Day: March 30, 2020

March 30: Luke 12:10

Today’s Easter-season note is on the saying in Luke 12:10, one of the more famous and controversial sayings by Jesus in the Gospels. It is found in all three Synoptics, though in different narrative contexts. The saying itself provides an interesting example of how Gospel tradition developed—the collection and combination of Jesus traditions (sayings, parables, short narratives, etc). Based on the critical theory that both Matthew and Luke drew upon the Gospel of Mark, as well as a second source (so called “Q”), the saying corresponding to Luke 12:10 may have been transmitted independently in these two sources (Mark and “Q”). The version in Mark (Mk 3:28-29) has been included as part of a controversy-narrative episode (Mk 3:19b-30). However, a parallel version of this saying, referring to the “Son of Man”, appears to have been preserved in Matt 12:32 / Luke 12:10. Matthew includes it in the same position as Mark—as part of the Jesus/Beelzebul controversy (Matt 12:22-31)—but Luke has it in a different location, indicating its origin as a separate saying. A third version of the saying is to be found in the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas (logion §44), but, as is often the case with this work, one cannot be certain if it preserves an independent tradition or has been derived in some way from the canonical Gospels. Let us example the saying in Luke:

Luke 12:10

The various sayings and teachings recorded in chapter 12 represent instruction by Jesus to his disciples on a relatively wide range of subjects and themes, much of which has an eschatological emphasis (cf. Lk 12:2-3, 8-9, 35-40, 41-48, 49ff, 54-56). The same (or similar/parallel) material is found, in different locations, in the Gospel of Matthew (e.g., Matt 10:26-33; 6:19-21, 25-34; 24:45-51; 10:34-39; 16:1-4; 5:25-26). The particular Lukan arrangement of sayings, etc., therefore, is best seen as literary, not historical/chronological. Luke 12:8-12 is a collection of three separate sayings, joined together by thematic/”catchword”-bonding:

    • Vv. 8-9: a Son of Man saying (par Matt 10:32-33), similar to that of Lk 9:26
    • V. 10: the warning against slandering the Holy Spirit (par Mk 3:28-29; Matt 12:31-32); the version in Matthew/Luke is a Son of Man saying
    • Vv. 11-12: instruction to the disciples to rely on the Holy Spirit when facing persecution and/or interrogation by the (Jewish) authorities (par Matt 10:19-20; cf. also Mk 13:11)

The block Luke 12:2-9 corresponds to Matt 10:26-33; the Lukan verses 10-12 have been appended by way of “catchword”-bonding:

    • Verse 10 is joined with vv. 8-9 by their common reference to the Son of Man
    • Verses 11-12 are joined with v. 10 by the common reference to the Holy Spirit

The Son of Man saying of verses 8-9 has already been discussed in reference to the parallel/doublet saying in Lk 9:26f (see the earlier note). At first glance, verse 10 almost seems to contradict vv. 8-9, as well as the context of the parallel version in Mark 3:28-29. The saying in Luke is as follows:

“Every one who speaks a word unto the Son of Man, it will be released [i.e. forgiven] to him; but to the one slandering unto the Holy Spirit, it will not be released.”

Matthew uses the preposition kata/ (“against”) instead of ei)$ (“unto”) in order to clarify the meaning—”a word against the Son of Man / speak against the Holy Spirit”. There are two main interpretive issues which must be addressed in this difficult saying: (1) how is “Son of Man” to be understood in the Matthean/Lukan version? and (2) what is the exact meaning of “slandering the Holy Spirit”?

As to the first point, the expression “Son of Man” here may be understood three different ways:

    1. In its ordinary, fundamental meaning as “human being, humankind”, with “son of man” as a synonymous parallel to “man”. According to this interpretation, the contrast would be between speaking against another human being and the (more serious) act of speaking against the Holy Spirit.
    2. As a reference to Jesus himself, especially in so far as he identifies himself with humankind, as a human being—i.e. during his earthly life and ministry. Jesus frequently appears to use “son of man” as a surrogate or circumlocution for the pronoun “I”, and perhaps it should be understood this way, at least on the historical level. Slander and abuse against his own (human) person will be forgiven, but that which is against the Spirit (and thus against God Himself) will not be forgiven.
    3. As a reference to the heavenly/Messianic figure that is to appear at the end time, and with which Jesus identifies himself at various points in the Gospel tradition. The interpretation then might be that words spoken against God’s Messenger will be forgiven, but those spoken against the Spirit of God (i.e. God Himself) will not be.

The second option best fits the overall evidence and use of the expression within Synoptic tradition, and, in particular, throughout these sections of the Gospel of Luke. Given the references to the suffering of the Son of Man—especially in the Passion predictions (Luke 9:22, 43-45 par)—it might be possible to qualify the interpretation above to emphasize Jesus’ own suffering, which included abuse and slander leveled against him. If the author has this in mind, then the saying actually presents a moving example of forgiveness (a theme prominent in this Gospel)—even those who participated in Jesus’ suffering and death may be forgiven (cf. Luke 23:34).

The second question—on the meaning of “slandering the Holy Spirit”—has haunted readers and commentators for centuries. Many attempts have been made to explain more precisely what is involved—some more plausible than others. In the Gospels themselves, only the version in Mark offers anything like a direct explanation (cf. Mk 3:30), connecting the “slander” against the Holy Spirit with the accusation that Jesus “has an unclean spirit” (v. 22) rather than the Spirit of God. However, none of this context is in Luke’s version of the saying, and Mark’s version should not be imported to explain it. How does the author himself understand the saying, and how would he have us to understand it? It is best, I believe, to examine: (a) Luke’s use of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel, and (b) use of the verb blasfhme/w.

Here are the most relevant references to the Holy Spirit:

    • Following his baptism, Jesus is “full of the holy Spirit” (Lk 4:1), and returns to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk 4:14).
    • In the scene at Nazareth, Jesus reads from Isaiah 61:1ff (“the Spirit of the Lord is upon me…”), applies this to himself and identifies himself as a fulfillment of the prophecy (Lk 4:18-21).
    • In Luke 10:21, Jesus is said to have “leaped (for joy) in the holy Spirit”—the context being that of the sayings in vv. 21b-22, that the Father has revealed hidden secrets to the disciples of Jesus, in particular of Jesus as the Son of God.
    • In Luke 11:13 we find the promise that the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.
    • Finally, in Luke 12:12, the saying directly following that of verse 10, there is a similar promise that the Holy Spirit will inspire the disciples, giving them the words to speak when they are interrogated by the authorities. Luke records the fulfillment of this promise in Acts 4:8, etc.

As for the verb blasfhme/w, which can have either the general meaning of “speak abusively, insult” or indicate more specifically “slander”, etc, it is used only twice elsewhere in the Gospel, during the Passion narrative, as part of the suffering and abuse endured by Jesus (Lk 22:65; 23:39, inherited as part of the Synoptic tradition). In the first instance (22:65) it refers generally to the abuse and insults delivered against Jesus, in the second (23:39), it is a derisive taunt drawing upon the idea that Jesus might be the Anointed One (Messiah/Christ). The verb occurs four more times in the book of Acts (13:45; 18:6; 19:37; 26:11). The first two of these references involve Jewish opposition to Paul and his message, speaking against him and inciting the crowds to oppose him. The last reference (Acts 26:11) is especially interesting, since it is part of Paul’s testimony regarding his previous persecution of the early Christians (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 9:1ff): “…many times, laying a charge upon them I forced/compelled them to ‘blaspheme’ [blasfhmei=n]”—that is, to speak against Christ and, effectively, to deny their faith. In the context of early persecution of Christians, a reverse confession was often forced upon believers, involving the reviling or cursing of Jesus (as noted in Pliny’s letter to Trajan [10.96] and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3; cf. also the reference in 1 Corinthians 12:3). The usage here is important, since it fits perfectly with the verses (vv. 11-12) that follow the saying in Lk 12:10, as well as the prior vv. 8-9 which refer to confessing/denying Christ.

On the basis of this brief study, I would suggest the following explanation of Luke 12:10:

    • Those who speak against the Son of Man = Those especially who abuse/insult/slander Jesus during his earthly ministry — these acts may be forgiven
    • Those who slander/insult the Holy Spirit = Those who publicly oppose the Gospel message and/or deny faith in Christ (including the revelation of who he is) — these will not be forgiven (cf. vv. 8-9)

This appears to best fit the context of Luke 12:8-12 and the overall evidence from the Gospel.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Passion Narrative, Pt 2 (1 Cor 11:23-26 etc)

The Words of Jesus—Institution of the Lord’s Supper

The last two notes have examined the Passover meal episode in the Passion Narrative. An important component of this scene is the institution of the “Lord’s Supper”—the words of Jesus over the bread and the cup. Most commentators recognize that this tradition in the Gospels is related in some way to the early Christian practice of observing the “Supper of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:16-22; 11:17-34, v. 20). It would hardly be surprising if early ritual and liturgical practice shaped, to varying degrees, the Gospel narrative at this point. But the direction and extent of the influence remains a matter of considerable debate.

It is clear that the “Last Supper” was identified as a Passover meal in the early Gospel tradition; this is certainly the case in the Synoptics (Mk 14:1, 12-16 par), though less definite in John’s Gospel (to be discussed in the next note). Luke brings out most prominently the Passover connection (cf. the prior note), all the more so, it would seem, if one adopts the longer, majority text of vv. 17-20 (which includes vv. 19b-20). It has been argued that here, in the longer text, Luke preserved more of the original setting of the Passover meal, such as it would have been practiced in the 1st century A.D. These details are explored by J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press: 1977), esp. pp. 41-88, and summarized by Fitzmyer, Luke, pp. 1389-91. According to this reconstruction, the outline of the meal in Lk 22:17-20 (longer text) would be:

  • The Cup (vv. 17-18)—a single cup, to be shared, it would seem, among all the disciples together. It is it perhaps to be identified with the initial cup of blessing (qiddûš), drunk prior to the serving of the meal. Possibly it may also represent the second cup of wine following the Passover liturgy (hagg¹d¹h).
  • The Bread (v. 19)—the “unleavened bread” (maƒƒôt) served and eaten together with the Passover lamb.
  • The Cup (v. 20)—the second cup of blessing (trad. kôš šel b§r¹k¹h), following the meal.

If Luke thus preserves more of the original historical setting, then the Synoptic version in Mark-Matthew (Mk 14:22-25/Matt 26:26-29) would have to be viewed as a simplification or abridgment of the scene. While this might be appealing from a historical-critical standpoint, the situation is not quite so straightforward, at least when considering the words of institution by Jesus. There are two basic forms preserved—(1) that in Mark/Matthew, and (2) that in Luke and 1 Corinthians. In addition to the Synoptic Gospels, the tradition is preserved by Paul in 1 Cor 11:22-26, part of his instruction regarding the “Supper of the Lord” (vv. 17-34, cf. also 10:16-21). Paul introduces the tradition in v. 23:

“For I took/received along from the Lord th(at) which I also gave along to you—that the Lord Yeshua, on the night in which he was given along [i.e. betrayed], took bread…”

The first phrase does not necessarily mean that Paul received this information as a special revelation by Jesus; it may simply indicate that the tradition goes back to the words and actions of Jesus himself. As in the Gospels, Paul recorded words spoken by Jesus over the bread and the cup/wine, in turn. Let us examine the tradition regarding each of these.

1. The Bread—Mk 14:22; Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19 [MT]; 1 Cor 11:24

First, the action of Jesus as described:

  • Mark 14:22: “taking [labw\n] bread (and) giving a good account [eu)logh/sa$, i.e. blessing] (to God), he broke [e&klasen] (it) and gave [e&dwken] (it) to them and said…”
  • Matt 26:26: “taking bread and giving a good account [i.e. blessing] (to God), Yeshua broke it and, giving [dou\$] it to the learners [i.e. disciples], said…”
    [Note how close Mark and Matthew are, the differences in the latter’s version are indicated by the words in italics]
  • Luke 22:19: “taking bread (and) giving (thanks for God’s) favor [eu)xaristh/sa$], he broke (it) and gave (it) to them, saying…”
    [Luke is even closer to Mark, except for the verb eu)xariste/w instead of eu)loge/w]
  • 1 Cor 11:24: “Yeshua…took bread and, giving (thanks for God’s) favor [eu)xaristh/sa$], broke (it) and said…”

Paul agrees with Luke in use of the word eu)xariste/w (“give [thanks] for [God’s] favor”) instead of eu)loge/w (“give a good account [i.e. words of blessing] [to God]”). His version is simpler in that it omits mention of Jesus giving the broken bread to the disciples.

Now the words of Jesus:

  • Mark 14:22: “Take (it)—this is my body [tou=to/ e)stin to\ sw=ma/ mou]”
  • Matt 26:26: “Take (it and) eat—this is my body”
    [Matthew is identical to Mark, except for the addition of the command fa/gete (“eat/consume [it]”)]
  • Luke 22:19: “This is my body (be)ing given over you—do this unto my remembrance [i.e. in memory of me]”
    [The italicized portion is not in Mark/Matthew]
  • 1 Cor 11:24: “This is my body th(at is given) over you—do this unto my remembrance [i.e. in memory of me]”

Again, we see how close Paul is to Luke—nearly identical except for the participle dido/menon (“being given”), which is to be inferred. The only portion common to all four versions are the words “this is my body“—in Greek, tou=to/ e)stin to\ sw=ma/ mou, though Paul has a slightly different word order (tou=to/ mou/ e)stin to\ sw=ma).

2. The Cup—Mk 14:23-25; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20 [MT]; 1 Cor 11:25

Jesus’ action and words associated with the cup are clearly parallel to those associated with the bread. First, the action:

  • Mark 14:23-24: “and taking [labw\n] (the) drinking-cup (and) giving (thanks for God’s) favor [eu)xaristh/sa$], he gave [e&dwken] (it) to them and they all drank out of it. And he said to them…”
  • Matt 26:27: “and taking (the) drinking-cup and giving (thanks for God’s) favor, he gave (it) to them saying, ‘Drink out of it all (of) you’“
    [Matthew is identical to Mark, except that the reference to drinking has been made part of Jesus’ directive]
  • Luke 22:20: “and so the same (way) also (he took) the drinking-cup after th(eir) dining, saying…”
  • 1 Cor 11:25: “and so the same (way) also (he took) the drinking-cup after th(eir) dining, saying…”
    [Luke and Paul have virtually the same version, with slightly different word order]

And the words of Jesus:

  • Mark 14:24: “This is my blood of the agreement [i.e. covenant] set through [diaqh/kh] (by God), th(at) is poured out over many”
  • Matt 26:27: “This is my blood of the agreement set through (by God), th(at) is poured out around many unto [i.e. for] the release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins“
    [Differences between Matthew and Mark are indicated by italics]
  • Luke 22:20: “This drinking-cup is the new agreement set through (by God) in my blood, th(at is) being poured out over you”
  • 1 Cor 11:25: “This drinking-cup is the new agreement set through (by God) in my blood—do this, as often as you should drink it, unto my remembrance”

Again, the common tradition inherited by Luke and Paul is clear. Their version differs significantly from that of Mark/Matthew in one respect:

    • In Luke/Paul, the cup is identified as the “new covenant”
    • In Mark/Matthew, the blood (wine) itself is identified with the “covenant”

The reference in Mark/Matthew is more obviously to the original covenant ceremony in Exodus 24:8; in the Greek LXX the declaration reads:

“See, the blood of the agreement which the Lord set through toward you around/about all these words”
In Hebrew:
“See, the blood of the agreement which YHWH cut with you upon all these words”

In ancient Near Eastern thought and religious/cultural practice, an agreement between two parties was often established through the ritual slaughter (sacrifice) of an animal. It may involve the sprinkling or application of blood, as in the Exodus scene, where Moses throws blood upon the people (or their representatives). This action followed the reading of all the words which God had spoken to Moses, referred to collectively (in written form) as the “Book of the Agreement [i.e. Covenant]” (v. 7).

This symbolism is less direct in the Lukan/Pauline version; indeed, the emphasis has switched to the symbolic act of giving the cup, rather than the wine (i.e. blood) in it. Also the reference is now to the “New Covenant” of Jer 31:31, a passage of tremendous importance for early Christian identity, much as it also had been for the Qumran community (CD 6:19; 1QpHab 2:4ff, etc). Along with the other Synoptics, Luke has retained the expression (and image) of the blood being “poured out” (the verb e)kxe/w) “over” (u(per) people. In addition to Exod 24:8, we find this ritual/sacrificial imagery elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as Lev 17:11, where the idea of expiation and atonement for sin is present. Paul omits this aspect in 1 Cor 11:22-26. Instead, he gives emphasis to the rite of the Supper as a memorial of Jesus’ death. Luke includes this in the words over the bread (22:19), but not the cup.

Summary

If we consider all four versions, it would seem that, while 1 Corinthians may have been the earliest written (in the form we have it), it is also the version which most reflects early Christian ritual. This can be seen in the way that the Passover and sacrificial elements are missing, and by the emphasis of the Supper as a memorial. In addition, the Pauline form has a more consistent shape. The rougher contours of the Synoptic version would, I think, suggest a closer approximation to the original (Aramaic?) words of Jesus. Here, as often is the case, Mark may record the earliest form of the tradition; note the common elements highlighted in bold:

  • “Take (it)—this is my body [tou=to/ e)stin to\ sw=ma/ mou]”
  • “This is my blood [tou=to/ e)stin to\ ai!ma/ mou] of the agreement/covenant, th(at) is poured out over many”

It would seem that Matthew and Luke have both adapted this core tradition in various ways (cf. above). The real problem lies with the text-critical question in Luke. The similarity between Luke and Paul here has been used as an argument in favor of the shorter text, with vv. 19b-20 (so close to 1 Cor 11:24-25), being viewed as a harmonization or interpolation. However, if vv. 19b-20 are original, then there can be no doubt that Luke and Paul have inherited a common historical tradition, however it may differ from the version in Mark/Matthew. I would argue that all four versions—that is, both primary lines of tradition (Mark/Matthew and Luke/Paul)—have adapted the original words and setting into a framework that reflects, to some degree, early Christian practice regarding the Supper. In Mark/Matthew, this is done primarily through the narrative description of Jesus’ action, and the sequence of verbs used (cf. above), especially with the key pairing of eu)loge/w and eu)xariste/w (the latter giving rise to the term “Eucharist”). In the case of Luke and Paul, it may be that Jesus’ words (in Greek translation) have been shaped to reflect the ritual context. Even so, as I noted in the prior note, Luke has clearly retained (and carefully preserved) a connection with the Passover setting of the original tradition.

References above marked “Fitzmyer, Luke” are to J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 28A (1985).

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Passion Narrative, Pt 2 (Lk 22:14-38)

Luke 22:14-38

Having discussed the Passover meal scene in the core Synoptic tradition (Mark/Matthew) in the previous note, we now turn to the treatment of it in the Gospel of Luke. Here, the Gospel writer (trad. Luke) appears to have modified and developed the tradition significantly. There are four main differences:

    1. Jesus’ statement in vv. 15-16
    2. A different order/arrangement of the institution of the “Lord’s Supper”; in particular, the majority text of vv. 17-20 represents an expanded form of the institution, compared with that in Mark/Matthew.
    3. Luke has reversed the order of the Lord’s Supper and the identification of the betrayer (including the Son of Man saying)—the latter occurs after the Lord’s Supper, rather than before.
    4. The addition of Jesus’ teaching to his disciples in vv. 24-29, 35-38
1. The statement by Jesus (Lk 22:15-16)

The declaration by Jesus in vv. 15-16, found only in Luke’s version of the scene, identifies again the meal specifically as the Passover (Pesaµ, pa/sxa) celebration:

“And he said toward them, ‘(Truly my heart’s) pulse was (set) upon this Pesah {Passover}, to eat it with you before my suffering; for I say to you that no, I will not eat it (again) until the (time) when it should be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

This statement intensifies the scene, in several respects. First, is the personal element, whereby Jesus declares that he has “set his heart” upon eating this particular Passover meal with his disciples. The expression e)piqumi/a| e)pequ/mhsa reflects a Semitic idiom that is extremely difficult to translate. The doubling of the verb—the principal verb form preceded by a verbal noun—is an intensifying construction. The literal syntax here would be something like “I desired (with a great) desire…”, which in conventional English might be rendered “I (have) eagerly desired…”. This longing should very much be considered here in terms of Jesus’ Passion. In this regard, there is also a kind of play of words in v. 15 between pa/sxa (páscha, Pesaµ, Passover) and pa/sxw (páschœ, “suffer”), just as in English we might make between “Passover” and “Passion”. Indeed, there is here a greater emphasis on Jesus’ suffering and death, than we see in Mark/Matthew. Note, for example, how Luke has modified the narrative introduction in v. 14 (cp. Mk 14:17), with the use of the word “hour” (w%ra), which often relates symbolically (and dramatically) to the time, or moment, when Jesus’ Passion begins (v. 53; Mk 14:41 par; Jn 7:30 etc, and see below). There may also be an association with the Passover lamb; Luke preserves the Markan detail (v. 7; Mk 14:12) regarding the sacrifice of the Passover lamb.

2. The institution of the Lord’s Supper (Lk 22:17-20)

The Lukan version of the institution of the “Lord’s Supper” involves a difficult (and famous) text-critical question, regarding which of the two main forms of the text—the shorter or longer version—is original. I have discussed this in some detail in an earlier study, which you should consult. The “long” version (vv. 17-20) is the majority reading, and is accepted by most scholars and commentators today. However, there are also good arguments to be made in favor of the “short” version (vv. 17-19a), which is attested primarily by “Western” witnesses (D a ff2 i l).
[For a summary of the evidence, cf. the Metzger/UBS Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition), pp. 148-50, and also Fitzmyer, Luke, pp. 1387-9. For a defense of the short (Western) text, cf. B. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: 1993), pp. 197-209.]

The structure of the scene differs considerably, whether one adopts the “long” or “short” text. With the shorter text, the scene has two parts, corresponding to the two main themes of the episode:

  • Passover
    • The Meal (eating), v. 15
      • Jesus and its eschatological fulfillment (kingdom of God), v. 16
    • The Cup (drinking), v. 17
      • Jesus and its eschatological fulfillment (kingdom of God), v. 18
  • Betrayal by Judas
    • Symbolism of the (broken) bread—Jesus’ suffering/death, v. 19a
      —the betrayer at the table (i.e. sharing the Passover meal), v. 21
      —woe to the betrayer (Son of Man saying), v. 22
    • Disruption among the Twelve (i.e. unity is broken), v. 23

Assuming the longer text, by contrast, there are three parts to the scene:

  • Announcement of Passover and Jesus’ coming suffering, vv. 15-16
  • The Passover meal, vv. 17-20
    —The Cup (the haggadah cup following the liturgy?), vv. 17-18
    —The Bread, v. 19
    —The Cup (of blessing, after the meal), v. 20
  • Announcement of the Betrayal, vv. 21-23

In either case, we should note, Luke gives greater emphasis to the association with Passover than do the other Gospels. For more on this, cf. especially J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press: 1977), and note the discussion in Fitzmyer, Luke, pp. 1386-95.

3 & 4. The order of Lk 22:17-23 and the Teaching in Lk 22:24-38

By comparison with Mark/Matthew, Luke places the announcement of the betrayal (vv. 21-23) after the Lord’s Supper (i.e. the Passover meal, vv. 17-20). Scholars may debate which version is more likely to be correct (at the historical level). However, the reversed order in Luke serves several purposes. As mentioned above, it connects the Lord’s Supper with the Passover meal more directly. Also, it emphasizes the fact that the betrayer (Judas) has shared the Passover with Jesus and the others—”the hand of the (one) giving me along [i.e. betraying me] is with me upon the table” (v. 21). This makes the announcement in vv. 21-23 more dramatic, but it also serves to introduce the block of Jesus’ teaching which follows in vv. 24ff. There are actually two blocks of teaching (vv. 25-30, 35-38), both dealing with the theme of discipleship. They follow announcements regarding the failure of two principal disciples—the first (Peter) and last (Judas), according to the traditional list (Mk 3:16-19 par):

  • Betrayal by Judas—vv. 21-23
    • Narrative statement (v. 24) joining the sayings which follow, and parallel to the disturbance among the Twelve in v. 23
    • Saying(s) of Jesus (vv. 25-27) on true discipleship—the importance of humility and sacrificial service
    • Eschatological promise to the disciples (the Twelve [Eleven]) who remain faithful (vv. 28-30)—note the parallel to v. 30 in vv. 16, 18.
  • Denial by Peter—vv. 31-34
    • Instruction for the disciples (vv. 35-38), referring back to the missions of the Twelve (and Seventy[-two]) in 9:1-6; 10:1-12
      —the implication is that they will be engaged in a different sort of mission, beginning with Jesus’ suffering and death
      —the “two swords” (v. 38) foreshadow the scene in vv. 47-53, as well as the testing, persecution, etc., the disciples will face in the “hour of darkness” (v. 53)

It is worth noting that the sayings in vv. 25-26, 28-30 have Synoptic parallels in Mark 10:42-45 (Matt 20:25-28) and Matt 19:28, though these occur at quite different points in the narrative. This has caused critical commentators to question their location here in Luke. However, vv. 25-27 have a general parallel with Jesus’ action (and teaching) in John 13:12-17, which would seem to confirm a basic historical tradition, even if sayings corresponding to vv. 25-26 appear in a different setting in the Synoptic tradition. The ‘omission’ of Mk 10:45 is curious, considering its appropriateness in the context of the Last Supper scene (vv. 19b-20). The eschatological orientation of vv. 28-30 does seem to fit thematically (compare the context of Jesus’ words in vv. 16, 18), perhaps moreso that the setting of Matt 19:28, where it is added/included within the Synoptic tradition.

Before proceeding to the Last Supper (Passover meal) scene in the Gospel of John, it will be important to examine the basic tradition regarding Jesus’ words of institution as they have been preserved in the Synoptic Gospels (and by Paul in 1 Corinthians). This we will do in the next note.

References above marked “Fitzmyer, Luke” are to J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 28A (1985).

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Passion Narrative, Pt 2 (Mk 14:12-25)

The Passover: Jesus with his Disciples

The second episode of the Passion Narrative in the Synoptics is the Passover meal which Jesus shared with his disciples the night of his arrest. In the Synoptic tradition, this “Last Supper” was unquestionably part of the Passover celebration. This setting was established in the narrative introduction (Mk 14:1 par), and is affirmed again at the start of this episode (vv. 12ff). The Passover setting of the Passion narrative is just as clear in the Gospel of John (12:1; 13:1, etc); however, as you may be aware (and as we shall see), there are significant chronological differences between John and the Synoptics on this point.

Mark 14:12-25 (par Matt 26:17-29; Lk 22:7-39)

There is a clear and simple three-part division to this episode in the Synoptics, as illustrated first by the Gospel of Mark:

    1. The Preparation (vv. 12-16)
    2. The Passover scene at mealtime (vv. 17-21)
    3. Institution of the “Lord’s Supper” (vv. 22-25)

Each of these parts has a specific thematic association:

    • Vv. 12-16—The Passover
    • Vv. 17-21—The Betrayal by Judas
    • Vv. 22-25—The Suffering and Death of Jesus

This thematic structure was probably inherited by the Gospel writer from the early tradition, though it is possible that he played a significant role in emphasizing it within the narrative. Each of the parts will be discussed in turn, beginning with Mark and then examining the parallels in Matthew and Luke to see how the tradition(s) may have been modified or developed.

Mark 14:12-16 / Matt 26:17-19 / Luke 22:7-13

There are two basic elements to the tradition in vv. 12-16 which, we may assume, caused it to be included in the core narrative: (1) the significance and importance of the Passover, and (2) an early historical tradition regarding the specific location (the “upper room”) in which the meal took place. With regard to the first point, the importance of Passover is indicated by the careful preparations that are made for it. Jesus gives specific instructions to his disciples (vv. 13-15), though it is not entirely clear whether this reflects arrangements which had already been made or, in particualar, special foreknowledge by Jesus as to how things would come about. The parallel with the preparations for his “triumphal entry” (11:2-6 par) suggest that the Gospel writer(s) understood it in the latter sense.

Matthew and Luke both follow the Markan narrative with relatively little variation. Matthew’s account (26:17-19) is briefer and simpler, as is typically so for this writer when developing the Tradition. Luke (22:7-13) follows Mark much more closely, including the detail of the Passover sacrifice (v. 7). However, there are a couple of notable differences (in v. 8):

    • Jesus appears to take the initiative with the disciples (cp. Mk 14:12b), and
    • The two disciples are identified as Peter and John; this detail most likely represents a development of the tradition, according to the early Christian tendency toward identifying otherwise unnamed figures.

The initial directive by Jesus in Luke’s version also serves to give added emphasis to the Passover theme.

Mark 14:17-21 / Matt 26:20-25 / Luke 22:14-38

The Passover meal itself is the setting for vv. 17-21ff, though the meal itself is really only described (partially) in Luke’s version. The primary focus of this scene in the Synoptic tradition is the dramatic moment of the identification of Judas as the betrayer. This may be outlined as follows:

  • The narrative setting (v. 17)
    • The initial declaration by Jesus (v. 18)
    • The disciples’ reaction (v. 19)
    • The second declaration by Jesus (v. 20)
    • The Son of Man saying (v. 21)

Note how the dramatic purpose of Jesus’ twin declaration is to identify the betrayer:

    • “…one out of you will give me along [i.e. betray me], the one eating with me” (v. 18)
    • “(It is) one of the Twelve, the one dipping in with me into the dish” (v. 20)

The first declaration indicates that it is one of Jesus’ disciples who is present, eating at the table with him. The second further identifies the man as one of the Twelve—i.e. one of Jesus’ closest disciples. This level of intimacy is also indicated by the parallel: “eating with me”—”dipping into the dish with me”. Possibly there is an allusion here to Psalm 41:9, an association specifically made (by Jesus) in John’s Gospel (13:18), and one which would doubtless have been recognized by early Christians familiar with the Scriptures. The Son of Man saying in verse 21 is the most distinctive element of the narrative, and unquestionably reflects a very early and well-established tradition:

“(On the one hand) the Son of Man leads (himself) under [i.e. goes away] even as it has been written about him, but (on the other hand) woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is given along [i.e. betrayed]! Fine for him if that man had not come to be (born) (at all)!”

As in the earlier scene, Matthew (26:20-25) follows Mark closely, but again narrates in simpler fashion. He includes one detail which would seem to reflect a development of the tradition: in verse 25, Judas (identified by the author as “the one giving him [i.e. Jesus] along”) asks “Is (it) I, Rabbi?”, to which Jesus responds “You (have) said (it)”. It is rather an odd detail; its inclusion may be meant, in part, as a foreshadowing of Judas’ greeting at the moment of the arrest, where he also uses the honorific title “Rabbi” (v. 49).

Luke’s Gospel shows far more extensive development of the tradition here. The main differences are: (1) the identification of Judas and Son of Man saying occur after the institution of the Lord’s Supper (22:21-23), and (2) two blocks of teaching are included (vv. 24-30, 35-38)—one after the Lord’s Supper and the other after the prediction of Peter’s denial (vv. 31-34). These differences will be discussed in the upcoming note on Luke 22:14-38.

Mark 14:22-25 / Matt 26:26-29 / Luke 22:17-20

These verses preserve the important early Christian tradition of the institution of the “Lord’ Supper”. Their significance will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming note, but here will be helpful to observe the basic tradition as it is preserved by Mark (and Matthew). The outline is very simple:

  • Action by Jesus (the bread):
    “taking bread (and) giving a good account [i.e. blessing] (to God), he broke (it) and gave (it) to them” (v. 22a)
    • Words of Jesus:
      “Take (it)—this is my body” (v. 22b)
  • Action by Jesus (the cup/wine):
    “taking (the) drinking-cup (and) giving good words of (thanks for God’s) favor, he gave (it) to them and they all drank out of it” (v. 23)
    • Words of Jesus:
      “This is my blood of the diaqh/kh [i.e. ‘covenant’] th(at) is poured out over many” (v. 24)

An additional saying/declaration by Jesus (v. 25) concludes the solemn moment:

“Amen, I say to you that, no—I will not drink yet (again) out of the produce of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

This saying, with its “Amen, I say to you” (a)mh\n le/gw u(mi=n) formula (a well-attested mark of Jesus’ own style), is parallel to the declaration in v. 18.

Once again, Matthew (26:26-29) follows Mark, though with a couple of key differences (marked by italics):

    • “Take (it and) eat…”
    • “…poured out unto the release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins“
    • “…that day when I should drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father“

Generally these details (along with a couple of other small modifications) appear to reflect a degree of development, an expanding of the core tradition with added information or emphasis. This will be discussed further, along with Luke’s unique presentation of this material, and the parallel tradition recorded by Paul (in 1 Cor 11:23-26), over the next two notes.