Part 3 of 4: The Passion Narrative

Lent 2025

There are two parts in this final section of Luke’s Gospel. The first part can be called, “The Ministry in Jerusalem”. The second is, “The Passion and Death of Christ”. Maybe, at some time in the future, God willing, we might study the Resurrection of Christ. But now it is Lent. Holy Week comes before we know it, and this Gospel is proclaimed at its opening on Palm Sunday.

The first of the two parts is the content of Chapter 19 as Jesus nears Jerusalem. The second part begins with Chapter 20, and it all takes place in the Temple area. This piece of Luke’s Gospel sets it apart from Matthew and Mark because of the central importance of Jerusalem and the Temple. The other Gospels do not focus on the Temple and Jerusalem as clearly as does Luke. Jerusalem has been the destination all along, and the disciples are to remain there until they receive the Holy Spirit. At the same time however, “Jerusalem” is not really a geographical location. The real destination for Jesus, and for that matter, for all of us, is God. That’s where he is going with this Journey. As a place, Jerusalem and the Temple are where God and humankind meet. 

We have no idea how long Jesus ministered in Jerusalem. The Church compressed this period into eight days, but there is every reason to believe that the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not for Passover, but more likely for the Feast of Tabernacles which occurs in the fall. That is the harvest feast. The whole business with Palm Branches in the other Gospels is a hint that this could be the Feast of Tabernacles when the Hebrew people cut branches to make “huts” out in the fields where they stayed during the harvest. So, the stay of Jesus in Jerusalem may have been much longer than the one week we have imagined. As a Church, we have, over time compressed all three Gospel accounts into one image of the event. If you are not careful, this can be a problem when reading Luke, because there is not one mention of palm branches. Luke shifts to Passover so that everything will fit together.

Chapter 19 begins with Jesus entering Jericho where he meets a short guy named, Zacchaeus who seems to be a good tree climber. This familiar story is full of important theological claims. The most important and obvious is that God incarnate dwells not with the pure and righteous but with tax collectors and sinners. In other words, with all outsiders. Meanwhile, the crowd grumbles. Just before entering Jerusalem, Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman who takes a long trip leaving a sum of money with three different servants to carry on business while he is away. Had we been there at the time, we would probably be nodding our heads with the crowd approving the caution of the third servant who took no risks. The focus of this parable is not the nobleman or “king.” He is not an image of Christ. The focus is the servants, and the story is told to address the fact that many were expecting the end of time or coming of the Kingdom to be very soon. Correcting that idea, the parable proposes that while we wait, we need to be working without fear with the message entrusted to us and not keep silent or think we need to hide in fear.

As Chapter 19 begins to close, we are on Mount Olivet near Bethany which is less than two miles east of the city. The whole role of the disciples is important to notice. They get a colt. They set Jesus on the colt. There is sense that the whole city came out as a crowd. Jesus is honored and praised by his followers. This is not a group who turns on him days later demanding his crucifixion. Luke’s version is less crowded and more subdued. It is of and for believers. There is not one mention of pam branches. Luke gives us some clues by which we may interpret this scene more clearly. 

1) This triumphal parade begins from the Mount of Olives, the place the prophet Zechariah (14:4) said God’s final intervention would begin. 

2) Jesus makes his way through an adoring crowd sitting on the back of a colt. It is a humble entrance in contrast to the arrival of powerful leaders on horses with trumpets blaring “Hail to the Chief.” 

3) Not even the poorest of the poor are held back. Anyone is welcome.

There is not one Hosanna in Luke’s Gospel. That word was used for parades with nationalistic overtones. None of that here. There is nothing said about David or his throne either. Luke seems to be carefully writing this so as to give Pilate nothing to use in accusation. The Temple is the place where things get focused now. Luke’s Gospel began with the Temple with Zechariah offering incense and angel’s announcement. At the end, the disciples are in the Temple. As Luke tells us in Acts, the Christians are attending the temple together every day. Luke seems to respect and perhaps admire the Temple, that may be why his description of Jesus cleansing it is simpler than the other Gospels. He purifies the Temple so that it can be the place of his own ministry. Jesus now claims this space for his teaching, and with that, opposition to him includes more than the scribes and Pharisees. Now the chief priests join in. He is in their space. 

As controversy heats up it might help to know who’s who. We keep hearing about the “Chief Priests, Scribes, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, Elders, and Pharisees. It’s important to sort them out. At the time of Jesus, two religious/political parties within Judaism were represented in the “Sanhedrin”. 

So, the Sanhedrin was a council with about 70 members who made up the religious court. It was composed of 

1. High Priests past and present from the priestly families as well as Elders who were the tribal and family heads of the people, 
2. Scribes who were the legal professionals. 

The majority of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees while the Pharisees were the minority. The difference between these two groups was religious not political or social. For instance, Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin priest we hear about here was religiously a Sadducee. But, most of the scribes were Pharisees. The presiding officer of this council was usually the high priest. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of appeal. Therefore, the Sanhedrin’s authority was broad and far-reaching, involving legislation, administration, and justice. They had religious, civil and criminal jurisdiction. 

At the time of Jesus, the council had lost to the Roman governor the power of capital punishment. They met every day except on Sabbath and feast days in rooms next to the Temple. In extraordinary cases, the council met at the house of the High Priest. One of the responsibilities of the Sanhedrin was the identification and confirmation of the Messiah. In fact, we read in the gospel that they sent a delegation to John the Baptist asking if he was the Messiah. There were about a dozen false Messiahs running around during the first part of this century deceiving the people making more important the responsibility of the Sanhedrin to sort it out. This is why Jesus eventually comes in contact with them.

The “Chief Priests” were drawn mainly from the ranks of the Sadducees the largest of the two groups. One of them was always the “High Priest”. We know that at the time of Jesus, Caiaphas was the High Priest. His father-in-law, Annas, was also called, “High Priest.” He was the real power behind the high priesthood. The Jews saw the High Priesthood as an office for life. The Romans did not, and they picked and chose High Priests from time to time, probably to keep the whole system from getting too powerful. Since he was still living, Annas was really the senior at the time which is why Jesus is first brought to Annas during his trial.

The Sadducees were really the “ruling class.” Today we would call them “Oligarchs.” They represented the aristocracy making peace quickly with the Romans to secure their privileges, wealth, and influence. They were educated, wealthy and held themselves aloof, with the result that they were not popular. Jesus was a threat to them and the status quo. Their functions were associated with the Temple and the cultic actions that took place there. They maintained the place. This gave them a great deal of authority. They collected taxes, mediated domestic disputes and regulated relations with the Romans. 

The Pharisees were associated with the Synagogue which made them more associated with the common people in contrast to the Sadducees who were associated with the Temple and it’s priests. They were considered to be the experts in the Jewish law. They interpreted the Torah liberally, and they believed in the resurrection of the dead in the future, the existence of angels and demons, all meaning they believed in an afterlife. This is contrary to the Sadducees. They were devout laymen, not priests. Their conflict with Jesus was over their hyper attention to the minutiae of the Law forgetting about the intention of the law. 

With that either made clear or further confused, Luke puts the action in the Temple where controversy really heats up. Authority is one of the hot spots in this controversy. Anything going on in the Temple is under the control of the Priests who are from the tribe of Levi. God appointed them as priests, and the Temple is their turf. Here’s the problem, Jesus is not a Levite, but he is teaching in the Temple as though it was a synagogue where the lay people are in charge. Those in charge confront him with three questions. The first is about his authority. “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” Luke then says: “They discussed it with one another, saying, if we say, From Heaven, he will say, “why did you not believe him? But if we say, “Of human origin, all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet. So, they answered that they did not know where it came from.” With this Divine authority is affirmed as more significant and authoritative than human authority. 

With that, Jesus tells the crowd a parable about the Wicked Tenants. It is a parable about these Priests and Scribes, but he tells it to the crowd in their presence, and they get the point. No doubt even more angry, they come at Jesus with a second question. This one is about Taxes, and you know the answer he gives: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” It is a complicated response, because it’s not always easy to separate the two then or now. The third and final question concerns the Resurrection of the Dead. They are not asking a theological question. Their purpose is to argue or embarrass Jesus or force him into one school of thought or the other. Is he a Sadducee or a Pharisee? It is a classic “what if” question. His response just further angers them. He quotes Exodus 3:6 for believing in the resurrection of the dead. His response ends up dividing his opposition because some of the scribes approve of his answer and begin to speak highly of him. 

As Chapter 21 begins, there is one final jab at the Scribes as Jesus observes a poor widow offering the last that she has in observance of the law commanding contributions to the support of the Temple. Toward the end of this chapter, Luke begins to write in a different style of Literature called, “apocalyptic.” As a kind of literature, it deals with a revelation or a series of revelations usually by an angel disclosing a supernatural world beyond the world of historical events. The focus is on the end of the world as we now experience it and the beginning of a new world. Here, Luke joins historical events to descripe of what is going on behind and beyond history. In this literature style, major historical crises trigger apocalyptic thinking. The destruction of Jerusalem is the historical event that triggers Chapter 21. The writing about the future is mixed with what is really going on in history. Laced with symbols, signs, and mysterious figures of speech, it is a remarkable witness to the faith of those who write this way. Amid painful and prolonged suffering, with no relief in sight, faith turns its face toward heaven not only for a revelation of God’s will but also for a vision of the end of the present misery and the beginning of the age to come.

So, in this chapter, Luke describes the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem which had happened fifteen or twenty years before he wrote the Gospel. He seems to be concerned that believers not interpret the fall of Jerusalem as a sign the world is ending, and he continues to insist that the question of “When” is not answered because it is unknown. What Luke does through all of this apocalyptic scene is establish that the present time is the time for “testimony.” He writes: “But before all this occurs they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will give you an opportunity to testify. So, make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance for I will gives you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your souls.” Luke goes on to remind the church that the Son of Man will return. 

The whole purpose of this writing is not to inspire terror, but to strengthen the faith of believers in God, who works in real time This end time prophecy appeals to faith by opening eyes to see God at work even in places where we might not expect to. Jesus‘prophecies here are not designed to scare, coerce, or intimidate believers into spiritual submission in order to avert death and hell. The end time prophecy is not really the end. It is a transition into a new beginning in Christ Jesus. He tells a parable of the Fig Tree as a reminder that the church should be watching for the signs. In other words, living with hope. With the last two verses of Chapter 21, the public ministry of Jesus is complete. It ends beautifully: “Every day he was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives, as it was called. And all the people would get up early in the morning to listen to him in the Temple.”

Luke’s method of presenting the final instructions of Jesus for these apostles is the Supper. He shapes the tradition in the form of a farewell meal with a leader and his followers. Luke’s Supper Narrative is three times as long as Mark and Matthew, and it is much less foreboding. There are words of warning, instruction and encouragement. There is a prediction about the apostles and Peter, but the tone is much more positive so that the conversation at the supper is tilted toward victory, where the disciples will sit on thrones in the kingdom of Jesus and Simon Peter will turn and strengthen his brothers.  Unique to Luke is the inclusion of the betrayer at the table. In Luke, Judas is there till the end of the meal, but it is important to notice that Judas is never named until the arrest scene.  In Matthew and Mark, he departs earlier. By including Judas in sharing the bread and wine, Luke emphasizes that forgiveness extends to tax collectors, a dying thief, soldiers with nails and hammers, and even Judas. What is perhaps important to Luke is that Judas not only betrays, but he breaks the covenant in the body and blood of Jesus. That is the issue.

There are two other interesting details in Luke’s reporting of the Supper. There are two cups. Listen to chapter 22 beginning at verse 14. “Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks, he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’” Research into this chapter suggests that Luke may have blended two oral traditions: one had the cup before the bread and another has two cups. The two-cup tradition associates this more closely to the Passover tradition which seems to be Luke’s purpose because the Passover Lamb was not a sin offering. The Passover lamb was the seal of a covenant, and the Passover meal commemorated that covenant offered to the believers by a God who sets free. This is the focus for Luke, liberation; not the forgiveness of sins. For the Hebrew people the forgiveness of sins was a completely different ritual. It had nothing to do with Passover. Luke’s concern here is not with forgiveness, but with unity in the covenant. Those who share in this covenant are joined to one another, life to life, as signified and sealed in the cup divided among themselves.

In this chapter, Luke takes an incident the other Gospels report earlier and inserts it into the occasion of this meal. That incident is the dispute about greatness. By including that here as well as by having Judas remain through the meal, Luke speaks very strong words to the church for which he is writing and for the church today. Betrayal of Christ has occurred and will occur among those who partake of the Lord’s Supper. Then, by taking the dispute from an earlier setting and putting it into the setting of the Supper, he takes what could be an historical event and makes it more than an ugly moment in history to a very real and present exhortation to those who share the table. Love of place and power was a problem for the first followers of Jesus, and it continues to be so. The instructions and the meal conclude with a dire warning about the danger and the threats that lie ahead. The disciples get the point. They know they are no longer in Galilee where welcoming crowds were everywhere. They are now in Jerusalem where danger is everywhere. Jesus contrasts the first sending of the disciples where they had great success without him to the coming time when they will be on their own and rather than success, there will be violence because the charges against him will spread to them. They respond to danger by instinct, sword for sword, weapon for weapon, blow for blow; that is, prepare for danger by becoming dangerous. This is, of course, not the way of Jesus, and Luke ends the whole report of the supper with powerful words of Jesus reacting to this sword talk: “It is enough.” With that, he goes off to pray in the garden.

With verse 39 in Chapter 22, the Passion Narrative begins. I think it is helpful to think of, pray with, and study over the Passion as if it were a Drama in Four Acts.

Act 1 has two scenes: Prayer and Arrest.

There are two verses in this chapter 22 that may have been added by a scribe later on because they are not present in the earliest manuscripts. They are 33 and 34 which go like this: “Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. In his anguish he prayed earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.” Without those verses, Luke does not portray Jesus in anguish, wrestling for hours with the will of God. The scene is more like the other occasions of Jesus in prayer. Luke does not portray Jesus in distress. He is much more in command, and he simply instructs his disciples to pray while he prays. This Jesus is so at peace with God that he cannot be distraught by the sufferings that are inflicted on him. It is as though Luke would have Jesus revealed as a model to Christian sufferers and martyrs. Certainly, what Luke wants to do here is present Jesus as a model for all his followers in his prayer life and in the way he confronts a crises. In Luke, Jesus is always a man of prayer, and the prayer of Jesus at this point has a striking similarity to the prayer he taught the disciples. 

When it comes to details in this scene, Luke has five not found in the other Gospels. There are many more details in Matthew and Mark.  John omits the prayer scene entirely. So, unique to Luke are these:

1. This scene which we commonly call, “The Agony in the Garden” is the shortest of the Gospels.
2. Luke places this scene on the Mount of Olives, the place where Jesus had been staying. Mark & Matthew place it in Gethsemane. John simply says, “a garden.”
3. There are not 3 disciples in Luke. They are all asked to pray
4. Jesus comes to them only once, not three times and Luke explains that they were sleeping because of sorrow which softens the reprimand. He is not scolding or complaining. 
5. Luke has Jesus kneel in prayer not fall to the ground.

For Luke, the coming of that angel is all that Jesus needs for strength, and that is the answer to his prayer. With that, he goes to the sleeping disciples only one time and he is, as I’ve said several times, gentle with them. 

Now the second Scene, “The Arrest”.  Luke again is consistently kinder to the apostles than the other Gospels. There is no suggestion that Judas planned to kiss Jesus. There is no young man who runs away, and the healing of the severed ear shows us a Jesus who is still gentle and healing even with those who would do him harm. In this scene, the presence of the “Chief Priests,” captains of the Temple Guard, and elders is unique to Luke. The whole episode in Luke is brief. Only three times in Luke’s Gospel is there mention of Judas: in the naming of the 12, during the last supper (22) when Luke tells us that Satan had entered him, and finally here when Jesus address Judas directly. There is about it an intimacy that some scholars suggest is one last attempt to touch the heart of Judas.  Luke never tells us that Judas actually kissed Jesus. It is Jesus who brings that up in their confrontation, and it’s almost as if Jesus was refusing. Luke explains the decision of Judas by saying that Satan had entered Judas, and Luke is the only Gospel that says that. It would seem that this is Luke’s way of referring back to the Temptation scene at the beginning of the Gospel when he says that Satan would return. Only John’s Gospel has Jesus speaking to the arresting crowd about his disciples. In John, he insists that the disciples should not be arrested. In Luke’s Gospel, they simply disperse without any suggestion that they ran away out of fear. Luke is always protecting the disciples.  Then, Jesus is taken to the Sanhedrin at the house of the High Priest. End of Act One.

Act Two has four scenes.

In Luke there are four trials that make up Act Two.

Scene One is the trail before the Sanhedrin. This is the religious trial that begins the interrogation. It is in the midst of this trial that Luke tells of Peter’s denial. In Mark’s Gospel the denials are split up. All this happens at night. In the morning Jesus is before the assembly of the elders with Chief Priests and Scribes present. Two questions make up this interrogation, and the issue is his identity: Are you the Messiah? Are you the Son of God? Are you a King?

Scene Two is the first trail before Pilate. Luke, different from the other reports adds that the “Council” sent him to Pilate with three charges. This is a good example of Luke’s effort to be “More Orderly” as he promised in the opening of the Gospel.  It’s also interesting that these charges are the same charges raised against St Paul when he is brought before the prefect Felix in the 24^th chapter of Acts. The charges:

1. We found this man perverting our nation
2. Forbidding us to pay Taxes to the emperor
3. Saying that he is the Messiah, a king. 

This trial before Pilate is a preliminary trial to establish cause. Luke says nothing about false witnesses. The only witness is Jesus himself who answers the question about being King by simply saying: “You say that I am”. They do not condemn Jesus to death. Pilate has no interest in two of the charges brought by the Sanhedrin about being Messiah and Son of God, but he is focused on the last one about being King. He asks the question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” And Jesus answers Pilate exactly the same way he answered the Sanhedrin. Pilate finds no guilt, and when he says so, the accusers insist that Jesus has been stirring up trouble in Galilee, a place that at the time was a hot-bed of revolution. With this, we have a major piece unique to Luke. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time and had expressed interest in seeing Jesus.

Scene Three takes place before Herod. So, finding that Jesus is a Galilean and that Herod is in Jerusalem, Pilate sends Jesus to Herod who is the ruler of Galilee. Only a “puppet” ruler set up by the Romans, Herod has no real power. Jesus will not speak to Herod whose relationship with the Romans is a disgrace. This trial is unique to Luke. Found not guilty by Herod, Jesus is sent back for the fourth trial. This is a sequence that makes Pilate want to set Jesus free. The same pattern is found in Acts of the Apostles with Paul being sent by the Roman Governor to Herod Agrippa II only to have Paul found not guilty. It is at the court of Herod that Jesus is mocked and robed. 

Scene Four is back before Pilate. He convenes a larger group to announce the fate of Jesus. He will not intervene in any religious disagreement. At first Pilate is not yet influenced by the growing displeasure of the crowds who are not present. He is caught between the innocence of Jesus and the council’s desires. Only Luke’s Pilate declares the innocence of Jesus on three occasions. Politically savvy he does not go against the Jerusalem leadership and the condemnation is an alliance for two opposing political forces. So much so that Luke tells us that Herod and Pilate became friends that day. Despite Luke’s portrayal, Pilate must have considered Jesus some type of threat. You may notice that in Luke, there is no explanation about that custom of releasing a prisoner. Probably because Luke, who knew a lot about Roman customs did not think it was true. Luke simply has the people wanting to make a trade. Jesus for Barabbas. In the earliest manuscripts, this is not mentioned at all. Some scribe added this later without any explanation. Luke, as we now have it, simply has the people in a tirade, Jesus for Barabbas. Pilate gives in, and the Romans carry out the crucifixion. Act Three ends with Jesus being “handed over” as they wished. Act Three closes.

Act Four has three scenes.

The first scene is the Journey to the crucifixion, and Simon of Cyrene is introduced. Luke tells us he was “seized. He had no choice in the matter. Then, unique to Luke is the encounter with the women of Jerusalem. Including them as mourners gives us a clue that not everyone in Jerusalem were calling for crucifixion. Surprisingly Jesus tells them to stop weeping. The command to stop weeping comes up several times in the Gospel all pointing to the fact that the march to the cross is going to end not in death but in resurrection. Here is one of those moments when we have back away from thinking that this is a narration of an historical event. That is not to say that Jesus was not crucified, died, and was buried. We say and believe that in our every one of our creeds. However, what we must do with Luke’s Gospel account is keep asking what does it mean theologically. There are too many discrepancies to trust this as “history.” This second theme is a perfect example.

This scene takes place on Golgotha.

Here, two others about to be crucified are mentioned. They are nameless, but Luke calls them “evildoers.” Matthew and Mark call them robbers. Luke’s Gospel is the only one to record the exchange between Jesus and the second criminal. The other Gospels record that the criminals join in reviling Jesus. The division of Jesus’s’ garments in Luke uses words from Psalm 22 as evidence for what Luke claims all along that Jesus’ life and death fulfill God’s promises in Scripture. The mocking of Jesus by everyone present is really an affirmation of his identity. The report that darkness covered the earth about Noon suggests that the whole cosmos is invested in the redemption offered through this Messiah.

The Temple has been a key setting in Luke’s Gospel. It begins and ends there. The tearing of the veil is told in the passive voice, suggesting that this is God’s response to the crucifixion. God refuses to stay put, even in a sacred space. Did the Temple veil really get torn? That’s the wrong question. What does Luke reveal with this detail? “God refuses to stay put, even in sacred space.”

The Last words of Jesus in Luke: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” come from Psalm 31: 5 In this psalm, the anguished psalmist cries out to God for deliverance and praises God for preserving the faithful. The Psalm ends with hope. Luke’s story of Jesus does not end with the cross. God will vindicate God’s servant and provide redemption for the whole world.

Although the Romans have played a major role in the crucifixion, it is a Roman centurion who first responds to the death of Jesus. He has witnessed the taunts of the Jewish rulers and fellow soldiers. He has heard Jesus speak with the criminals and heard the cries to the Father. After experiencing the darkness and observing the death of Jesus, he praised God saying: “Surely this man was just.” The multitudes are also witnessing to the death, and it is not at all clear that these are the folks who shouted, “Crucify him.” This multitude probably consists of the same people who marched behind Jesus, stood by and watching as the rulers scoffed and the soldiers mocked. The text simply says that they gathered for this spectacle. Now Jesus is dead, and there is nothing left for them to do but to go home. Whatever hope they had that Jesus would perform a miraculous escape is gone. 

We are left to wonder with these witnesses: Why was it necessary for the Son of Man to die? Could God’s plan for the world’s redemption really include such a violent scene as this? Fortunately, this is not the end of Gospel story, but there is no good news without the cross. All would-be followers of Jesus are forced to acknowledge the shocking truth of God’s forgiveness and grace. 

Luke views the killing of Jesus as a martyrdom, the unjust murder of an innocent man by the authorities is a model for disciples. He avoids any connection between the death of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins. For Luke, the forgiveness of sins comes from the Risen Christ. For Luke, Jesus stands at the end of a long line of martyr/prophets just as the prophets of old were all murdered. For Luke this death is the fulfillment of prophesies. Jesus dies quietly, full of trust, a model for Christian martyrs to follow. That calm assurance at death was enough to convince the centurion of the innocence of Jesus. He confirms once more what we all know: “Certainly this man was innocent.” 

The Third scene tells of what happens after the death of Jesus. Luke’s narration of the burial shows his artistry and the unity of the Gospel. In style and substance, this scene hearkens back to the Gospel’s beginning and brings us full circle. Joseph of Arimathea is neither an opponent nor a disciple of Jesus. He is described as a “good and righteous man” who “was waiting for the kingdom of God. In this way, Luke casts Joseph alongside the characters we met at the beginning, Elizabeth and Zechariah, Anna and Simeon who were good and righteous waiting for the Kingdom of God.” 

Luke’s account of the Burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has two significant variations from the story in Matthew and Mark giving us some clues about what matters to Luke. He tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin who “had not consented to their proposal and deed.” In other words, he thought Jesus was innocent which is a theme we heard all through Luke’s trial scenes. Pilate said it twice, Herod said it, a crucified thief said it, a centurion said it, and now Joseph of Arimathea is the final human witness to the innocence of Jesus. The second variation concerns the women (no surprise there since Luke has always been attentive and recorded stories of the women’s role in the ministry of Jesus). Luke indicates that some women saw where Jesus was buried but also specifies that they had come up with Jesus from Galilee and that they saw how the body was laid. Luke, as I said before is very concerned to establish that there was a dead body and that it was buried. This give credence to what is to come with the Resurrection and the Ascension. He wants to clearly establish a link between the church’s Lord and the one who dies in Jerusalem and the one who worked in Galilee by having Galileans present as witnesses to the Jerusalem events. Theologically, this means that the one who empowered is the one who died. The is real. It was through this suffering that the obedience of Jesus was perfected. To put it more simply: “There is no way to the Father except by obedience to the will of the Father.

We are now at Chapter 24 which concludes the first part of Luke’s work, Acts of the Apostles being the second part. As I said at the beginning, the Resurrection story and the theology it puts before us must be for another time. I’m sorry that we can’t take it up today, but it is Lent, and Easter is several weeks away. As  a reward or as a challenge because you sat through all of this so patiently, I am leaving something with you that might have made a fourth talk in this series. Take it with you and perhaps during the Triduum you could read it, and more deeply enter into the mystery and wonder of Luke’s Gospel that so perfectly ties together the Passover and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This last chapter, 24 is really the most interesting part of our study and reflection on Luke’s Gospel because with one exception this material is not found anywhere in the other Gospels. Luke began his Gospel with the Infancy Narrative that was uniquely his own, and he concludes with a narrative of the Resurrection that is also uniquely his own. As you read it before my reflection, try to blank out details we have all absorbed from Matthew, Mark, and John. Just concentrate on what is there. As always gathering to be fed on a Gospel is a precious gift and the best use our time. We believe that Christ becomes present by the power of the Word.  Words do not just describe reality. They can also be active and transformative. Not just expressive or descriptive. A Baseball word changes reality: “You’re out”. Sometimes someone says something to us that changes your whole life. That’s creative and transformative. Or something the other way around something hurtful changes us for years. Our little words can change reality – think of God’s word! How does God make the world? By the power of a Word Speech! God’s word is not descriptive it is creative. God speaks the world into being. In the beginning there was the Word – the Word became flesh, and What God says IS. Lazarus come out! Pick up your mat and walk.  What God says IS. The night before he dies he took bread and said THIS IS MY BODY. Notice at Mass how the language changes.  This stuns me every time I pick up that host. The priest begins in the third person: “He Took Bread, said the Blessing, broke it and gave to them saying…”  Then it changes into the First person. We speak in persona Christi. With this final wandering away from Luke into John, we can see how closely the theology of the Gospels weave together the core of our faith resting upon the revelation given to us by each of the evangelists. Let me conclude by repeating what our Holy Father Francis has been saying over and over again as he allows the Holy Spirit to reshape this church of ours. Evangelization is what we do and evangelists is what we are by the command of Jesus and will of the Father. What Francis is reminding us over and over again is the evangelization is not a matter of words, or saying the right thing, or convincing someone by argument. Evangelization is a quality of life. People are won over to Jesus Christ not by arguments from history or propositions from a Catechism, but by actions of believing people. People came to Jesus because of what he did before they heard him say anything. People still today will be won over by the heart before the brain. Our study of the Sacred Scriptures, our study and knowledge of St Luke’s Gospel is to open our hearts so that we might live this gospel not preach it, because people will see what we do long before they hear what we say, and in the end what we say must come from the heart. It is a joy for me to be here again. Let us close with prayer and may God lead you safely home.

Lent of 2025

Part 4 of 4 – The Resurrection Narrative

Some of Chapter 24 clearly draws on Mark 16: 1-8. Another version is found in Matthew with John’s being quite different. What present research suggests is that scribes who copied the manuscripts quite early permitted, consciously or unconsciously, the resurrection stories of the other Gospels to influence what they were writing. In some cases, they probably were remembering Mark or John while writing Luke; in others they may have intentionally been harmonizing. This does not mean that there was an attempt to deceive or to reduce the faith in any way. On the contrary, the general tendency was to enlarge the story. This “cross-fertilization” of texts is to be taken as evidence that the early church treated the resurrection stories as one story, and the blending occurred as it does with us, two, three, or four accounts of one event, even though each has its own accent and purpose, tend to become one account in the church’s memory.

There are five major events: two empty tomb episodes; two major appearances; and the departure of Jesus. This is all located in Jerusalem or nearby, and it all happens in one long day. This exclusive focus on Jerusalem is distinct to Luke. Matthew and Mark have things happening in Galilee over a longer period of time. So much for the idea that Jesus hung around for 40 days before the Ascension! Once more, you see, this is Theology. It is not history. Details do not have to match.

Let’s just deal with the theology. Luke is passing on to us the early Christian understanding of the resurrection as a prototype of Christian existence. In earliest Christianity the resurrection of Jesus encompassed three different realties:

1. The Victory of Jesus over death.
2. The removal of Jesus from human time and space into another dimension (God)
3. The new function of Jesus as cosmic Lord.

Luke takes these realities and makes three separate events on a chronological time line. In other words, he takes this theological idea of what happened and he puts that idea into events that happen in sequence: The Resurrection, The Ascension; The Exaltation. By taking the three different pieces individually, he can focus on the meaning of each without distraction. What this means is that in Luke, the resurrection of Jesus refers only to his victory over death. The thinking of Luke is that what happens to Jesus is what his disciples may expect for themselves.

Stick with me. This is complicated, but not impossible. The first empty tomb tradition which is the women at the empty tomb and the second appearance story which is the one after the Emmaus story when Jesus appears among the apostles affirm the reality that there is a body that has risen. There is no dead body in the tomb even though they saw it put there. An empty tomb means one thing, the body is not there. That’s all. If Christians are going to proclaim Christ has risen, there needs to be experiences of the Christ who was dead and is now risen. So, there is a body that eats something. More importantly this body has the wounds that were on the body they buried. This faith is based upon witnesses who saw and experienced something real. It is not based on how they felt or what they wished. Whatever the nature of this victory over death was, it involved the absence of that body from the tomb.

Luke wants to give some real authority to this, so he mentions names and these are the same women of Galilee who saw the body being put in that tomb. They knew where it was Luke told us in the previous chapter. Then Luke tells us that when the women came to the apostles and the others, Peter got up and ran to the tomb. (There is no John in a foot race with Peter in Luke’s narrative.) Luke wants the witness of Peter so that there are two sets of witnesses. Peter’s witness is important to Jewish people at the time because women didn’t count. There is no surprise here since Luke’s Gospel always gives women a special place. So, there they are. In order to be persuasive at the time, there had to be a male witness.  The detail of finding the linen clothes by themselves is Luke’s way of stopping the rumor that the body had been stolen. They would not have taken the body without it being wrapped. This is Luke’s way of celebrating the victory over death.

After the two empty tomb episodes, we come to the first of two appearances: a story unique to Luke and a story that really highlights his writing skills. It is what we have come to call, “The Emmaus Story.”  Luke now clarifies the nature of the Eucharist, and he uses the Emmaus story to do so at least for the Lukan community. In Luke’s wonderful story telling style, we get to know who the person is that joins them, and in an ironic way, we get to hear them talk about the death of Jesus to Jesus himself! We should notice (because Luke wants us to) that there are three units to the whole story: the narrative discussion, the meal and the journey back as a Mission of Proclamation.

The meal is really what holds this together. It is the Eucharist as we know it. It begins with an act of hospitality, an invitation to a stranger by those who prepared the table. It is the presence of Christ at a table opened to a stranger which transforms an ordinary supper into the sacrament. Christ is in a sense the guest, and yet he is the host who breaks the bread, blesses God and shares with those at table. It is in this act that that the disciples recognize the stranger as Christ.

It begins then with the Scriptures as Jesus goes over the writings and the prophets. The one who is named in this episode, Cleopas, provides us with a glimpse into the earliest preaching. It is Luke’s concise statements about Jesus, his mighty works, suffering, death, and resurrection. This is the content of Christian preaching. The description of Jesus reviewing the Prophets with these two is a kind of reprimand for their unbelief on the grounds that the suffering death, and resurrection of Jesus is set forth in the Scriptures that they should have known. All through Luke’s Gospel there is insistence that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Scriptures. They pointed to the very acts of his ministry, so his suffering, and his death. For Luke, the gospel of Jesus Christs continues and brings to fulfillment the law, the prophets, and the writings.

The Eucharistic ritual continues: after the Word comes the Sacrament, and then Mission. The time of day is significant because the evening is the time when the Christians would gather together for prayer and the eucharist. As the story goes, Jesus becomes the host, which confirms that Luke is describing a Eucharistic Meal connected to the Paschal Meal in the upper room. Luke tells us that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to them. This is ritual language that Luke has used before when he fed the multitudes, and when he sat in an upper room. On those occasions, they did not “recognize him”, but now, the risen one is recognized. When Luke says that their eyes were opened, it describes conversion. This story serves as a bridge between the meals the earthly Jesus had with his disciples and the later church’s Eucharist. It also says that at such meals the presence of the risen Lord was known. Jesus is alive and one place of his recognition is in the breaking of bread. The importance of knowing and experiencing the living Christ in word and sacrament cannot be overemphasized.

There is a third part to this story that we may not overlook: the return of these two to Jerusalem where they want to spread the Good News. It is the perfect match or parallel to the Eucharist as the Church has known it: Word, Sacrament, Mission (Mass). Without the third part, the “Missa” something important is missing.

Now to the appearance of Jesus to the Eleven in Jerusalem. This also reinforces the theology that what rose was a living body.  They thought they were seeing a ghost. He shows them hands and feet with the wounds, and then he wants to eat something. They fed him and he ate in front of them. Angels and Ghosts don’t eat. Only humans eat. For Luke, the risen Lord is no less than the Jesus before he died. He eats and can be seen and touched. These two stories say the same thing about the nature of Jesus’ victory over death: it is not to be understood as an escape from the perishable body, but a transformation of it. That transformation is not into a spiritual being because Jesus remained flesh and blood though immortal and not limited by time and space. This is not the immortality of the soul while the body decays. It is something totally new.

For Luke, there is here what we could call “Table Fellowship”. What was interrupted by the death of Jesus is resumed at the initiative of Jesus. From now on the disciples will continue to do this in remembrance of him. These incidents when Jesus eats with them serves as a bridge between the meals the earthly Jesus had with his disciples and the later church’s Eucharist, it says that at such meals the presence of the risen Lord was known. Jesus is alive and one place of his recognition is at the breaking of the bread.

At this point I think it is important to dig into what it means to “remember”. I believe that this issue is at the root of a great problem among believers when it comes to what we believe about the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no room for anything but a firm belief that what looks like bread is the very real Body of Christ and what looks like wine is the very real Blood of Christ. These are not “symbols” or signs. They are real. The root of this error probably comes from a failure to understand “remembering”. In this use and context, it does not mean to “recall”.  There are three times in which to know an event: in rehearsal, at the time of the event, and in remembrance. In rehearsal, understanding is hindered by an inability to believe that the event will really occur or that it will be important. At the time of the event, understanding is hindered by the clutter and confusion of so much so fast. But in remembrance, the nonseriousness of rehearsal and the busyness of the event give way to recognition, realization, and understanding.

To understand this, we have to take the word apart: RE-Member. It means to put together, to join. Think of it this way. God’s response to sin which broke and still breaks the relationship we have with God was a gathering in, the formation of a People that today we call the “Church”. It’s a joining together what had been broken apart. In the Eucharist God joins us with one another and with God’s self in the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus gathered a people. He reached out and looked for those who were alone by sickness or sin, and he re-membered them to himself and to all the people who had been scattered by sin, self-centered, selfish, and alone. For a deeper understanding, we start with the Bible.

John 6 is the place to start. First, we hear of the magnetic power of the presence of Jesus. Large crowds followed him everywhere. In that chapter, Jesus goes up the mountain – which is the place where one can get close to God. Once there, Jesus sits, the posture of a teacher there on that holy mountain. This is what happens in the first part of our Mass. Jesus teaches us. There he feeds that crowd by taking the little bit that we have (think of the gifts we bring to that altar). With that little bit, he can multiply it for the feeding of the world. We know how much is left over: twelve! There is the Mass.

Then he goes to Capernaum and the people follow him. He begins to teach again. He says don’t hunger for these passing loaves of bread but for the food that lasts for eternal life. “I am the bread of life those who come to me will never be hungry, those who believe in me will never be thirsty. I AM THE LIVING BREAD come down from heaven. If you eat this bread, you will live forever. The bread that I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world.”  The crowd balked at this. A first century Jew would be repulsed by the eating of flesh with blood. That’s forbidden to them. Given therefore every opportunity to soften his teaching or propose a symbolic meaning, he goes on to say, “Amen, Amen, I say to you. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. You have no life in you, for my Flesh is real food. My Blood is real drink.”  Now, the verb Jesus uses here is not the usual word for eating. He uses the verb (trogain) which means gnaw on.

Something real strange is going on here. While the scriptures are full of symbolic thought and symbolic images, but when Jesus puts this out so clearly, many of his followers turn away and would not go with him anymore. So, he asks the twelve if they would like to leave. This teaching is a watershed, a point of division. It’s either you are against me or with me moment. If this was just symbol talk, why would anyone be upset. But Jesus does not compromise, soften it, or give in. This is the ground for the Catholic insistence that this is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Ignatius of Antioch in letter to Smyrna. (35 AD) “They abstain from the Eucharist and Prayer because they do not admit that this is flesh of the Son of Man.” Justin Martyr (165 AD) “For not as common bread or common drink do we receive, but we receive the real body and blood of Christ.” Origin of Alexandria (early 3^rd century) speaks about reverence and almost obsessive care for crumbs that fall from the sacred gifts.  St John Chrysostom says: “What is the bread but the body of Christ. What do they become who partake of it, the body of Christ? Not many bodies, but one body. This is the way we are Christified. Our bodies are Christified. We are prepared for heaven by bringing our body in contact with the body of Christ.  The early church never wavers from this.

In the 11^th century a Bishop in Tours proposes the symbol/sign language. He teaches that something is added to the Bread, some spiritual, but it is still bread with an added something.  A great debate occurs that ends with a Council. That council insists that this is wrong, and that what is on the altar after the consecration is the Flesh and Blood of Christ. His opponent says that there is something more going on in the Eucharist than is going on in the other sacraments. This is not a spiritual addition to bread. In the other sacraments, oil is still oil and water is still water. In the Eucharist, something is different.

Aquinas in the 13^th century – a vivid personal relationship. He wept at Mass, and would often rest his head against the tabernacle begging for inspiration. At the end of his life after completing his masterpiece, he places the text about the eucharist at the foot of the cross, and it said that a voice came from the cross saying: “Thomas, you’ve written well of me. What would you have as a reward: I will have nothing except you Lord.” His great work has three parts: 1) About God and Creation 2) About human being and our moral life 3) About incarnation, Christ and the Sacraments. The last part he wrote is about the Eucharist. Baptism is the generation of Life. Confirmation is the augmentation of life. Communion is food of the life. Eucharist has three names in time

1 Past: Sacrifice

2 Present: Communion with Christ

3 Future: Viaticum the great name is “Eucharistia.” Thanksgiving which is what we will do in heaven.

Transubstantiation comes from Thomas. Substance is the deepest and core reality of something. When we speak of substance, we mean the deepest reality what something is. What stands under. What does it stand under? Accidents Appearance or Species like spectacle. What you see.

In the act of Consecration, the substance of bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Jesus even as the appearances (species) of Bread and Wine remain. This is how we bring John 6 forward.  The senses perceive bread and wine. The change comes at the level of substance not appearances. The disciples on their way to Emmaus see everything, but they don’t get it. They do not understand. If all we understand is what we see, we are lost.

There was a great 16^th century Protestant/Catholic debate. Luther did not like Thomas Aquinas. Luther saw an addition to the bread. To speak in a general way, Protestants do not believe in Transubstantiation. The Council at Trent addressed the issue in response. 11 canons (summaries) Canon One: If anyone were to deny that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained truly and really substantially as a symbol – let them be condemned. We are to say that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained real, true and substantially not in sign or figure.

How does Christ become really present? Trent says, By the power of the Word. The words do not just describe reality. Language can also be active and transformative. Not just expressive or descriptive. A Baseball word changes reality: “You’re out”. Sometimes someone says something to us that changes your whole life. That’s creative and transformative. Or something the other way around something hurtful changes us for years. Our little words can change reality – think of God’s word! How does God make the world? By the power of a Word Speech! God’s word is not descriptive it is creative. God speaks the world into being. In the beginning there was the Word – the Word became flesh, and What God says IS. Lazarus come out! Pick up your mat and walk.  What God says IS. The night before he dies he took bread and said THIS IS MY BODY. Notice at Mass how the language changes.  This stuns me every time I pick up that host. The priest begins in the third person: “He Took Bread, said the Blessing, broke it and gave to them saying…”  Then it changes into the First person. We speak in persona Christi.

With this final wandering away from Luke into John, we can see how closely the theology of the Gospels weave together the core of our faith resting upon the revelation given to us by each of the evangelists. Let me conclude by repeating what our Holy Father Francis has been saying over and over again as he allows the Holy Spirit to reshape this church of ours. Evangelization is what we do and evangelists is what we are by the command of Jesus and will of the Father. What Francis is reminding us over and over again is the evangelization is not a matter of words, or saying the right thing, or convincing someone by argument. Evangelization is a quality of life. People are won over to Jesus Christ not by arguments from history or propositions from a Catechism, but by actions of believing people. People came to Jesus because of what he did before they heard him say anything. People still today will be won over by the heart before the brain. Our study of the Sacred Scriptures, our study and knowledge of St Luke’s Gospel is to open our hearts so that we might live this gospel not preach it, because people will see what we do long before they hear what we say, and in the end, what we say must  come from the heart.