Isaiah 52:13-53:12;
Psalm 22; Hebrews
4:14-16; 5:7-9; Luke 22:14-23:56.
… crucified under Pontius
Pilate… “Certainly this man was
innocent.”
The Revised
Common Lectionary splits the traditional Palm Sunday in two, having a
Liturgy for the Palms on Palm Sunday, but also for the same day a Liturgy for
the Passion, which includes a reading of the entire Passion narrative. I have separated these two and give the
Liturgy of the Passion on Good Friday.
Good Friday (The name is, of course, high
holy irony!). The Lectionary readings for
Good Friday are the most awesome of the Suffering Servant passages from the
prophets, psalms, and epistles. These
readings remain the same every year.
The Lectionary also specifies that John’s very
public Passion narrative is to be read on Good Friday every year. However, Year C is dedicated to Luke’s Gospel
and it seems better to stay with it here also.
So here we will listen to Luke’s version of the
climax of the mission of the Suffering Servant.
Isaiah
52:13-53:12.
This prophetic reading is the
climax of the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah (see also 42:1-9;
49:1-6; 50:4-11). Like the other Good
Friday texts, this is a complex passage about an enigmatic Servant of Yahweh
who suffers because of the sins of others.
Its conclusion is a triumphant outcome on the other side of profoundly
moving suffering.
I am not going to repeat the
detailed literary analysis I have given in previous years (in Good Friday
readings), nor the explanation of how the Suffering Servant, a royal figure, is
a profound reshaping of Israel’s
historical destiny.
The full discussions of both Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are at:
JW Study Bibles and Bible Studies: The Suffering Servant - Good Friday Readings
Suffice it to say that the main
figures of the drama are God, who brings back on stage after his suffering the
faithful Servant who is glorified and praised among the kings of the earth
(52:13-15) and the “many nations” and their kings (probably) who speak in
astonishment about the length to which the suffering of the Servant was carried
– not for his own sins, but for theirs!
(53:1-6).
The Servant never speaks, though
he is the primary topic of everyone else’s speeches. It is God, again, who speaks the final
word:
My
righteous servant makes the many righteous,
It
is their punishment that he bears;
Assuredly,
I will give him the many as his portion,
He
shall receive the multitude as his spoil.
For
he exposed himself to death
And
was numbered among the sinners,
Whereas
he bore the guilt of the many
And
made intercession for sinners.
(53:11b-12, New Jewish Publication
Society translation, 1999 ed.)
Psalm
22.
The Psalm for Good Friday has,
with good reason, been read as a Suffering Servant liturgy.
I’m also not going to repeat the literary analysis
of this psalm given in previous years. Succinctly,
the psalm has three parts:
·
The
first is a magnificent lament (plea for deliverance) based on the radical
difference between God’s past care for Israel and the speaker’s miserable condition (verses
1-11).
·
The
middle section is a powerful and graphic portrayal of the capture and slaughter
of a beautiful wild animal – the agonizing language designed to evoke great
pity and indignation on the part of the heavenly power appealed to (verses
12-21).
·
The
third part is a radical reversal, in which the speaker now gives thanks for
deliverance, a deliverance which is celebrated by peoples far and wide and in
times to come (verses 22-31).
In the Jerusalem liturgy, the speaker was obviously
not an ordinary figure, but a royal figure whose drama established the
destinies of many around him. He was the
Suffering Servant, again.
It is the opening words of this psalm, of course,
that Mark and Matthew quote as Jesus’ one and only outcry on the cross, “My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
They may have intended their hearers to remember the whole psalm, with
its triumphant conclusion.
Luke, on the other hand, has a very different picture of
the serene Jesus of the cross, and he omits the agonized cry taken from this
psalm.
Hebrews
4:14-16; 5:7-9.
(This is the alternate reading;
the first reading is Hebrews 10:16-25. I choose the alternate as closer to the human
suffering Jesus.)
The Epistle to the Hebrews is one
of the most difficult major Biblical writings for modern progressive people to
fathom, much less enjoy. However, this
Good Friday reading gives us more of the human Jesus than is usual in this
work. Let’s just listen to that.
For we do not have a high priest
who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every
respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin…. In the days of his flesh,
Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the
one who was able to save him from death [thinking of Jesus reciting Psalm 22?],
and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience
through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of
eternal salvation for all who obey him.
(Hebrews 4:15 + 5:7-9, NRSV).
THE PASSION ACCORDING
TO LUKE
Luke 22:14-23:56
Assumptions. The
primary purpose here is to let Luke’s version of the Passion have its own flow. It is very confusing to constantly compare
Luke’s presentation with reference to some “original” history behind it. Serious scholars have slowly but surely
learned to read the Gospels as different second-generation views of the
Remembered Jesus (James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered,
Eerdmans, 2003). We are still learning
how to do our devotions and theologies based on that recognition. This is an attempt in that direction.
To achieve a
measure of objectivity in how the narrative is structured, that is, of the relative importance of each portion of the narrative,
I have done a word count of the narrative units. Based on that count, the percentage of the total narrative taken up by each episode is
indicated. (The total narrative contains
1761 words, in the Greek text of UBS 4th
ed.) This provides a first indicator of
the narrative’s perspective on what is presented.
The reciter (“author”) of the
Gospel is identified by tradition as “Luke,” a man who, when he was young, was
apparently a companion of Paul. In some
of the later chapters of Acts, which he also wrote, he (obviously deliberately)
allows the narrative to slip into the first person, indicating in a quiet and
unobtrusive way, “I was present for this.”
Scholars call these the “we passages” of Acts.
These sections
include an account of the writer accompanying Paul to Palestine (Acts 21:1-18),
where he could have met some key people in the Jesus movement in Judea,
especially in Caesarea where Paul was imprisoned for at least two years (around
57 to 59 CE). Probable informants in Caesarea included the
Evangelist Philip’s charismatic daughters, who could have given Luke local lore
about Jesus’ family and more unusual public activities.
[Note on
terminology: I try to avoid the
terms “Jew” and “Jewish” when referring to the ancient people. “Jew” came into usage only in some European
languages in the Middle Ages – Old French and Middle English. New Testament texts have only Ioudaios,
properly translated “Judean,” though traditionally translated “Jew” or
“Jewish.” The ancient people preferred
to call themselves “Israel,” but if they
needed another term they used “Judean.”]
Luke’s Passion narrative is treated
here in six scenes. The first scene is a
significant development beyond Mark’s narrative, in that it turns the Last
Supper into a symposium (a series of talks following a meal). This symposium incorporates many Jesus
pronouncements, only a couple of which are pertinent to the meal before the
crucifixion. (In John, this symposium
becomes even longer and more profound, John 13-17.)
In this
reading, I have been impressed with what happens to Mark’s episodes in Luke’s narrative. One example is the Announcement of the
Betrayer. In Mark the announcement comes
before the last supper, making it the very first thing in the upper room, and
the action is a dramatic scene with dialogue between the disciples and Jesus –
“Surely not I?” In Luke the announcement
of the betrayer is one of the speeches after the Supper, and it is much shorter
and without dialogue – the disciples’ anxious questioning dropped out.
Another
striking example is the Gethsemane scene. In Mark this powerful scene has a three-fold
spatial division and a three-fold sequence of Jesus praying and finding the
disciples asleep. In Luke, the name Gethsemane is not
mentioned, the scene is drastically shortened, and the prayer and return to the
disciples happens only once. For Luke
the power of this impressive episode consists entirely of Jesus’ prayer, “not
my will but yours…”
In these and
other cases, what in Mark are separate story-teller’s episodes become in
Luke a narrative line, the unfolding of a series of events. The power and value of the Luke Passion is
the single continuous narrative, not the story-teller’s single impressive
episodes. (Peter’s denial, 22:54-62, is an exception. Luke keeps the full dramatic power of this
story-teller’s delight.)
There are some
unique episodes and some striking touches in Luke’s story, though a couple of
the “touches” are additions to Luke’s text by later devout copyists (the angel
and the sweat in Gethsemane and the
“Forgive them…” saying on the cross).
Scene I: Last Supper and Last Words, 22:14-38
(In the Upper
Room. 419 words, 23.8% of the total
narrative)
[All
quotations are from the NRSV, unless
indicated otherwise.]
In the
Lectionary selection, Luke’s Passion narrative begins with Jesus and the
disciples already in the upper room (“a large room upstairs,” 22:12). Luke’s
full narrative, like Mark’s, began with the hatching of the plot against Jesus,
with Judean leaders seeking a way to eliminate him and with Judas appearing as
the solution to their problem (Luke 22:1-6).
Luke adds to Mark’s version of the betrayal that Satan had taken
possession of Judas (22:3). The great
drama was not caused by mere human caprice; it was engineered by the Prince of
Darkness (see “the power of darkness” in 22:53). Luke also retains Mark’s story of the
intrigue surrounding the finding of the upper room (22:7-13), though Luke adds
that the two disciples involved were Peter and John, favorites in Luke’s
stories in Acts 3-5. Thus things were ready for the symposium that began
with the Last Supper.
The opening
sentence of the Lectionary reading sets the scene. “When the hour came, he took his place at the
table, and the apostles with him” (verse 14).
“The hour” refers in the
first instance to the time of the Passover meal, in the evening. At that time observant Judeans gathered in
homes, whether in old times in the city of Jerusalem, or in the
diaspora when their homes were scattered over the Roman empire, from Babylon to Marseilles. When the Judeans spent the day preparing for
Passover by scrupulously removing all leavened items from their homes
(described at length in the Mishnah, Pesahim, 1-3), the Jesus followers
in the same places prepared to observe a related but different memorial of
deliverance. They remembered Jesus with
a gospel narrative about the suffering of the Servant of God.
“He reclined” (as the Greek
reads) “and the apostles with him.” It
is a formal dinner, of the kind Luke has referred to often (11:37; 14:10; and
17:7. John uses the same language for
the Last Supper, 13:12, 25, as well
as the supper after the resurrection, 21:20.) “The apostles” – not the disciples or the Twelve as in Mark and
Matthew. Luke is very conscious that
those gathered in this room are the twelve “apostles,” chosen from many more
“disciples” in Galilee (6:12-16). It is
these apostles who will carry the Jesus message far and wide. The book of Acts is about these apostles, and
the beginning of that book repeats who they were and that their number was kept
intact (Acts 1:12-26,
“apostles” in 1:2 and 26). The emphasis
in Luke is that these companions of Jesus were “sent” (the meaning of apostle),
not that they were disciples. What they
hear at this table they will take out to diaspora Judeans and believers among
the nations.
1st Discourse. Words about Eating and Drinking, 22:15-20 (111 words,
6.3% of the total narrative). This
paragraph consists of two sets of two sayings.
The first pair is about the Last Supper of Jesus with the apostles, the
second pair is about the church’s service of the Lord’s Supper.
The first two
sayings are about the
gap between now and Kingdom Come.
“…[F]or I tell you I will not eat [the Passover] until it is fulfilled
in the kingdom of God” (verse 16); “…[F]or I tell you that from now on I will
not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (verse
18). These sayings declare that this is
the LAST meal Jesus will eat with the disciples until God’s reign has come.
The background
idea is that when the kingdom does come there will be a great meal. A glorious banquet for the redeemed had long
been an expectation for the age to come (see Isaiah
25:6-9). Luke elsewhere assumes a popular expectation
of a banquet with the ancestors in the end time (13:28-29; 14:15). Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ last supper
makes that meal the jumping off point for the wait – the wait until Jesus
returns in God’s power to establish a new order with the apostles prominent in
it (see verses 28-30 below).
The second
pair of sayings concerns distributing wine and bread.
Between the
two sayings about the coming kingdom Jesus receives a cup of wine, says
thanksgiving over it (thus making it a “eucharist”), and says, “Take this and
divide it among yourselves” – indicating to the apostles that what they drink
now is an anticipation of the greater feasting of the coming kingdom (verse
17).
The second
statement about wine and bread institutes the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (called such
in I Corinthians 11:20, which was
written much earlier than Luke’s Gospel).
This is not about the future kingdom; it is about ongoing devotion of
Jesus followers to the “remembrance” of the sacrifice Jesus made for them
all. A loaf of bread, with thanksgiving
pronounced over it (eucharist again), is broken and distributed with the
declaration, “This is my body which is given for you.” Similarly, a cup of wine is passed with the
declaration, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my
blood” (verses 19-20). (This blood of
the new covenant re-enacts the blood of the old covenant with Israel, Exodus 24:8.) After distributing the broken bread, Jesus
also says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and something similar is assumed,
though not actually said, after the cup.
As given here,
with its language about “given for you” and “poured out for you,” this passage
clearly interprets Jesus’ death as an atoning offering for his followers, even
though Luke otherwise avoids that kind of language. The Supper ritual, as given here, follows
almost exactly what Paul gave to the Corinthians some thirty years earlier (I
Corinthians 11:23-26, written around 55 CE).
By the time Luke wrote (85-95 CE), this ritual was a relatively fixed
element of Christian observance. (The
exact language was not entirely fixed, as chapter 9 of the Didache shows.)
Related to
this atoning language of the Supper is a famous text problem in this sacramental
passage. An important minority of early
text witnesses omits the last half of verse 19 and all of verse 20. (The 1st ed. of the RSV, 1946, had
the courage to confine verses 19b-20 to a footnote, though the 2nd
ed. of 1971 restored them to the text.)
In these minority texts the cup of wine was passed in verse 17 followed
by the saying about the coming kingdom, then the bread was broken in verse 19
and distributed with the words, “…This is my body,” and at that point the text
stopped. Nothing was said about the
atoning value of the Body.
It is clear
that some early Christian communities, particularly around Rome (Old Latin
manuscripts), had an alternate tradition to Luke’s cup-bread-cup sequence in
verses 17-20. In some communities the
Luke text did not have verses 19b-20 at all; in others verse 19 (the bread
breaking) was moved up to precede verse 17 to get the order Bread-then-Wine. (Bruce Metzger gives a chart of six forms of
the text of verses 17-20 in the ancient church, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., 1994, p. 149.)
While it is
possible that Theophilus (the original sponsor of Luke’s work) first read
verses 15-20 fully intact as we have them, it is also clear that some early
Christian communities, particularly around Rome, read Luke’s
version of the Lord’s Supper without the explicitly sacrificial language of
verses 19b-20.
2nd Discourse. The Betrayer is at the Table, 22:21-23 (46 words,
2.6%). The six speeches of this Last
Supper symposium form a chain in which each speech or dialogue provides a point
of departure for the next. Jesus and the
apostles around the table in the first unit prompts the next speech, in which
Jesus declares that his betrayer is reclining at the table with him. (In Mark and Matthew this declaration comes before
the bread and wine are distributed.)
What we get in
Luke is a simple statement of fact: the
betrayer’s hand is also on the table.
The statement is not elaborated (in contrast to Mark’s treatment), but
the topic allows Jesus to set the betrayal drama in a larger context of divine
destiny. “For the Son of Man is going as
it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” (verse
22). Both the betrayer and the divine
destiny could have received much more comment, but here they are only topics
given a place in the agenda of Christian memory, not developed discourses.
3rd Discourse. Great ones and Serving ones, 22:24-27 (67 words,
3.8%). Jesus’ pronouncement about the
betrayer led the apostles to discuss among themselves who the traitor might be
(verse 23). As Luke presents it, that
seems to lead to a more general debate about who was greatest among the
apostles.
This is not a
topic intrinsic to the Last Supper (Mark and Matthew place this discussion on
the road to Jerusalem), but it is
certainly appropriate in a farewell address about apostolic roles and
destinies. Jesus sets up a contrast between
the kings and lords of the nations on one hand and the leaders of the Jesus
followers on the other. Leaders among
the Jesus people must be servers (the Greek is diakonōn, as in
“deacon”). At a dinner, before the
kingdom has come, apostles should be like those who serve the meal rather than
like those who recline at the table in luxury.
4th Discourse. But your Good Time will Come, 22:28-30 (43 words,
2.4%). Jesus’ pronouncement about the
greatness/servitude of apostles was a word of warning, but it is immediately
balanced by a word of assurance and promise.
(The greatness discussion was repeated from Mark [10:42-45], but this added assurance is otherwise only in
Matthew [19:28], though Luke
has some noteworthy differences in wording from the Matthew passage.)
The apostles
have “stood by me in my trials” (the coming night notwithstanding), and
therefore, Jesus can say to them, “you may eat and drink at my table in the
kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (verse
30). In the tradition that Luke here
follows there are no qualms about seeing a future world-domain with Jesus and
the apostles as the rulers – at the very least for a restored and glorious Israel.
5th Discourse. A Denier Is also at the Table, 22:31-34 (62 words,
3.5%). The Last Supper symposium now
includes some Jesus sayings found only in this Gospel. This pronouncement about the denier takes off
from the previous talk about the apostles sharing Jesus’ trials or
“temptations” (verse 28). Such temptations
still lie ahead for the apostles.
“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has
demanded to sift all of you like wheat” (verse 31). All the apostles, not just Peter and Judas,
are being put to the test. Satan, the
heavenly prosecuting attorney, is the cause of those reversals and defeats that
lead people to doubt and turn away from the Lord (see “the satan” in Job 1:6-22). All of the apostles will be “sifted” by such
trials, Jesus declares.
Jesus’
pronouncements look beyond the immediate trials, however. They assume that Peter will fall by denying
Jesus, but will then recover faith and become a rallying point for the
others. Thus Jesus says, specifically to
Peter, “…when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (verse
32).
Hearing such
talk, Peter insists that he will stay by Jesus to the death. Jesus, however, knowing the divine script
that is directing their destinies, declares that the exact opposite will happen
– that Peter (as he is called in verse 34) will be humiliated in his cowardly
denying of Jesus three times this night.
6th Discourse. The Violence to Come, 22:35-38 (79 words,
4.5%). The symposium speeches continue
to refer to future apostolic times.
This speech
about the swords is unique to Luke. It reminds the apostles of the mission of
peace that Jesus sent them on in Galilee when they
were sent out with “no purse, no bag, [and] no sandals” (Luke 9:1-6, and
especially 10:1-12 when the “seventy-two” were sent out). At that time they went unarmed, but from this
night on Jesus followers must be prepared for self-defense. “But now…the one who has no sword must sell
his cloak and buy one” (verse 36).
In the Galilee mission the
apostles could count on hospitality and support from the villages (see
10:5-9). That will no longer be the
case. From now on one must be
armed. This saying probably recognizes
the conditions of warfare that came upon both Galilee and Judea in the Roman-Judean
war and the associated hostility of Judean communities to the growing Jesus
groups, especially after 70 CE.
It is
important that this saying not be taken out of context. It clearly assumes a long period in which
both Jesus and the apostles were peaceful emissaries of healing and good news
(as in chapter 10), but it anticipates a time of crisis and violent opposition
against which groups of the faithful must find some security.
This discourse
ends with the enigmatic dialogue in which the apostles say, “Look, here are two
swords,” and Jesus replies, “It is enough” (verse 38). Whatever Luke meant by this exchange, the
“two swords” saying was to have a celebrated future in Medieval Europe as
sanctioning the independent realms of civil and canon law. The two swords were wielded, one by the Holy
Roman Emperor, the other by the Pope.
Scene II: Prayer Vigil and Arrest, 22:39-53
(On the Mount of
Olives, 238 words, 13.5%)
Luke does not
mention the name Gethsemane as the place
to which Jesus took the disciples after the supper. If we had only Luke’s account, the scene at
the Mount of Olives would not seem so dramatic and impressive as
Mark and Matthew make it.
Pray… “not into temptation,” 22:39-46 (114 words
[including verses 43-44], 6.5%). Luke
indicates that Jesus went to this place “as was his custom,” probably implying
that Judas would know where to bring the temple police to make the arrest. Those who follow Jesus are now called
“disciples” rather than apostles (verse 39).
Jesus has come
here for a prayer vigil, the disciples praying in one place, he alone further
on. They are to pray that they “not come
into the time of trial,” that is, such a time of testing as Jesus went through
at the beginning of his mission, being tempted by the devil (4:1-13), testing
that also has marked all his time with the disciples (22:28).
Jesus’ prayer
lets God know how Jesus is feeling now – he would much rather not do this
thing, thank you – but keeps the priorities clear. “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup
from me; yet, not my will but yours be done” (verse 42). This is a glimpse of the human Jesus facing
up to the cost of his divine mission.
That’s all
that Luke gave us, a glimpse of the human Jesus.
Later copyists of the Gospel,
undoubtedly following narrative variations that had developed in their regional
churches, enhanced
this human Jesus in two ways. First, in Luke’s
original text Jesus sends up a fervent prayer – which remains unanswered by
God. Later reciters telling the story
could not believe that the Father would simply ignore such a model prayer! So they fixed it!
In response to
Jesus’ plea, “an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength”
(verse 43). Secondly, later reciters
also added a description of Jesus’ profound agony during his prayer, such that
his sweat fell down like drops of blood (adding verse 44). These two verses from later copyists are
missing from many of the best and oldest manuscripts of the Gospel. (The oldest manuscript of Luke is P75
from around 225 CE, which does not have verses 43-44. Others without the additions are from 350 CE
and later; the manuscripts with the copyists’ embellishments are even later, of
course.)
There were
church teachers, around the Roman church, who reported these verses as present
in their versions of Luke in the period 150 to 236 CE (Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus). Other teachers, however, associated with Alexandria in Egypt as late as
230 CE (Clement and Origin; also Marcion [150 CE] from Asia Minor) cite Luke
without these verses. As Luke’s Gospel
circulated in the Western churches its portrayal of Jesus grew in passion, and
this gem of Jesus-piety eventually was added to all the later copies of the
Gospel, Greek and Latin. We may note,
however, that both the angel appearance (verse 43) and the blood-like sweat
(verse 44) contrast greatly with the tone of Luke’s narrative otherwise.
The disciples,
of course, fail Jesus in the prayer vigil (verses 45-46). Luke says they fell asleep “because of
grief,” which must be intended to give them some benefit of the doubt. Luke is not unnecessarily hard on the disciples
– not at all like Mark in this respect.
The Arrest, 22:47-53 (124 words,
7.0%) The prayer vigil ends with the
arrival of Judas and the authorities. We
have here three topics briefly presented, the kiss of Judas, the sword play,
and Jesus’ resigned complaint about his opponents.
The mystery
and horror of Judas is concentrated in Luke’s reproach from Jesus, “Judas, is
it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of Man?” The act of great reverence for a teacher
becomes the sign of the greatest betrayal.
(Luke’s final settlement with Judas is in Acts 1:16-19.)
The comments
about the swords at the supper (verses 35-38) now have an impact on the later
evening. Carrying swords when the enemy
arrive, some of the disciples expect to use them. Some at least think they should ask first –
“Lord, should we strike with the sword?” – but someone else did not wait for an
answer! All four Gospels agree that a
slave of the high priest lost an ear because of these swords among the
disciples. However, all four Gospels
differ in reporting the sequel to that side-of-the-head chop. In Luke, Jesus immediately repairs the
damage. “But Jesus said, ‘No more of
this!’ And he touched his ear and healed
him” (verse 51).
Now there is a
listing of the “crowd” who have come for Jesus.
Luke does not describe them as a mob, but rather as some substantial
citizens: “the chief priests, the
officers of the temple police, and the elders” (verse 52). These are not rowdies and street types. They are responsible officials. Therefore Jesus says to them, in effect, why
didn’t you indict me during the days I was lecturing in the temple, instead of
coming out at night with weapons? It is
a rhetorical question which no one bothers to answer.
Luke is
following Mark in reporting this complaint against the officials, but he alone
adds Jesus’ resigned sigh about the divine destiny working through these
events. “But this is YOUR hour, and
[that of] the power of darkness” (verse 53).
The Devil has his day – or hour – and this is it. From now on the evil that comes cannot be
escaped.
Scene III: Peter’s Denial and Jesus’ Confession, 22:54-71
(In the High
Priest’s House, 263 words, 14.9%)
The Denial, 22:54-62 (142 words,
8.1%). While Luke abbreviates Mark’s
narrative in many places, he keeps the full version of Peter’s three-fold
denial of Jesus in the High Priest’s courtyard.
It is one of the really well-told episodes in the passion narrative –
and therefore needs little comment.
The most
distinctive touch in Luke’s version is that, just as Peter has denied Jesus for
the third time, “the Lord [not “Jesus” as mostly elsewhere!] turned and looked
at Peter” (verse 61). That Jesus could
be observing Peter is surprising, but not physically impossible in a priestly
palace in Jerusalem. The narrative implies that at just that
moment, Peter looked up and saw Jesus face to face, though perhaps at a
distance – and his façade came tumbling down, “and he went out and wept
bitterly” (verse 62). Luke has improved
an already excellent narrative.
Jesus Mocked, 22:63-65 (27 words,
1.5%). Here Luke has performed some
substantial surgery on Mark’s narrative.
Mark has two meetings of the Council to examine Jesus, the main one at
night and another the next morning (Mark 14:53-64 and 15:1).
Mark’s narrative inserts Peter’s denial
between these two meetings.
Luke has only
one trial before the Judean authorities and it is in the morning. Left over from the night-time events in Mark,
after Peter’s denial, is only the mocking of Jesus done by his guards. Though it is without any obvious motivation
(which it did have in Mark, where Jesus was already condemned), Luke repeats
Mark’s report of the abuse and mocking, his tormentors calling on him to
prophesy who hit him while he was blindfolded, and heaping other verbal abuse
on him (verses 64-65).
It is
significant that the Judean captors mocked Jesus as a prophet, not as a
king. Herod and the Romans will mock him
as a king (23:11 and 37).
The Confession, 22:66-71 (94 words,
5.3%). Luke places some emphasis on the
completeness of the Judean Council and on the fact that it met at daytime, not
during the night (verse 66). The
dialogue then conducted between the prosecuting priests and Jesus is quite
different in Luke from that in Mark.
Mark has much stuff about false witnesses and crimes. Luke simply has the priests demand, “If you
are the Messiah, tell us” (verse 67).
Jesus’
response here is to declare that if he answers them they will not follow
correct judicial procedure. “If I tell
you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer” (verse
68). It’s clearly a loaded court. Nevertheless, Jesus will give them an answer
(he has his divine script to follow).
“But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the
power of God” – a reference to Daniel 7:13 and Psalm
110:1. His prosecutors understand his
references very well and ask further, “Are you, then, the Son of God?” Jesus’ reply to this question may seem to us
confusing. “You say that I am.”
In most
contexts, this answer is taken as a positive assertion, equal to “I am.” Thus, they cry out, “What further testimony
do we need? We have heard it ourselves
from his own lips!” (verse 71). Whatever
any historical Jesus may have said, the Gospels clearly understand that at this
point Jesus went fully public in admitting that he was the Son of God, that is,
the Messiah who would bring in the new age for Israel. To his examiners this is an utterly
impossible claim for a self-effacing Galilean prophet. Therefore, they condemn him as blaspheming
God (claimed as a father) and dangerously misleading the people (making them
think about a king of their own)!
Scene IV: Pilate Fights for an Innocent Man, in Vain,
23:1-25
(Before
Pilate, 373 words, 21.2%)
Pilate
dominates this part of Luke’s Passion narrative. Herod has a cameo role and Jesus is mostly
passive. Only the Judean leaders, always
accusing from the background, are on a par with Pilate in this drama.
The Mocking of Jesus
The First Verdict, 23:1-5 (89 words,
3.4%). Luke’s narrative of Jesus before
Pilate has three clear episodes. The
first is a formal accusation in which the Judean leaders enumerate crimes that
Rome is likely to
take seriously: (1) misleading the
nation (
ethnos), (2) forbidding taxes to be paid to Caesar, and (3)
claiming to be a king. In this
narrative, Pilate only asks Jesus about the king business. “Are you the king of the Judeans?” Jesus gives the ambiguous answer, “You say
so.”
However this
language is understood, Pilate does not take seriously any threat from Jesus as
king. He simply gives as his verdict, “I
find no basis for an accusation against this man.” He is innocent, as far as the representative
of Rome is
concerned. The priests and elders object
strenuously and declare that Jesus has been rousing the people all the way from
Galilee to Judea.
Herod Antipas Has His Moment,
23:6-12 (121 words, 6.9%). This episode
is found only in Luke. He seems to have
some relatively inside information about the royal court of Herod Antipas (see Luke 8:3 and Acts 13:1), perhaps
from hearsay in Caesarea, the Roman provincial capital,
where Luke accompanied Paul around 57 CE (see Acts 21:8-16, a “we”
passage).
When Pilate
heard that Jesus started his troublesome activity in Galilee, which was
not Pilate’s jurisdiction, he decided to pawn off the Jesus issue on Herod
Antipas, who was the Tetrarch (client king) of Galilee at the
time. Herod was then in Jerusalem – on hand for
the Passover, as Luke and his sources would have understood.
We get a
mini-sketch of Herod. He had been
wanting to see Jesus for a long time. He
hoped for some royal entertainment from this magician, and perhaps something to
feed his preoccupation with popular superstitions. He subjected Jesus to long interrogation, but
apparently got back no banter, cheerful or otherwise (verses 8-9).
Luke wishes to
make clear that all the accusations by the Judean authorities were heard by
Herod (verse 10). After all, Herod was
perfectly capable of executing would-be prophets in his own territory, as the
disciples of John the Baptist had reason to know (see Luke 9:7-9). However, Herod apparently found Jesus pretty
innocuous and simply sent him back to Pilate, after he had put a royal robe
around him, making fun of the idea that Jesus was some kind of “king” (verse
11).
This occasion
marked a new bond of friendship between Herod and Pilate, who had previously
been enemies (verse 12). Thus Luke
informs us of another little consequence of Jesus’ journey among those who
would not recognize him!
The Third Verdict and the
Conviction, 22:13-25 (163 words, 9.3%).
The final episode of Jesus before Pilate is introduced by re-stating the
presence of the Judean authorities – plus “the people” (verse 13). From now on these opponents speak as a group,
appearing in the text simply as “they.”
Pilate reviews
the situation, including the charge of perverting the people, and repeats
emphatically that neither he nor Herod find Jesus guilty of these charges or
anything deserving death. Therefore,
Pilate’s verdict is to give Jesus a flogging – presumably to placate the
accusers and to teach Jesus to keep out of the line of fire – and then to
release him (verses 13-17).
If we step
back and look at this narrative in perspective, we see what is undoubtedly a whitewash job on
Pilate. Luke, and many reciters before
him, wanted to down-play Roman responsibility for Jesus’ death. It was the Judean leaders – and, at this
critical moment in the narrative, the Judean “people” themselves – who were
immediately responsible for that death.
That viewpoint was reinforced by theology – the conviction that the
whole passion followed a divine script that could be discerned piecemeal from
the Scriptures – but also by historical experience, namely, by the change in
relations between Jesus followers and more “orthodox” Judean communities after
the disasters of 70 CE.
The Jesus
followers had adopted the view that the destruction of Jerusalem was God’s
punishment for the people who had rejected Jesus. In the Gospels’ narratives, written at or
well after 70 CE, Pilate is whitewashed while the Judean leaders (and to some
extent the people) are blamed.
We have no
access to any other account of the passion (pace Dominic Crossan’s
theories about the Gospel of Peter, etc.).
We can only assume that the Roman governor contributed more directly to
the decision for Jesus’ death than the Gospels suggest, and probably that the
people at large had nothing to do with it.
That some important Judean leaders wanted Jesus permanently off the
scene, and that Pilate was willing to accommodate their wishes, is by far the
most likely historical kernel behind all the narratives.
The final scene with Pilate comes to its
frantic conclusion when the priests and people reject Pilate’s verdict and
demand that Jesus be crucified.
(Crucifixion was a distinctively Roman mode of execution at this
time.) The profound reversal of values
going on in this drama, from a Christian viewpoint, is emphasized by the
release of a terrorist and murderer instead of Jesus (Bar-Abbás, verses
18-19).
The popular
demand for crucifying the Galilean prophet became too much, and “Pilate gave
his verdict that their demand should be granted…and he handed Jesus over as
they wished” (verses 24-25).
Scene V: The Crucifixion –
“He was
counted among the lawless,” 23:26-49
(On the way to
and at The Scull, 376 words, 21.4%)
Lament over the Daughters of Jerusalem, 23:26-31 (102 words,
5.8%). This episode begins with a single
verse given to Simon of Cyrene (following Mark). He is mentioned by name, including his native
land (the northeast coast of modern Libya, very Greek and very Judean in the
first century), and is credited with what must have been regarded as an honor
by later Christians – carrying the crossbar of Jesus’ cross up to the hill of
crucifixion.
But Luke gives
a distinct tone to the way to the cross by placing here Jesus’ passionate
lament for the daughters of Jerusalem – a survival in the Christian story of
the old Zion tradition (other similar sayings are in 19:41-44 and
21:20-24). As Jesus is exiting the city
to die, he pronounces utmost disaster on it.
Don’t cry for
me, Jerusalem! Cry for the horror awaiting all of you! Better then adults with no children, for
mothers and parents would only be compelled to watch the little ones suffer and
perish. Such a state of agony will be
reached that people will plead to the surrounding hills, “Fall on us”… “Cover
us” (verse 30, quoting Hosea 10:8).
The lament
concludes with the curious saying, “For if they do this when the wood is green,
what will happen when it is dry?” If
there is this much violence for only a Galilean prophet, how much more when
whole armies bring overwhelming violence!
The Christian Gospel presents Jesus as foreseeing the coming siege and
destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman
army of Titus in 70 CE.
Crucified and Mocked, 23:32-43 (107 words
[including v. 34a], 6.01%). Even though
Luke’s narrative of the crucifixion is relatively late among the Gospels, it is
simple and compact. There is no
report of actual injuries to the body.
From this narrative you would not know that nails might be driven
through the hands and feet, that the body might be pierced with spear or sword,
or that death came from asphyxiation from the body weight gradually exhausting
the muscles of the diaphragm. This
narrative has no interest in the details of Jesus’ suffering on the cross! (Or, for that matter, in any whipping or scourging
he might have received.)
A crucifixion
was a deliberately public humiliation, as a deterrent to future rebels. With an agonizing death went mockery and
shame. The soldiers, when their initial
work was done, shot craps and used the criminals’ clothes as stakes in their
game (verse 34b, a hook on which Christian teachers could expound the
application of Psalm 22 to the passion.
Note: Luke does NOT repeat from
Mark that Jesus shouted the opening verse of that psalm, “My God, My
God…”).
Religious
leaders scoff at the criminal for religious reasons, saying, “He saved others;
let him save himself…” Soldiers mock him
for political reasons, saying, “If you are the King of the Judeans, save
yourself!” This referred to the
condemnation posted on his cross, which said, “This is the King of the Judeans”
(verses 37-38).
Luke, with the
other Gospels, reports that Jesus died among
criminals, one on each side. Luke knows
more about these two criminals than do Matthew and Mark. One of them mocked Jesus like the others
below, saying “Are you not the Messiah?
Save yourself and us!” The other
criminal castigated his comrade, saying, “…we are getting what we deserve for
our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong” (verse 41). He then asks for Jesus’ help to enter the
Messianic kingdom, to which Jesus makes the awesome reply, “Truly I tell you,
today you will be with me in Paradise” (verse
43).
This is one of
only two words of
Jesus from the cross in Luke – Luke’s original narrative, that is. The other is the very last word, “Father,
into your hands I commend my spirit” (verse 46).
A third
candidate for a “word from the cross” in Luke apparently was not one. Verse 34a of the traditional text of Luke’s
Gospel reads, “Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them; for they do not know
what they are doing.” This is clearly
one of the most “Christ-like” sayings ever attributed to Jesus. However, it is missing from many important
early manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel – and it is not found in any of the other
Gospels.
Most scholars
agree that such a saying would never have been omitted from the text on
purpose. It was added to the text by
someone in the second century whose local lore had it that Jesus said such a
thing. Once this gracious word from the
cross had been heard, of course, it was much too good to be lost. Jesus “must” have said it, and the faithful
copied it into all the later manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel.
(As evidence
that this ancient assessment of the saying still applies today, one may cite
Bruce Metzger’s comment published in 1975 (repeated in 1994): “the logion…bears self-evident tokens of its
dominical origin” – that is, it is too good not to be Jesus’ own saying, even
if it wasn’t a part of Luke’s original Gospel! [A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1st ed., p. 180; 2nd
ed., p. 154].)
The Death Is Awe-Some, 23:44-49 (94 words,
5.3%). When the time of Jesus’ death
arrives, the heavens, the holy place, and the human witnesses are overwhelmed
by the holy.
Luke reports
the cosmic signs in simple, stripped-down terms gleaned from Mark. “…darkness came over the whole land…the sun’s
light failed…the curtain of the temple was torn in two” (verses 44-45). Jesus gives up his spirit, and the centurion,
who commanded the death squad, declares on behalf of Rome, “Certainly
this man was righteous [that is, innocent]” (verse 47). All the people who had come out to gloat over
the grizzly spectacle have a dramatic change of mood, and “they returned home,
beating their breasts” (verse 48).
And at this
point we are made aware that Jesus still has friends, who watch these events
carefully from a safe distance – especially the women who have followed
faithfully since the departure from Galilee (verse 49),
women who will still be around two days later.
Scene VI: The Burial, 23:50-56
(With Joseph of Arimathea. 92
words, 5.2%)
The narrative of the
burial is the solo performance by a man who appears nowhere else. Joseph of Arimathea is another one of those
friends of Jesus in Jerusalem who appear from the woodwork when they are
especially needed (such as the owners of the donkey on Palm Sunday and the
householder with the upper room available for Jesus’ last supper). Joseph was “a good and righteous man” and “a
member of the council.”
This last detail requires
an explanation from Luke that Joseph had not participated in the condemnations
of Jesus, but on the contrary he was “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of
God” (verse 51). This presumably means
he had listened hard to Jesus and is here contributing to the cause. As a man of standing, he has access to
Pilate, and gets the favor of a rapid release of Jesus’ body for burial.
As Luke describes it,
Jesus’ body is then treated with care.
Joseph has it taken down from the cross and wrapped in linen cloth
(cloth that would turn up centuries later at Turin, as some of the faithful
believe), and placed the body in a tomb carved in the stone hillside, a tomb
worthy of a king, since it had never been used before (verse 53). Luke’s abbreviated account does not mention a
stone being placed before the opening of the tomb, but such a stone is assumed,
since concern about rolling it away is mentioned in the next paragraph (Easter
morning).
The Passion narrative concludes with a few notes
preparing for Easter morning. “The
women…from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body
was laid. Then they returned, and
prepared spices and ointments. On the
Sabbath [the second day] they rested according to the commandment” (verse
56).
The next day (the third day) they would act – and
discover a new gospel message for all those who had followed the suffering of
God’s Servant in this narrative.
