Joseph’s actions. There are several possibilities. Perhaps, being an observant Jew, he simply wanted to get the dead body of Jesus buried to avoid desecrating the Sabbath. Perhaps Mark wants his readers to think of Joseph as another of the “little people” who are true examples of discipleship. Or, more cynically, perhaps Joseph wanted to put the body of Jesus in a tomb where he could make sure he stayed there since there were at least rumors that Jesus had claimed that he would rise on the third day. Mark provides his readers with no answers to these questions. When Joseph asks for the body of Jesus Pilate expresses his surprise that Jesus is already dead – remember those who were crucified often lived for a few days while hanging on their crosses. The centurion verifies that Jesus has been dead for some time and Pilate releases his body to Joseph who bought a linen cloth and wrapped the body in it and laid the body in a tomb hewn out of the rock and rolled a stone against the door. Readers of Mark’s gospel are perhaps reminded of the young man wearing only a linen cloth who had fled naked at the time when Jesus was arrested. The same word for linen cloth is used in each case. And with that Mark concludes his story by telling his readers that two of the women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses, saw where the body of Jesus was laid.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Death and Burial of Jesus – Part 1

We have arrived at the climax of the story each gospel writer has been telling – the story of the death of the Messiah. Readers of all four gospels are not surprised at this development. We have been warned all along that this is the destiny toward which Jesus has been moving. As we listen to each gospel writer’s story we are perhaps surprised by the few words they use. There is no detailed description of the suffering. There is no play upon our emotions as is often the case when movie scripters take up the same story. There is almost a “matter of fact” nature to the story. As we have arrived at this most important part of the story we might expect that all four gospel writers would be in complete agreement with one another. We discover that they are not. To be sure it is evident that they have the same basic story in mind; but, as we have noticed all along, they all put their own particular slant on the story and there are some irreconcilable differences we must once again deal with. In this section we will need to consider Mark 15:21-47; Matthew 27:32-66; Luke 23:26-56; and John 19:16-42.

As is typical Mark’s story is the shortest. He tells his readers that, as Jesus is led to crucifixion, a man named Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry Jesus’ cross for him. Mark gives no explanation for this. Readers are left to imagine that perhaps it is because Jesus was too weak to carry his own cross. But perhaps there is something much deeper in Mark’s mind. Mark’s Jesus had told his followers that anyone who wants to follow him must take up the cross. Simon takes up the cross – perhaps Mark’s way of pointing to the true meaning of discipleship. We need to remember that it is all the “little people” who are Mark’s prime examples of what it means to be a disciple and Simon is another of them. Mark also tells his readers that Simon was the father of Rufus and Alexander. Mark provides no further identification for these two but apparently they were known to Mark’s first readers. The story is linked to historical reality. And just as abruptly as Simon enters the story he leaves it never to be heard from again.

Once they arrive at their destination – a place known as Golgotha – Mark tells his readers that Jesus is offered a mixture of wine and myrrh to drink. Likely this was a kind of “anesthetic” to lessen the pain. Jesus refuses to drink. And then in the briefest of ways Mark tells his readers they crucified Jesus. The soldiers stripped him of his clothing and divided it among themselves. Mark leaves his readers to make the connection to Psalm 22 throughout his telling of the story. Other gospel writers will spell that out more clearly. Mark tells his readers it was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified Jesus. This conflicts with John who tells his readers it was noon when Jesus was crucified. Mark tells his readers that an inscription was placed on Jesus’ cross which detailed the charge against him – “The king of the Jews” – Jesus was crucified as an insurrectionist by the Romans. Without much detail Mark tells of two others who were crucified along with Jesus – one on his left and one on his right. Readers of Mark’s gospel are reminded of the request of James and John for these “places of honor” – more irony in Mark’s gospel. Mark identifies these two who were crucified with Jesus as “bandits.” As a result of the oppression of the Romans and the complicity of the Jewish authorities who collaborated with them many poor Jewish farmers and laborers were forced off the land and some of them resorted to the life of “banditry” to survive. As the first three hours pass by Mark tells of those who mocked Jesus by throwing his own words in his face. Mark’s Jesus had never said he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (words that John did place on the lips of Jesus) so the accusations of those who taunt Jesus are as ill-founded as the false testimony at his “trial.” Mark identifies the chief priests and scribes – the religious leaders who have been Jesus’ opponents throughout Mark’s gospel – joining in the mocking. They invite Jesus, who they mockingly identify as the “Messiah”, to come down from the cross and save himself. If Jesus would only come down from the cross they would “believe.” Mark’s readers know that Jesus had said to his follower, “Whoever saves his life will lose it and whoever loses his life will save it.” All of these accusations by those who mock Jesus are dripping in Mark’s irony. The Temple will be destroyed. And in the very act of dying Jesus, the Crucified Messiah, is saving the world! Even the two bandits join in the mockery.

Three hours into the crucifixion, at noon, Mark tells his readers that darkness came over the whole land. Though Mark does not makes the connections for his readers it is likely that he wants them to be thinking of two OT events – the darkness that came over Egypt as one of the plagues and the darkness that is connected with the “Day of the Lord” in the OT prophets. It is especially this last connection that is most important. The “Day of the Lord” was a day of God’s judgment and also a day when the newness of God’s kingdom would burst on the scene. It was a watershed day and Mark wants his readers to think of the death of Jesus as just such a day. It was the great and terrible day of the Lord. In his words to his disciples while sitting on the Mount of Olives after Jesus had predicted the destruction of the Temple he also spoke of the sun becoming darkened and the moon turning to blood. In one way the darkening of the whole earth while Jesus was dying on the cross fulfils this prediction – but in another the final “Day of the Lord” is still to come.

Mark tells his readers that at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” These are the only words Jesus speaks in Mark’s gospel and they are haunting words. Readers of Mark’s gospel have pondered them from the very beginning. Was Jesus really forsaken? How can that be? The words are the first line of Psalm 22 – a lament that eventually moves into the assurance that God has heard the cry of God’s people. Did Mark want his readers to think of the whole Psalm and thus mitigate at least a bit the despairing cry of Jesus? There is a great deal of mystery tied up in these words of Mark. We will never fully exhaust their meaning. From a theological point of view many have seen in these words the awful mystery of God taking the sin of the world upon God’s self in the death of Jesus. Did Mark think of it in this way? We will never fully know. We have noticed that Mark’s gospel has grown very dark as the Passion Narrative has moved forward. Perhaps that is still the case here – even Jesus enters into the utter darkness. Did God hear Jesus’ cry? Did God answer? Mark does not make it easy for us – he doesn’t say. The point, of course, is that Jesus is crying out to God – and you can’t cry out to one you do not believe is there. This is not just venting – a crying into the wind – this is a cry to God even though it has the sound of a cry of despair. Those who heard the cry of Jesus mistakenly think perhaps Jesus is calling out for Elijah to save him. Readers of Mark’s gospel know how foolish this is – John the Baptist was Elijah and he was killed by Herod. It is pointless to cry out to Elijah. The giving of a drink of wine is meant only to prolong the death of Jesus. It does no good as Jesus utters one last cry and dies. Some interpreters have wondered if the sudden death of Jesus might have been God’s answer. It was not uncommon for those who were crucified to remain on their crosses for a day or two or even more dying a slow death. To die within six hours would have been very unusual. Perhaps Jesus was not finally abandoned after all – but to say this is quite speculative. Perhaps it is better to just let the darkness and the mystery of Mark stand. The death of the Messiah was a crushing event and likely Mark wants us to feel its intensity.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 7

The Roman trial before Pontius Pilate takes center stage in John’s gospel – this is the only trial during the Passion Narrative in John’s gospel. This trial is a very skillfully written story. The Jewish religious leaders work incredibly hard to remain “pure” so they can celebrate Passover the coming evening. They refuse to enter Pilate’s headquarters so the mighty Pilate is forced to come outside to meet them. The initial inquiry produces nothing. Pilate attempts to avoid making judgment and attempts to send the religious leaders away to take care of their own business. They protest claiming that they are not permitted to carry out the death penalty for this crime. We have already discussed the fact that it is likely the Jewish authorities actually could carry out the death sentence of stoning someone – they did so with Stephen. So perhaps what we need to read between the lines is that the question is not really about whether or not they can punish by death but that they are not able to crucify – the punishment carried out only by the Romans and only against insurrectionists! That the crime they are accusing Jesus of is sedition gets the attention of Pilate. He will need to look into this after all. But John tells his readers that the deeper truth is that crucifixion will fulfill Jesus’ own prediction of the way he will die – he will be lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness. The word “lifted up” was a euphemism for the practice of crucifixion – to crucify was spoken of as to “lift up.” What John is really doing with all of this is testifying that Jesus is ultimately in control of what is happening – not the Jewish leaders and not Pilate.

So Pilate goes back inside his headquarters and summons Jesus – who he suspects might actually be an insurrectionist. The synoptic writers had told there readers that Jesus was silent before his accusers, including Pilate. Jesus is far from silent in this exchange. Pilate begins the interrogation by asking Jesus if he is the king of the Jews. Jesus does not answer Pilate’s question but asks one of his own – inviting Pilate to a conversation. Pilate does not bite at Jesus’ bait and fires back the accusation he had likely heard in the initial inquiry outside – they are accusing Jesus of being an insurrectionist. So he asks Jesus what he has done. Jesus response is typical of the way John tells stories of the encounter between Jesus and humanity. Jesus speaks on one level and the person to whom he is speaking answers on another. They do not understand one another. Jesus tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. Pilate immediately jumps to the conclusion that Jesus then is a king – the charge of sedition may be true after all. When Pilate says to Jesus, “So you are a king” the response he gets is not what he expected. Jesus is king but not in the way Pilate is thinking. Jesus has come into the world for one purpose and that is to testify to the truth – this is not a political purpose but a deeper purpose at the very ground of life. Pilate is really not interested in truth. So he concludes that Jesus is not really an insurrectionist after all.

Pilate returns outside to announce to the religious leaders his verdict that he does not find Jesus guilty. In John’s gospel it is Pilate who brings up the matter of the customary release of a prisoner during the feast and suggests that his release of Jesus, who he sarcastically identifies as the king of the Jews, will fulfill his obligation. The religious leaders will have none of it and ask for the release of Barabbas. The synoptic writers, especially Luke, had identified Barabbas as an insurrectionist. John speaks of him as a bandit – a lesser crime not necessarily connected with political sedition. John never tells his readers that Barabbas is released – he is left in limbo.

For a second time Pilate returns inside his headquarters where Jesus has been waiting. The scene is one of stark violence. Jesus is flogged and beaten. A crown of thorns is placed on his head by the Roman soldiers and a purple robe is placed upon him. Jesus is mocked as the king of the Jews. Likely Pilate enjoyed the entertainment! We might remember that the synoptic writers tell of a similar humiliation but that is only after Jesus has been convicted. Could it be that Pilate thinks that if he “bloodies” Jesus to the point of near death the religious leaders will be moved to sympathy toward him?

Once Jesus has been humiliated and beaten near unto death Pilate brings him outside and for the third time he meets with the religious leaders. Once again Pilate is prepared to pronounce his judgment. John tells us that Pilate bring Jesus out to his accusers dressed like a king yet bloodied like a criminal and says to Jesus’ accusers, “Here is the man!” Here is your king! The point Pilate is making is that this pathetic, beaten one is the best the Jews could do in producing a king. Pilate is in control – or is he? For a second time Pilate declares Jesus to be innocent. He tells the Jewish leaders to take Jesus and crucify him themselves. Again they persist adding one more piece of evidence to their accusation. They tell Pilate that Jesus’ crime is really that he has claimed to be the Son of God. John tells his readers that this news causes Pilate to freeze in fear. For a third time he enters his headquarters bringing Jesus with him. This time his question is the question that has been looming throughout John’s gospel – “Where do you come from?” Readers of John’s gospel know that Jesus has come from God! But Jesus refuses to answer Pilate and remains silent. In anger Pilate reminds Jesus that he has power to release Jesus or to crucify him. Jesus retorts reminding Pilate that he really has no power except that which has been given to him from above – from God. Once again John emphasizes that it is really Jesus who is in charge. It is clear that John wants his readers to think that Pilate genuinely wanted to release Jesus, thus placing the full blame for Jesus’ execution upon the Jews. He joins Matthew in placing blame on the Jewish nation for the death of Jesus. Like Matthew, it is likely that John’s community was also locked and a hostile and perhaps deadly battle with the Jewish community living beside them. John’s gospel betrays this hostility throughout as we have seen in the awful arguments during the Jerusalem controversy.

Determined to release Jesus, for a fourth time Pilate moves back outside to speak to the Jewish religious authorities. For a third time Pilate finds Jesus to be innocent. He joins Luke who also told his readers that three times Pilate declared Jesus to be innocent. Pilate is determined to release Jesus but the religious leaders go “over his head” threatening to report Pilate to his superiors in Rome for not dealing with one who claims to be king. Pilate knew full well that the punishment for insurrection was crucifixion. It didn’t matter what he thought about Jesus. And so Pilate brings Jesus out for a second time and placed Jesus upon the judgment seat with the declaration, “Here is your king!” – The king on his throne bloodied and beaten. Pilate will have the last word after all as once again the scene is one of humiliation. With the question, “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate implicates the Jewish religious authorities who shout back, “We have no king by Caesar!” The final conviction of the Jews is complete. Pilate hands Jesus over to them to be crucified.

Clearly all four gospel writers are reflecting upon the same events. But each one of them has a different purpose in the telling of their story. These are trial scenes but, in a way, there are different people on trial. Mark is intent in putting the whole human race on trial – no one is left standing as Mark narrates his story. Everyone, including Mark’s readers, comes up short as the world is on trial. In some ways Luke shares this motive of Mark as Jesus is finally portrayed as the innocent one who goes to his death unjustly. In a different way, Luke places the whole world on trial too. Matthew and John have told their stories in a way that places the Jewish nation on trial for the conviction and crucifixion of Jesus. Both nearly exonerate Pilate and the Romans. Their exuberance to hold the Jewish nation responsible likely reflects a bitter conflict between their own communities and their Jewish neighbors. In the end neither Matthew nor John are helpful in their indictment. In my opinion it remains that Mark has told the more powerful story. We can learn from all four but it is Mark whose words finally function best as the Word of God directed to us.

Reading the Gospels Together

The Trials – Part 6

When we turn to John’s gospel it is clear that John knows the same story. As we read more closely we discover a striking difference, however. John does not tell of a gathering of the religious leaders for an official trial before a Jewish court. Jesus appears only before Annas who John identifies as the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest. Annas had been the high priest some years prior to the time of Jesus’ ministry. He and his family had dominated the office of high priest for a number of years. They were all appointed by the Roman government and shared in the administration of Jerusalem on behalf of the Romans. They were known for their collaboration with Rome and were despised by many of the common people and most of the Pharisees.

John skillfully intertwines the denial of Jesus by Peter with Jesus’ hearing before Annas by switching back and forth between what was happening in Annas’ house and in the courtyard below. Like Mark, John wants his readers to be hearing these two episodes together and to note the contrast between Jesus and Peter.  John has also introduced something new into the narrative – the presence of the beloved disciple whom John claims is known by the high priest and thus is the means by which Peter is able to enter the courtyard. Once this beloved disciple has arranged for Peter’s entry, however, he disappears from the scene. The presence of this beloved disciples and the thought that he is known to the high priest is remarkable and confusing, at least to modern readers of John’s gospel. Certainly John’s report that the beloved disciple is known to the high priest eliminates all the known disciples from the other gospels as being the beloved disciple. The mystery of just who the beloved disciple is grows and John does not relieve our curiosity. Speaking of him as an acquaintance of the high priest is also difficult to comprehend given the fierce animosity between Jesus and the religious leaders. We will not be able to resolve this riddle.

We need to recall that John does not tell his readers of a trial before the Jewish authorities. They never gather and Jesus in not interrogated before them. The only one present is Annas and his soldiers. Why doesn’t John tell about a “Jewish” trial? Likely the answer is that John has already recorded the “Jewish” trial of Jesus earlier. In the aftermath of the story of the raising of Lazarus John tells his readers that the Jewish authorities call a meeting of the council to discuss what they are to do. In that meeting the decision is made that Jesus must be eliminated because if he is not stopped the nation will be destroyed – the Romans will come and destroy the Temple and thus the nation. The high priest, Caiaphas, makes his declaration that it is better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. All of this is very ironic. The Romans will come and destroy the Temple so the plot to kill Jesus will not prevent that. And Caiaphas’ verdict that one man must die comes to fulfillment in the death of Jesus. He does not realize what truth he speaks. The point is that John has already told his readers of the meeting of the Jerusalem religious leaders and their verdict. Jesus is tried in absentia in John’s gospel – so he does not need to record a second “Jewish” trial, thus the report of only a hearing before Annas. And when the hearing is over Jesus is bound and brought to Caiaphas who in turn brings Jesus before Pilate.

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.